Schmelzer
Valued Senior Member
Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
There's also that 80-something nazi oma, Schmelzer.
I am in no way agreeing with you on anything else you might have written though.
I am in no way agreeing with you on anything else you might have written though.
An interesting example of the psychology of conspiracy theory was Benghazi. Hillary's hacked e-mail account showed that she knew this was a planned 911 anniversary terrorist attack, that was not induced by the video. She reassured many of the local leaders in e-mail correspondence.
Most intelligent people instinctively knew this when it happened on the anniversary of 911. They also knew this event could hurt President Obama's reelection chance. He had been selling that He and Hillary had made peace in the middle east and everyone knew the Republicans would try to capitalize on this event. That was my first instinct, when I saw the very first news feeds. The Obama administration needed to come up with distracting conspiracy theory, based on a video, to shift the blame. This conspiracy theory only has to last until after the election, then truth or lie, it would be too late to do anything, but complain.
Even now, after this has been determined not to be due to the video, some Americans still believe the original video conspiracy theory of Obama and Hillary, was the truth and not a conspiracy. The real conspiracy, to them, was the right wing conspiracy.
The point is, there are some people who believe in conspiracy theories started by outsiders. There are other people who believe in conspiracy theories if these are started by insiders. There is rarely any mention of the psychology of those who believe in inside conspiracy theories. It seems only outside conspiracy theories are considered suspect.
Most of the Hillary's campaign is about painting a picture of Trump as a naive, incompetent, corrupt and angry old man conspiring to destroy America. Many people believe this inside conspiracy theory, simply because people judge the source; Hillary, by her prestige. There is no need to fact check. Ir has to be true because she said it.
This topic should address the total psychology of conspiracy theories. Is there a common thread between these two groups, or is there a different thread for each? I would guess outside conspiracy theory requires more thought, since one will often need to stand alone and take lots of crap. They need to build a defense which come with more research. Inside conspiracy theory take less thought and effort, since you have the safety of a large herd, and can use the group buzz words, over and over for self defense.
Most intelligent people instinctively knew this when it happened on the anniversary of 911. They also knew this event could hurt President Obama's reelection chance. He had been selling that He and Hillary had made peace in the middle east and everyone knew the Republicans would try to capitalize on this event. That was my first instinct, when I saw the very first news feeds. The Obama administration needed to come up with distracting conspiracy theory, based on a video, to shift the blame. This conspiracy theory only has to last until after the election, then truth or lie, it would be too late to do anything, but complain.
Even now, after this has been determined not to be due to the video, some Americans still believe the original video conspiracy theory of Obama and Hillary, was the truth and not a conspiracy. The real conspiracy, to them, was the right wing conspiracy.
The point is, there are some people who believe in conspiracy theories started by outsiders. There are other people who believe in conspiracy theories if these are started by insiders. There is rarely any mention of the psychology of those who believe in inside conspiracy theories. It seems only outside conspiracy theories are considered suspect.
Most of the Hillary's campaign is about painting a picture of Trump as a naive, incompetent, corrupt and angry old man conspiring to destroy America. Many people believe this inside conspiracy theory, simply because people judge the source; Hillary, by her prestige. There is no need to fact check. Ir has to be true because she said it.
This topic should address the total psychology of conspiracy theories. Is there a common thread between these two groups, or is there a different thread for each? I would guess outside conspiracy theory requires more thought, since one will often need to stand alone and take lots of crap. They need to build a defense which come with more research. Inside conspiracy theory take less thought and effort, since you have the safety of a large herd, and can use the group buzz words, over and over for self defense.
Last edited:
That explains why the Republican congress cut the funds to protect foreign embassies: they just aren't intelligent.
Yes, I know that I shouldn't go bringing facts into a conspiracy thread.
The Ambassador requested extra forces for protection a month before the attack happened, because the writing was on the wall. The needed resources were in the area and could have been diverted. However, Hillary and President Obama were selling a narrative to America; they were more competence than based on reality. Your Republican based conspiracy theory was not the limiting factor. The limiting factor was selling their campaign narrative, even if some had to be sacrificed.
The video,that supposedly caused the Benghazi disaster, is an example of an insider conspiracy theory. Obama and Hillary conspired to blame another unknown person for conspiring to use a video to induce this disaster. He was placed in jail to make the con look more persuading. The clueless would say to themselves; there is no way our hope and change government would place an honest citizen in jail, therefore he must be guilty. But in reality, it was more like one more sacrifice was needed for the con to last.
Mitt Romney, hit the nail on the head, calling it a terrorist attack, with much less access to resources. This showed his higher level of competence; thinking on his feet. However, by being an outsider, his theory of a planned 911 attacked, was called a conspiracy theory by the liberal media and Administration. In reality, the opposite was truth, yet it was easy to sell the wrong conspiracy theory. The left leaning media helped Hillary and the President, since they are the propaganda wing of the Democratic party. The alternative is, the left leaning media is so incompetent, they will believe any lie they are fed by left leaning leadership.
It is useful to know the basis for why insider conspiracy theories, like the video, tend to be given more credibility than the truth. Even today, after this has been investigated, the left wants to ignore and bury this, and not use it as a teachable moment. I would guess too many people, especially on the left, judge reality with emotions, and not with common sense. This means they judge by the media induced prestige of their leaders; Hollywood idol worship. To them prestige, means infallible.
Mitt Romney was misrepresented with all types of mud, by the left, many of which were lies. This was designed to lower his prestige. This was sufficient for the left, who equate prestige with credibility. They had to conclude this because he was cut down to smaller size, it had to an outside conspiracy theory.
The current conspiracy theory is connected to Hillary using her private server, while working for the Government, for self enrichment. She got off the grid so she can cover her tracks, since private servers are not subject to right to information laws. When the Republicans pushed on this, that was called a conspiracy theory by the left. Notice the pattern of behavior that is allowed, due to the clueless base? The left media or propaganda wing, helps to shape the opinion of the clueless base, using prestige and anti-prestige inductions, after they get their scripts from the leadership. We need to educate the clueless base.
I cut out more sentences that also ignored the fact that wellwisher's preferred party cut the funds to protect the embassy.
Yeah, who cares about honesty? Wellwisher obviously doesn't.
Except, that simply isn't true...oops. Yeah, except for the truth, that all makes sense to conspiracy buffs, i.e. Republicans.
Good point, Republicans don't need to think, they just instinctively know. They don't need to think.
I remember listening to Rush Limbaugh explain that to his audience many years ago. I remember it clearly to this day because it was so bizarre. Republicans just instinctively know stuff. They don't need to think about anything, because they just know. They don't need facts, evidence or reason, because they just instinctively know. And Limbaugh and other Republican entertainers have repeated this message over the years. Unfortunately, it's just as true today as it was decades ago, perhaps even more so.
Who determined and based upon what evidence? Republicans determined without evidence or reason as is their custom. Congressional Republicans have investigated Benghazi to Hell and back and haven't found even a shred of evidence to back up their assertions.
The point his the American right wing, e.g. Republicans, are the biggest unfounded conspiracy heads on the planet. They've got a conspiracy for all occasions, e.g. The Donald. He's got a conspiracy for everything including his failures that have yet to be realized, e.g. reasons for his losing elections. And his followers, the Republican, base just mindlessly accepts his many unfounded conspiracies as gospel truth as Republicans are wont to do.
Facts aren't conspiracy theories. Hilary's campaign, has made Trump's words known. Hilary's campaign has just replayed Trump's words to others. That's all that's needed. Trump's words tell his story, and it is a story of corruption. Trump has boasted about it. That's not a conspiracy, that's a fact.
Perhaps that is why Republicans are so factually challenged. They mistake truth and reason for conspiracies, all the while ignoring the many unfounded conspiracy theories they mindlessly promulgate each and every day.
Hilary and The Donald are routinely fact checked by fact checkers and they have found The Donald, the Republican, and Republicans in general tell many more lies than their Democrat counterparts. In the case of The Donald, he tells about 3 times the number of lies Hilary tells.
In fact the whole Republican platform is based upon lies. That's why most Republicans are so adamantly opposed to fact checkers, especially at debates. As evidenced by the first debate, the Republican nominee, Donald Trump is severely factually challenged. His lies were pointed out not only by Clinton but also by the moderator who was and is a Republican.
The really interesting thing about conspiracy theories is the inability of conspiracy buffs to recognize that they are conspiracy buffs. Their conspiracy theories aren't conspiracy theories. It's the other guy who depends upon facts, evidence and reason, he's the real conspiracy theorist.
It's funny how that works. Welcome to the human race.
And where is the evidence to support those assertions? Let me guess, as with everything else, you don't have any, probably because it simply isn't true. Who was placed in jail? Where is the evidence to support the conspiracy theory you are promulgating? You have none. Yet, you don't think you are a conspiracy nut. It's the other guy, the guy relying upon evidence and reason who is the conspiracy nut. It's funny how that works.
Initial confusion about the origins of the attack immediately after the attack isn't evidence of a conspiracy. It's normal. There was reason to believe, and initially it was believed, that the video instigated the violence in Libya as it was in Egypt.
Well that's a distorted version of reality, isn't it? Romney had no more evidence about the attack than anyone else, yet he knew.
The fact you are leaving out, and the fact which Romney was called on during the debate by the debate moderator was that within hours of the attack, Obama had called the attack a terrorist attack during a press conference in the Rose Garden. And here is the funny thing again, you are advancing another right wing conspiracy theory, the vast "liberal, left leaning media" i.e. the mainstream media. The mainstream media isn't left leaning. The American left wing, unlike the self described conservatives don't have a media. The American left wing has no counterpart to Fox News or right wing talk radio.
The American right wing uses conspiracy theories to advance their ideology and explain away their many failures, e.g. RINOs, Trump's rigged elections, etc.
Well then perhaps you can prove your allegations. But I think we both know you can't. Romney was done in by his own words. Romney had to veer way to the right in order to win the primaries and then he had to move abruptly to the left in stand a chance of winning the general election. And when he flipped, it destroyed his credibility. It's the same problem McCain had before Romney. The Republican Party has become so extreme, it has become unable to elect a candidate that can win a national election. That's the problem Republicans have faced and continue to face. The truth is a problem for Republicans, it's not the Democrats.
I don's suppose you remember all the mud Republicans have slung at Obama or any of his predecessors over the years? Republicans are the kings of mud politics. So it's more than a little dishonest for you and your Republican cohorts to accuse Democrats of mud slinging when all they are doing is spreading the truth.
You don't recall the whole Birther incident? If you watched the debate on Monday, you should have heard it. For 8 years Republicans have accused Obama of not being a legitimate POTUS because they falsely alleged he wasn't born in the US all the while ignoring the fact Obama was indeed a natural born American citizen as evidenced by his birth certificate, a certification by the Governor of Hawaii, and birth announcements in the local newspaper. You don't remember the Republican swift boating of Kerry? Mud slinging is all Republicans do. It's all they have. So for you and your fellow so called "conservatives" to accuse anyone of mud slinging is more than a little hypocritical.
What a surprise, yet another unfounded conspiracy theory. You have no evidence to back up your conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories don't need evidence and reason. What makes your conspiracy theory a conspiracy theory is the lack of evidence. You have none.
Evidence and reason aren't conspiracy theories. The lack of evidence and reason as demonstrated by your posts make for the conspiracy theories you have promulgated in your posts.
This statement demonstrates who is vulnerable to mainstream media propaganda from the left. This angle made no sense. For one thing it was the anniversary of 911. The 911 event is a like glory days celebration for the terrorists, since was the time of their maximum impact. The attack date made more sense to be connected to the anniversary to maximize relevance. As far as the video, how much time do you think terrorist spend surfing the web? How much spare time you think they have? They don't have government jobs. You must have been willing to lie to yourself, to justify your interpretation, because you don''t come across as naive as you opinion requires .
The Embassy compound housed weapons, which Obama and Hillary had to know about that. With this knowledge in advance, common sense would say that they could have defended the compound to avoid weapons being commandeered by outsiders.
From the Washington Times, which leans left:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/oct/20/hillary-clinton-state-department-approved-us-weapo/
The State Department initially approved a weapons shipment from a California company to Libyans seeking to oust Moammar Gadhafi in 2011 even though a United Nations arms ban was in place, according to memos recovered from the burned-out compound in Benghazi.
The documents, obtained by The Washington Times, show U.S. diplomats at the Benghazi compound were keeping track of several potential U.S.-sanctioned shipments to allies, one or more of which were destined for the Transitional National Council, the Libyan movement that was seeking to oust Gadhafi and form a new government.
At least one of those shipments, kept in a file marked “arms deal,” was supposed to come from Dolarian Capital Inc. of Fresno, California, according to an end use certificate from the State Department’s office of defense trade controls licensing that was contained in the file.
The shipment was to include rocket launchers, grenade launchers, 7,000 machine guns and 8 million rounds of ammunition, much of it new and inexpensive hardware originally produced in the former Soviet bloc of Eastern Europe, according to an itemized list included in the end use certificate.
Although speculation, I can see Hillary and Obama willing to silence, anyone, who might expose this violation of international law, at election time. The inaction of Obama and Hillary allowed arms to be transferred, made the Ambassador a sitting duck, which tied up loose ends, all in one motion. The alternative to conspiracy is incompetence, since these are not smart actions and results.
Last edited:
The question I ask is why did you and others want to believe what the president was selling; video conspiracy? Many people, like members of the forums, seem to be very critical of new things, yet they put all that aside when it comes to the prestige of their party's leadership. This seems to be a symptom of memorizing the party line, but not understanding how to think outside that box.
Consider the abused wife, whose husband beats her on occasion. Her friends and family will tell her to leave him because he will hurt her. However, she does not want to believe the truth about him. She thinks the outsiders in her relationship are coming up with a conspiracy theory against her husband. Her husband says he is sorry and promises not to beat her again, as a distraction, so he can conspired again when he gets angry. She buys into his promises, which embolden him to do more of the same.
Why do so many liberals excuse the corruption in their leaders, to where they justify fantasy and lies? Does feminized liberalism lead to an abused wife syndrome, where the abused wife will not hear the truth from the outside? Liberals are abused by their leaders via all the conspiracy they sell; racism, sexism, etc. Like the abused wife, this is how the husband will control his wife to need only him.
If you look at the inner cities of large Democrat controlled cities, the leaders tell then minorities how the Republicans are the enemy, while themselves controlling the politics that govern the abuse of the inner city. Abused husband syndrome. The reason this works on Democrats is because they place feelings ahead of thinking.
Consider the abused wife, whose husband beats her on occasion. Her friends and family will tell her to leave him because he will hurt her. However, she does not want to believe the truth about him. She thinks the outsiders in her relationship are coming up with a conspiracy theory against her husband. Her husband says he is sorry and promises not to beat her again, as a distraction, so he can conspired again when he gets angry. She buys into his promises, which embolden him to do more of the same.
Why do so many liberals excuse the corruption in their leaders, to where they justify fantasy and lies? Does feminized liberalism lead to an abused wife syndrome, where the abused wife will not hear the truth from the outside? Liberals are abused by their leaders via all the conspiracy they sell; racism, sexism, etc. Like the abused wife, this is how the husband will control his wife to need only him.
If you look at the inner cities of large Democrat controlled cities, the leaders tell then minorities how the Republicans are the enemy, while themselves controlling the politics that govern the abuse of the inner city. Abused husband syndrome. The reason this works on Democrats is because they place feelings ahead of thinking.
Last edited:
You keep making this claim without evidence.
That's because Wellwisher has no evidence. She's making stuff up or mindlessly repeating crap from right wing conspiracy sources.
Because I and others aren't brain dead and evidence and reason matter to us. In the hours which followed the attack in Libya it was believed that the video which caused the riots in Egypt also caused the attack in Benghazi. Given the similarities, it was a reasonable assumption. As the the event became more clear, the president's (i.e. administration's) version evolved with the facts. That's not a conspiracy. That's reality. That's how things work in this world.
Your argument boils down to this, because Obama's administration lacked complete knowledge at the time of the attack, it created a conspiracy. You have no evidence of that. Your partisan leaders invented a conspiracy in order to further their political ambitions and folks like you just mindlessly bit into it. Your willingness to believe things without evidence and reason make you very vulnerable to conspiracy theories as evidenced by your many posts.
You sound like a Russian. The "main stream media", i.e. any media source other than right wing media sources, isn't liberal. Unlike your right wing media sources, the "main stream media" reports all the facts and it generally reports them honestly. Unlike you right wing media, the "main stream media" is indeed fair and balanced. It doesn't have a political spin. It isn't like the Russian press.
As for the weapon shipment it was from Qatar. It wasn't from the US. This may come as news to you, but the US doesn't rule over Qatar. The US didn't need to "allow" a weapons shipment from Qatar to Libya and it wasn't a violation of international law to let the arms transfer to occur...oops.
Further, The Washington Times, isn't a liberal media source. It's a cult owned media enterprise. That's why you use it. "Culties" like to stay together. It's that old birds of a feather thingy.
Where is your evidence that "so many liberals excuse the corruption in their leaders"? You have none, and that should be a problem for you but it isn't. Believing shit for which there is no evidence, as you have repeatedly demonstrated, is the manna of conspiracy theories. That's why right wing circles, as demonstrated by Wellwisher, are ripe with conspiracy theories. The American right wing is fertile grounds for conspiracy theories. They are taught to eschew information from unsanctioned sources. They are taught to not believe science or academics. They oppose science. And they have a conspiracy to explain all of their inconsistencies and failures. They even have conspiracies for failures that have yet to be made manifest, e.g. The Donald's rigged election conspiracies. Now that's proactive...
Racism, sexism, aren't conspiracy theories Wellwisher. You cannot write more than a paragraph or two without reverting to one or more right wing conspiracy theories, and the thing is, you apparently cannot see it.
Well, now that's not true. Is it? There is no doubt Democrats and their leaders oppose Republicans. But that doesn't mean they tell minorities Republicans are the enemy. In many if not most instances, inner cities are lead by minorities. Furthermore, cities have little control over the policies which directly affect their residents. Cities are all about delivering services to their residents. Cities don't establish or control the macroeconomic policies which affect the health and well-being of their residents. Those policies occur at higher levels of government, and you should know that if you graduated from grade school. But the conspiracy notion that cities control everything, is just one of the many right wing conspiracies right wingers like to float and believe. It's that old mushroom paradigm, keep them in the dark while feeding them shit.
It's not difficult to understand why Republicans aren't popular with minorities. They don't need conspiracy theories to understand Republicans are against their interests. Contrary to Republican assertions, they aren't dumb. They aren't incapable of thinking for themselves. History is littered with examples of Republican neglect and disregard for the interests of folks in the inner cities, e.g. Flint Michigan. It was the actions of a Republican governor which caused the water supply of Flint to become tainted with lead, and it was the inaction of Republicans in both state and federal government which allowed the problem to continue unabated. It was congressional Democrats who finally got Flint the money it needed to remove the lead from its water supply. That isn't a conspiracy theory. That is a fact. And there are many similar examples.
Boy, are you out of it. Here's some stuff you should start checking out.
http://www.thismodernworld.org/arc/1993/93short-attention-span.gif
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_type=&search_query=chomsky+media&aq=f
https://chomsky.info/199710__/
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media/media_watch.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Propaganda/Propaganda_page.html
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Media_control_propaganda/Media_Control.html
http://cassiopaea.org/cass/official_culture.htm
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Herman /Propaganda_System_One.html
As Project Censored shows year after year, this is not true. Many stories that are of interest to people are not reported or are not reported to any great extent. This introduces a bias standard commercial media that tends to reinforce right-wing myths about the nature of the USA.