How to Resist Conspiracy Theories

[unkl brws]

I saw this today was a bit curious about it. He makes a good argument (osit) about being an intelligent skeptic but can't help wondering if this is some sort of distraction.

https://youtu.be/WoYjIDwbzLY?ecver=2

 

[Ennio]

It seems reasonable to me. We want to be as balanced as possible when looking at the deeper darker secrets that have been withheld from us, but we don't want to obsess so much that it colors our views of everything we look at. We want to know the truth of things and understand the nature of reality in as much of its complexity and nuance as possible, sure. But to get stuck in the conspiracy side of things could jam us into a narrow point of view and close us off to other areas of knowledge that we could stand to benefit from.

I did find it interesting that the video managed to stick something vaguely Russophobic at about 1:24 - almost as if to confirm and feed into the idea that the "Russian conspiracy" to subvert the West is real. Or maybe that's just me - seeing anti-Russian conspiracies everywhere! ;)

 

[fabric]

It seems reasonable to me. We want to be as balanced as possible when looking at the deeper darker secrets that have been withheld from us, but we don't want to obsess so much that it colors our views of everything we look at. We want to know the truth of things and understand the nature of reality in as much of its complexity and nuance as possible, sure. But to get stuck in the conspiracy side of things could jam us into a narrow point of view and close us off to other areas of knowledge that we could stand to benefit from.

Yes, I think that's a good way to approach it.

I did find it interesting that the video managed to stick something vaguely Russophobic at about 1:24 - almost as if to confirm and feed into the idea that the "Russian conspiracy" to subvert the West is real. Or maybe that's just me - seeing anti-Russian conspiracies everywhere! ;)

...well, it seemed to me that he was giving examples of ideas that were ridiculous to think at the time - like the Earth revolving around the sun, and that Russia was in control of the UK security union. So it didn't sound all that anti-Russian to me.

 

[Alada]

I saw this today was a bit curious about it. He makes a good argument (osit) about being an intelligent skeptic but can't help wondering if this is some sort of distraction.

There seems to be a mix of truths and distortions there. Overall and just going on impressions, it comes across in a kind of soothing hypnotic conditioning way. The whole patronising child like style of it irks me somewhat too. Also the way it focuses in the end on purely on ideas but on the type of person, there’s an implication/manipulation in the way that’s pitched which is kind of the opposite of what is being said, that together with the overall child like presentation if you believe in conspiracy theories, that’s nice, but the grown ups are oh so much better than that.

Notice the UFO imagery at the outset too, when I think conspiracy my mind usually goes straight to politics, not UFOs! But while we’re on the subject of UFOs though, if he holds that a hypothesis must be thrown out if it can’t be proved, he isn’t trying hard enough! Besides, wouldn’t an intelligent skeptic park an idea, but never totally discard it if it still remains unproven? What happens when new data comes along?

 

[Joe]

I saw this today was a bit curious about it. He makes a good argument (osit) about being an intelligent skeptic but can't help wondering if this is some sort of distraction.

There seems to be a mix of truths and distortions there. Overall and just going on impressions, it comes across in a kind of soothing hypnotic conditioning way. The whole patronising child like style of it irks me somewhat too. Also the way it focuses in the end on purely on ideas but on the type of person, there’s an implication/manipulation in the way that’s pitched which is kind of the opposite of what is being said, that together with the overall child like presentation if you believe in conspiracy theories, that’s nice, but the grown ups are oh so much better than that.

Notice the UFO imagery at the outset too, when I think conspiracy my mind usually goes straight to politics, not UFOs! But while we’re on the subject of UFOs though, if he holds that a hypothesis must be thrown out if it can’t be proved, he isn’t trying hard enough! Besides, wouldn’t an intelligent skeptic park an idea, but never totally discard it if it still remains unproven? What happens when new data comes along?

Yeah, it was a bit patronizing, but all of the "school of life" videos tend to come across in that way. Maybe it's the tone of voice of that guy that narrates most of them. I agree that the '3rd way' of intelligent skepticism is better defined as being 'open minded' to new ideas as new data comes along, but the term 'intelligent' is important here. It should mean someone with a broad and deep understanding of history, ancient and modern and a good knowledge of human psychology and human nature.

A certain period in history is usually analyzed by historians long after the event itself, when documents can be 'uncovered' etc. This gives a new and more complex truth to the official story around historical events. Having a good knowledge of those deeper truths allows us to then apply them to modern events, even as history is 'being made' and we are treated to a narrative about what is happening, because it is reasonable to subscribe to the idea that human nature doesn't really change across the ages. This narrative creation is not necessarily a function of conspiracy, but rather of the normal human inclination to BS ourselves and others about our true motivations, why we did what we did, and airbrush to one extent or another, the more disreputable aspects.

The result, however, IS conspiracy. Humans lie to themselves and others, thereby effectively creating conspiracies. Consider Western politicians making the case for bombing a country, and telling themselves and the public that it is for humanitarian reasons. Later, the fact that these same politicians had shares in arms manufacturers is revealed. Many people cry "conscious conspiracy!" but it may well have been narrative building, with the politician in question so self-deluded that he/she truly believes what they tell themselves and others.

It can go pretty deep too. For example, a politician can be aware that they are BSing the public about the nastier aspects of a military attack on another nation, like the massive death toll for example, but here again the politicians seem to BS themselves and justify the deaths and the public cover up of the deaths because the "general public are too simple-minded or sensitive to understand or accept the "fact" that, ultimately, it's a 'dog eat dog' world out there and you have to "break a few eggs to make an omelette". This may be true, but my problem with it is the assumption that the public would not be able to accept this 'harsh truth' about the way the world works. How do they know if they have never been fully honest with the public about such things?

Of course, the injunction against doing so, it would seem, is that the politician with shares in arms manufacturers knows, somewhere in their minds or instincts, that full public disclosure would invite a rejection of mass murder from the public (regardless of the practical necessity to do so) and furthermore would open them up to accusations of a conflict of interest. Needless to say, for a politician to go through this process almost requires a significant lack of natural empathy, which unfortunately seems to be the rule rather than exception among the political class.

As for the ref. to the Ruskies, I think this was a reference to the well-known Cambridge Five (the movie Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy dealt with it) and wasn't a deliberate ref. to the current anti-Russian climate.

 

[Glenn]

Videos like these talk about uncovering a lot of dots (conspiracy theories). But seem to suggest that these dots exist as random unconnected events. There is no mention of connecting the dots. It is in connecting the dots that one realizes that these dots/events reveal a bigger picture, and a more sinister one. This is the point where many people stop, unable to handle the thought that their reality is not what it seems. These points were left out of the video.

 

[Carl]

I think half the reason people can't believe in conspiracy theories is they can't imagine a group of people getting along enough to accomplish something without bickering and backstabbing, and I don't blame them!

Seriously though I do wonder about the differences in people. I have a tendency to be fascinated by it, and recognise it is probably true. It has never been a problem for me to ponder and accept conspiracy theories.

This for instance: https://www.sott.net/article/348681-Revelations-from-a-former-international-financier-I-was-training-to-become-a-psychopath-and-I-failed

https://youtu.be/nEpcY5JU120

What separates someone capable of looking at this, from someone who absolutely could not accept it? Is it a deep soul level thing, or just some of us had some misery growing up so are ready to accept the world is miserable, while others still have their rose coloured glasses more intact? Even that is doubtful.

The result, however, IS conspiracy. Humans lie to themselves and others, thereby effectively creating conspiracies. Consider Western politicians making the case for bombing a country, and telling themselves and the public that it is for humanitarian reasons. Later, the fact that these same politicians had shares in arms manufacturers is revealed. Many people cry "conscious conspiracy!" but it may well have been narrative building, with the politician in question so self-deluded that he/she truly believes what they tell themselves and others.

It can go pretty deep too. For example, a politician can be aware that they are BSing the public about the nastier aspects of a military attack on another nation, like the massive death toll for example, but here again the politicians seem to BS themselves and justify the deaths and the public cover up of the deaths because the "general public are too simple-minded or sensitive to understand or accept the "fact" that, ultimately, it's a 'dog eat dog' world out there and you have to "break a few eggs to make an omelette". This may be true, but my problem with it is the assumption that the public would not be able to accept this 'harsh truth' about the way the world works. How do they know if they have never been fully honest with the public about such things?

While we're on the topic, I wonder about this also. Do even the most evil of Dr. Evils engage in that kind of self-calming righteous narrative? Like the kinds of satanists described in the above video even. Surely once you take the step into molesting/torturing children, there is no possible positive self narrative. Are psychopaths even gifted enough to make it this far to the top, or does it take an actual soul to consciously choose evil?

 

[Joe]

While we're on the topic, I wonder about this also. Do even the most evil of Dr. Evils engage in that kind of self-calming righteous narrative? Like the kinds of satanists described in the above video even. Surely once you take the step into molesting/torturing children, there is no possible positive self narrative. Are psychopaths even gifted enough to make it this far to the top, or does it take an actual soul to consciously choose evil?

I think a narrative is always possible, up to and including dehumanizing others. As for people not being able to conspire without bickering, I think the promise of lots of money is a great silencer of debate for many people.

 

[Woodsman]

I saw this today was a bit curious about it. He makes a good argument (osit) about being an intelligent skeptic but can't help wondering if this is some sort of distraction.

https://youtu.be/WoYjIDwbzLY?ecver=2

From the video…

“What separates the Conspiracy Theorist from the Intelligent Skeptic is not the possession of some odd-sounding hypotheses; it's what they then go on to do with these hypotheses.

1. Evidence

The Intelligent Skeptic knows that hypotheses cannot be sustained indefinitely without evidence. They can be trialed for a time but eventually have to be positively backed up by concrete proof, or else graciously and uncomplainingly abandoned.”

Many of the hypotheses in question are so exactly because there is a lack of concrete evidence. And yet despite this lack, that class of non-physical evidence, the non-linear and personal experience stuff keeps pinging people's brains, calling out for attention.

This video was scripted, it would seem, by a materialist who hasn’t figured out yet how to value and weigh the non-material. -Material evidence is something which you won't get laughed at by the rest of the herd for basing your decisions on. It is safe. -Deciding to proceed based solely on your own instincts, collected knowledge and internal guidance.., that is NOT safe. Being unable to point to an absolute outside authority for validation means that you must own your own mistakes and suffer the social pains of being ridiculed by your peers. It takes strength and fortitude to bear that kind of burden, unlike...

“2. Burden of Proof

Intelligent skeptics know that the burden of proving a hypothesis must invariably fall on them as the challengers to the status quo, and not on the upholders of the established ideology. They accept that it's their duty to show that ghosts really do exist and not the responsibility of everyone else to prove that they don't.”

This is another common misapprehension among skeptics.

Many are still strongly held under the sway of herding mentality and the pressures of social consensus.

Those who have grown a little beyond that point on the human experiential spectrum certainly value colinearity among peers, but have also worked out that it is not only not one’s duty to prove anything to anyone, but that it is in fact a violation of free will to do so! (With those who haven't asked for what you're selling.) -If somebody wants to challenge me on my thoughts, then depending on their intention, (that of seeking clarification and learning versus presenting a fortified opposition in an effort to 'win'), then I am likely to simply avoid them or show them the door.

“Upholding a quarrelsome hypothesis delivers some hugely redemptive emotional pleasures. One often feels empowered and superior to all those who still blindly trust in the status quo. [...] Our job may not be so significant, nor our house very grand, be we, unlike the stuck-up professors, know what really happened...”

Ahhh. There it is. I think this statement explains much about both the mindset of the people who scripted this video, and why it comes across as so patronizing. Projection is a thing.

Personally, I hate all this stuff. -I mean, I find it fascinating and fun to explore, learning really is fun, but I’d be a much happier person if psychopaths and aliens and the rest of it weren’t there at all to be explored. Long before I came across even the first threads of such unsettling ideas, I was a reasonably normal person with healthy friendships and ample self-respect and I had no need to be seeking some artifice from the X-Files world to help prop up my ego. If anything, this crap has made the rest of my life rather more challenging and painful. But it is what it is...

The one thing the video gets right is in the closing remarks about the ideal position being one where you are internally strong enough to take the world at face value and generally be happy and loving as an individual who is also wise enough to react appropriately when things get dark.

 

[Alada]

A certain period in history is usually analyzed by historians long after the event itself, when documents can be 'uncovered' etc. This gives a new and more complex truth to the official story around historical events. Having a good knowledge of those deeper truths allows us to then apply them to modern events, even as history is 'being made' and we are treated to a narrative about what is happening, because it is reasonable to subscribe to the idea that human nature doesn't really change across the ages. This narrative creation is not necessarily a function of conspiracy, but rather of the normal human inclination to BS ourselves and others about our true motivations, why we did what we did, and airbrush to one extent or another, the more disreputable aspects.

Agree, and it’s fascinating the way that we can look into history and readily accept that the conspiracy, was indeed a conspiracy. Documents uncovered as you say, or corroborating evidence, biographies, previously unknown evidence etc comes along, and we look at that at past events and see that it is self evident. Of course it was so! And you don’t have to be a 'conspiracy theorist' to see it.

But ask people to entertain the same or similar arguments about any case during the present day and it’s really hard for people to go there. I think you start to knock up against people’s cozy existence, the default state. Start to unsettle that and people have to start addressing their inner world and perspective to be able to let the information in. Or something like that. You can’t sleep and wake up to something new.

What separates someone capable of looking at this, from someone who absolutely could not accept it? Is it a deep soul level thing, or just some of us had some misery growing up so are ready to accept the world is miserable, while others still have their rose coloured glasses more intact? Even that is doubtful.

I think it can be a mix of a soul level thing and the result of the way we’re built generally. Think of the way false personality is constructed, false personality often being described as "everything that is borrowed". We don’t do it consciously but the whole construct will naturally reflect whatever is around it in the environment, and facets of the personality will seek to belong to the group, to fit, to be accepted. So to go against the grain there cab begin to upset the internal apple cart. 1. you have to begin with the very real possibility that reality is waaay more evil than we give it credit for, and 2. that to do so puts facets of your personality, your very identity into flux. All very unsettling! Maybe it’s a soul thing to have all that going on and still be willing to go there anyway?

Think about how nuts people have been going recently as large parts of the outside world they unconscionably thought they reflected, suddenly changed and pulled that rug out from under their feet. Think Brexit, Trump, for example. To have such change suddenly thrust upon the personality (reflections of facets of the world around it) creates instability.

All of which is another way of saying that perhaps people find it just too unnerving and so would rather not go there.

 

[Joe]

The one thing the video gets right is in the closing remarks about the ideal position being one where you are internally strong enough to take the world at face value and generally be happy and loving as an individual who is also wise enough to react appropriately when things get dark.

I agree, and also to be open-minded enough to consider possibilities without accepting them as hard truth. The hardest thing, they say, is to hold two opposing ideas in our minds at the same time, and be cool with it. In fact, I think someone said that is the hall mark of genius. Not sure about that bit, but it sure is difficult to do given the tendency to want to lock things down and keep them that way in order to feel secure. So I suppose the thing we have to master is, as Don Juan said, (more or less) to be able to face the infinite with impunity or calm, i.e. face the inherently creative and limitless nature of reality, and not freak out.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Seek10 brought up that video in our recent meeting.


I found it helpful to keep a balance of being open, yet not buying into something based on hearsay or assumptions.


I don't think that the idea of Burden of Proof is really an issue. For example, with free energy machines you can get stories of what works, but until it is tested it could be a placebo effect or blind assumption.


I apply the same to ghosts. They may exist or they may be something else. It doesn't mean that they don't exist, which is what the WRONG skeptics do, along with ignoring data that points towards a strong possibility. However, the wrong thing would be to think "ghosts MUST exist" and then be paranoid/OCD about it, because of the powerless feeling about it. That in itself could be a feedback loop, maybe a violation of free will? Perhaps this is why the aliens/men in black appear, yet cannot do much in this world. If they are just a potential fed by fear/paranoia, that would explain why Jacobs said that those who fight back stop abductions, etc. The C's also mentioned that Laura had much less abductions in a session because she fought back.




So as much as the skeptics want to lock down things and keep them that way, full believers do the same thing even if it looks like they don't have control. Both sides of the same coin!


Joe, holding opposing ideas in our minds at the same time surely sounds like "non-anticipation"!

 

[Woodsman]

Perhaps this is why the aliens/men in black appear, yet cannot do much in this world. If they are just a potential fed by fear/paranoia, that would explain why Jacobs said that those who fight back stop abductions, etc. The C's also mentioned that Laura had much less abductions in a session because she fought back.

Really? Where did Jacobs say this? I have only read two of his books, (The Threat, and Walking Among Us) but in both he clearly and repeatedly described the exact opposite. Out of many hundreds of interviews with subjects, Jacobs didn't report a single incidence of anybody managing to escape. I'm also working my way through Karla Turner's work looking for answers, but so far it's just more of the same thing.

There was some indication in Jacob's work that adrenaline spikes and fight/flight responses can overpower mind control for brief periods, and that refusal to make eye contact (through which it appears the mind control link can be established, -though there are other accounts where it is done remotely, albeit with more effort) can also hinder the process, but there were no accounts where the aliens were not able to reestablish dominance with minimal effort which never seemed more than an annoyance in a routine procedure.

So far, the most optimistic material I've come across has been through SOTT. Here's one I like...

October 14, 1995
Frank, Laura, Susan V, Terry and Jan, Tom K

[...]

A: Suggest more questions about the goings on at underground facilities. Jan and Terry were visitors involuntary when went to Albuquerque and Las Vegas!

Q: (J) Oh, really! (T) Read it back, I lost it after visitors. (L) You were in an underground base? (T) We were in a front door of an underground base. We were in Carlsbad Caverns, and I know that there's a government facility at the other end of it, and they won't talk about it. (J) Is that what they mean? (T) You're talking about Carlsbad?

A: Abducted.

Q: (T): When we were in Albuquerque?

A: Yes.

Q: (J) And Las Vegas? (T) When we were in Las Vegas, also?

A: Met alien there.

Q: (L) Oh, you met an alien when you were in Las Vegas! (J) Does that have anything to do with the fact that the pictures didn't come out from our wedding?

A: Barfly.

Q: (T): Ohhhhh... (J) I know exactly what you are talking about.

A: Disguised humanoid gray species four. Rigelian. Orion union STS.

Q: (T) Why did he talk to us? Why did he approach us? I know exactly...

A: Spying on you and aural frequency reading, had you not been as strong, would have suffered permanent abduction because of your studies

Q: (L) Now, right there is a point. Everybody take note of this. What is there about strength that makes one inaccessible to permanent abduction?

A: Strength is of character, i.e. if STO candidate, not likely to be victim.

Q: (L) Not likely to be victim... OK, but what.. (T) STO candidate... (L) I know, but that's... it says when... well, what is it that makes a person... We know that it means being an STO candidate, but what is the thing inside one that stops them... I mean, is this something that is a core ingredient of certain human beings? Is this like something inside them that blocks this manipulation and victimization?

A: Soul pattern.

Q: (L) So in other words, there is something about us, or within us, that literally they cannot touch or harm, is that correct?

A: Basically, but difficult to facilitate.

Q: (L) OK, in other words, this is something that is in us, that creates an inherent barrier, but not necessarily something that we can, at this level of density, reach in, grab out as a weapon, and wave around, as in facilitate?

A: Can, but intricate to do consciously.

Q: (L) Is this some quality or ability that we can work at? I don't think meditation is the answer, this is something that I've come to think... Is this a state of focused awareness, whole body awareness, internal and external, basically whole body awareness... (J) Going with instinct...

A: Helpful.

Q: (L) Is there something we can do to develop this to the highest degree possible, while in these bodies, in this density?

A: Wait for 4.

Q: (L) Wait for 4? 4th density?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) We can't develop it ourselves, but if we... (J) We can start the process... (T) It's a case of not developing it, it's a case of that, if you can do it, it does it all by itself, you don't think about it... (L) It's an innate thing... (T) It's a do, it's an involuntary, it's there, it works when it needs to work. Is this the idea?

A: Network western experiences for learning purposes please. Knowledge is protection.

[Briefly, Terry related the story where he and Jan met the barfly at Vegas World, after having gone downtown to get their marriage license. They had taken a taxi to City Hall, and foolishly decided to walk back to the Strip, in 116 degree weather. They made it as far south as Vegas World, and stopped at the bar inside to cool off. Jan was close to heat prostration, and the barmaid gave her glasses of iced water and an iced towel to put on her neck. They were getting ready to go back out and hail a cab back to Bally's, when they were approached by the "Barfly," who started asking all sorts of personal questions, and seemed to be acting drunk when he wasn't really intoxicated. He became belligerent when Terry refused to show him his Florida drivers license, but switched to disorientation when Terry made the statement "We don't have a problem, here, do we?! Everything's cool, everything's OK! I'll buy you a beer?" While staring the guy down and putting the force of his personality behind the question/statement.]

Q: (T) Before we get too far into this, I want to ask them where we were taken. Because after that, as far as I know, nothing else happened. We just went on about our business, and we didn't see him again... (L) In this story that Terry has just recounted, what instant represents the turning point of resistance?

A: The statement.

Q: (L) What statement? (T) "We don't have a problem, here, do we?! Everything's cool, everything's OK! I'll buy you a beer?"

A: Yes.

Q: (T): Because that's when he got confused... (J) You totally nullified the... (SV) Yeah, from the glaring and staring at each other... (T) He was escalating this to a point, and I don't know, it just came to me that the best way to do this was to just stop it right there...

A: Grays and their associates are thrown off by energy flow diversions or thought pattern interruptions.

Q: (SV) That's exactly what they said in Matrix I! (T) Another thing that comes to mind while I'm thinking about it, before it turned ugly, he was leading up to going someplace. (J) Very vaguely, but yes. (T) He was leading up toward, "We ought to get together and go someplace." I think that's when I really shut the whole thing off. (L) OK, now, in this episode where Terry and Jan were taken to an underground base, can you identify the location of the underground facility?

A: Socorro, NM

Q: (J) We were in Socorro, weren't we? (T) We went through Socorro... We stopped at the geological school. (L) OK, what was done to them when they were in this underground facility?

A: Quick exam.

Q: (T) Did we pass? I'm not good on quick exams! Which of the nights in Albuquerque was it we were taken?

A: Second.

Q: (T) We got there Friday afternoon, that would have been Saturday... (L) Who was in charge of this base, this facility? What group?

A: Orion Union STS.

Q: (T) Why did they take us? I know, a quick exam, but why? Because we happened to be there, and we were close by? (L) They said a minute ago because of your studies. (T) Well, they could have taken us in Florida.

A: Yes.

Q: (L) They said because of your studies. Well, you happened to be near a base, I guess. Not everybody goes to these bases, you know, these underground facilities. They get taken to ships.... (T) Did we get taken to the base because we happened to be close by at the time when they grabbed us? Was it an opportunity for them?

A: Close.

Q: (T) Did they know we were coming out there?

A: Yes.

Q: (T) Why did they follow up with a spy afterwards?

A: Test.

Q: (T) What kind of test? (J) I think we passed... (L) I think that if you'd failed, they said a minute ago, you'd have been permanently abducted.

A: Already answered.

[...]

It seems that escaping the abduction process once it has begun, once they've got you, just doesn't happen. There are no action movie fantasies to be seen played out in real life. However, at the very beginning of an encounter, if your frequency is off (from their perspective) or if you just seem too difficult to get a hold of, they may give up.

The best way to be like that, I suspect, is to continually work on yourself, build up good character and fortify those qualities which make one an STO candidate.

 

[Woodsman]

I made some other notes which didn’t fit into previous responses on this thread, but I thought they might be worth including on their own.

I personally break down some of the conspiracy theories in circulation into two general lists...


List A: Conspiracies Rejected

-Fake Moon Landing (Some of my thoughts here: https://cassiopaea.org/forum/index.php/topic,14915.msg257350.html#msg257350 )
-Flat Earth
-Hollow Earth
-Chemtrails (-Not that there aren't some types of deliberate spraying going on, but in a large part the observations claimed to be part of this particular conspiracy theory I think have more to do with recent atmospheric temperature changes than secret military efforts.)
-Lizards wearing human disguises, (British aristocracy are all lizards).
-Alien Space Brothers (They love us, they really love us!)
-Planet X/Nibriu is a moving, hollow planet filled with aliens coming to intercept Earth.
-Actors used in high profile shootings/bombings rather than people being injured or killed.
-Jesus died for our sins and rose from the dead. (Let's kiss snakes and speak in tongues! Hallelujah!)



List B: Conspiracies ‘Confirmed’

-UFOs aren’t just airplanes, man-made satellites and Venus
-Aliens (or hyper-dimensional beings) are real
-Alien Abductions do happen
-Crop Circles weren’t all hoaxes
-Underground bases and tunnels exist
-Mind control is real and on-going
-False Flags happen.
-Vaccines cause harm
-Animal fat is good for you
-Tobacco smoking can provide health benefits
-Banking cartels are real



When you read through those two lists, you’ll note a ‘flavor’ difference between them.

Column A contains ideas which seem to me to be more cartoony, indicating an unrefined understanding of the world which misapprehends a host of basic things, such as spatial relationships and psychological realities.

Column B contains ideas which, when you dig into them with any modest degree of investigation, turn out to fit into the same every day regime of impressions and physical expectations we live with all the time. The ideas are only outlandish until you realize that they are not really. Being in a secret underground tunnel is probably no more astonishing than being on a regular subway train.

Even the hyper-dimensional high strangeness stuff makes sense when you start working with the concept of 4th Density and altered brain states. When you read through the hundreds upon hundreds of accounts from various authors reporting on numerous periods of history, a homogeneity to the data spread and qualitative aspects emerges. Even the weird stuff percolates down into common pieces which fit neatly into Objective Reality and its rules as we are learning them.

Of course, we all understand the world as a set of representative notions. We can’t contain an actual tree or a mountain in our brains; we can only carry around the idea of one, mental representations, or as I might call it for the sake of simplicity, a mental cartoon.

As we age and learn, our set of cartoons evolves and solidifies, can become with effort, more detailed and more accurate illustrations. -If we allow ourselves to be wrong with grace when new, more accurate information comes to light, then the process of idea evolution speeds up, the pictures become more and more realistic in describing the external cosmos.

If a person’s understanding of the “Vastness of Space” or “How planets work” is drawn in crayon and hasn’t really been updated since childhood, then there is nothing to stop that person’s mind from accepting the idea that Nibiru is a big planet with a trapdoor in the front and aliens inside who are flying it on a collision course with Earth.

Or that the Queen of England is a lizard wearing a rubber human suit.

-When I was a kid, I remember believing that the running shoes on a particular TV ad could really, truly give one the ability to jump over cars and trees. They showed it right on the TV! It was exotic and magical and I really, really wanted to believe! So I nagged my poor mom until she took me out to a store to try on a pair, ignoring her protests, (I knew better and I wasn't listening!), and of course was sorely disappointed to discover that a pair of running shoes wasn’t going to invest me with super powers. It was a heart-breaking lesson, but the cartoon I carried in my head of physics, shoes, -and of what advertising and adults were capable of saying to make a buck, was loaded with a huge burst of updated information. My cartoon of reality became a little less crayon and little more pen and ink.

The more refined one’s set of mental illustrations of objective reality, the more able to comprehend what is and is not actually going on in the world, what is possible and what isn’t.

I think for some, this process happens more slowly, or perhaps certain elements people actively resist letting go of. -And I also suspect that the higher mind takes many lifetimes to become acquainted with the process, to store up its lessons in the form of instinct. That’s a part of it.

February 24, 1996

Q: (L) Now, my memory for dates and times has always been, at best, a little vague. But, lately, it has been really bad. What is the cause of this loss of ability to keep a sequential record of what one does, who one sees, etc? It is really strange.

A: It is not strange. As one "ages" the illusion of time passage begins to deteriorate because your "higher mind" begins to understand the illusion.

One particular quality of the Human Experience is that of the illusion of reality starts off strong and then fades over the course of a lifetime.

-Children are invested with the ability to believe the most amazing things. Movies and stories absorbed early in life can have profound impact, shaping entire decision trees. -Then young adulthood is often filled with the overpowering concept of Love. Love! -As in all the most saccharine Love Songs- with the chemical/mechanical aspects remaining only vague concepts, thought of (if thought about at all) as somehow unrelated to the technicolor WOW of being 18 and in love. This same illusory world also allows for Big Dreams, of fame and fortune, or of utopian ideals, etc.

“The young think they are immortal!” -This is SO true, but we only really understand what this phrase, (which bears the vague aroma of insult to the young), actually means when you well and truly find yourself deep in adulthood.

And all of this is, I suspect, by design; it’s the seduction of this reality. That experience of overpowering illusion is the reason we pay the ticket price, one of the reasons we forget, and why we keep coming back for more. -And also, I am beginning to think, why people glare at you and try to shut you down when you start openly talking about the ins and outs of Objective Reality. It messes up the illusion. “Harshes the Vibe” -Like.., if kids are playing “The Carpet Is Red Hot Lava!” (Stay off it, and climb only on the furniture) -and you enter the room to explain to them, “No. It’s just carpet. Grow up. You idiots.” -You’re not going to be well loved for that.

The illusion of reality becomes easier and easier to break out of as we build up experiences over life. And also.., as we build up experiences over many lives. -The more times we go on the Human Body ride on Planet Earth, the easier it is to slip off it.

I think the Rubber Suited Lizard Queen of England believers are just deeper and more recently arrived in the illusion.

That’s another way of thinking about it, anyhow.

 

[100c]

I was only able to listen to about 10 seconds of the video. The man's voice made me cringe.
The title says it all. It lumps all conspiracy theories together, the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Critical thinking requires that we consider the possibility that people will lie in order to sell something. Everyone is selling something.
So, if we detect a deception in a set of information, then we are left with two choices, stop thinking, or search for an explanation for the deception.
Sometimes, a possible explanation can be considered a conspiracy theory. Some theories are better than others.

http://anxietypub.com/understanding-your-conspiracy-friends/
I wrote the above article for my friends who always ask me to explain myself.