How to Resist Conspiracy Theories

[SocietyoftheSpectacle]

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
-Actors used in high profile shootings/bombings rather than people being injured or killed.
List B: Conspiracies ‘Confirmed’
-False Flags happen.

Those two are contradictory Surely.

The Comment above that Pointed to the Materialist nature of the Video,
was the most insightful.

The question a person has to ask , is how many coincidences are equal to a material fact.
for example,

or perhaps,

 

[Divide by Zero]

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.


......

I didn't mean escape, I meant to stop the abductions from happening again.


I heard it on the interview on sott radio that the fighting, anger, etc was what stopped the abductions from happening. I didn't mean that they were able to fight, but that psychological - and you mention the physiological - responses are something that works.


I feel that fear of anything, abductions, superstition, and so on are exactly what feed that loop of "belief". Transmarginal inhibition explained that the dogs who had more anger and fight were hardest to break down.


But then, why would aliens have a problem with the fight or flight? On regular 3d we have stun guns, drugs, special martial arts moves that can incapacitate people no matter how much they resist. Why would aliens have a problem with this?


That's why I think it's more of a psychological thing than physiological. Chemicals are easy to "hack", but the psychology - like in the dogs of TMI is harder to do so. It may very well be that there needs to be a belief of power to be open to these beings as this is not their "home" and we don't fit into their home either. Whether that belief is blind that they are doing good things or a fear of helplessness, that would just reinforce the dynamic. It reminds me of the books on psychopathy and abuse- the victim can suffer Stockholm Syndrome or have some paranoia that leaving or defending oneself would be useless.

 

[Glenn]

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.


......

I didn't mean escape, I meant to stop the abductions from happening again.


I heard it on the interview on sott radio that the fighting, anger, etc was what stopped the abductions from happening. I didn't mean that they were able to fight, but that psychological - and you mention the physiological - responses are something that works.


I feel that fear of anything, abductions, superstition, and so on are exactly what feed that loop of "belief". Transmarginal inhibition explained that the dogs who had more anger and fight were hardest to break down.


But then, why would aliens have a problem with the fight or flight? On regular 3d we have stun guns, drugs, special martial arts moves that can incapacitate people no matter how much they resist. Why would aliens have a problem with this?


That's why I think it's more of a psychological thing than physiological. Chemicals are easy to "hack", but the psychology - like in the dogs of TMI is harder to do so. It may very well be that there needs to be a belief of power to be open to these beings as this is not their "home" and we don't fit into their home either. Whether that belief is blind that they are doing good things or a fear of helplessness, that would just reinforce the dynamic. It reminds me of the books on psychopathy and abuse- the victim can suffer Stockholm Syndrome or have some paranoia that leaving or defending oneself would be useless.

I wonder if it has something to do with free will. They can't make you do something, if you don't want to do it. That is why they are always trying to tempt you or seduce you to do it of your own free will. (Garden of Eden). Your free will can become strengthened with knowledge and I think that is why it is so important to gain knowledge, and act on that knowledge.

(As it related to abductions, I am really not sure how that works, as relating to free will.)

 

[Renaissance]

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
-Actors used in high profile shootings/bombings rather than people being injured or killed.
List B: Conspiracies ‘Confirmed’
-False Flags happen.

Those two are contradictory Surely.

The Comment above that Pointed to the Materialist nature of the Video,
was the most insightful.

The question a person has to ask , is how many coincidences are equal to a material fact.
for example,

I think there's an element within certain conspiracy circles that also seek to hang onto materialist explanations. Looking at things in terms of tapping into congruous information fields as well as the consideration of the hyper-dimensional aspect can be useful considerations. And then there is also "pattern recognition run amok", along with a whole slew of cognitive biases like the dunning kruger effect which are just as important.

You might also find this article of interest:

The Sandy Hook Massacre: Unanswered Questions

There's a related thread here if you want to delve into that.

 

[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
-Actors used in high profile shootings/bombings rather than people being injured or killed.
List B: Conspiracies ‘Confirmed’
-False Flags happen.

Those two are contradictory Surely.

I think perhaps any number of statements can be mentally organized to contradict if one is selective enough within the available data.

There's a pretty big difference between hiring actors and hiring mercenary operatives.

In fact, I would tend to think that it is contradictory to suggest that those inclined to kill for effect would also be willing to bother with the hassles of dealing with the actor's union. :)

When it comes to the Boston Bomber situation, given that there was also a war game simulation organized for the day, it is quite reasonable to suggest that crisis actors might have been contracted as part of the drill. However, I doubt those people would have had any involvement with the rogue elements which decided to insert a 'live performance' into the proceedings.

Overlapping staged and real events is done precisely for the purpose of creating confusion. Psychopaths thrive in times of social chaos.

-When regular people are stunned into silence and inaction by a host of confusing, seemingly contradictory facts, those who are good a projecting a voice of certainty (with total disregard for objective reality) tend to find many followers simply relieved that a strong leader has emerged who can apparently can see a direct path through the war fog. In this way, a dominant narrative is quickly established which doesn't have to worry about any pesky objective realities.

 

[unkl brws]

As a follow on to this thread, I noticed this by RT this morning: https://www.rt.com/shows/renegade-inc/388411-conspiracy-theories-chilling-effect/#.WRm3YlOVXKA.facebook

From the description: "One of the most divisive terms in the English language today is the phrase ‘conspiracy theory.’ Its stigma has a chilling effect on people and the label has the subtle power to shut down enquiring minds and, with them, any inconvenient conversations.
But where did the term come from, and how does this catch-all phrase affect independent thinkers, international debate and the media today?
Host Ross Ashcroft is joined by author and Professor of Media Studies at New York University Mark Crispin Miller."