There is, a specific type of smugness when someone within a group of like minds calls out the heretic. When group thought has totally permeated the platform, as a bastion of central opposition and knowledge to a world that is seemingly going insane — a world is unknowable in the end. Too many possibilities. Can I prove that? Without falling into skeptical thought, not really. Nothing can be proved without a doubt, it is a matter of the evidence collected in favour of what one believes — or the group believes. We are all capable of that confirmation bias, even those who point out the heretic. Doubt can always be generated, with enough intelligent thought. And so as long as that persists, truth in the fact can never be absolute. And must always remain in doubt, a sort of plastic thing.
Groups are the furtherance of classic gatherings of people: familial, clan, tribe. With merit or without merit, they are at their base, group thinking. Many might think that they stand along within the group in believing that through many minds in synergy a greater truth is found after a round or two of that constant chattering of monkeys in trees. But much, has been gained in modern society by the thoughts of a single individual alone with their own personal thinking.
Scientific journals and books are filled with the thoughts of individuals, not groups. Individuals’ thinking has remained the linchpin of paradigmatic shifts in thought through evolution. Groupthink in scientific studies is the phenomenon of the modern era. A necessity in a world that favors the group over the individual and that serves that politically, and for the sake of the empire. An individual is an ancient form of thinker that is quickly dying in a groupthink world, filled with institutions, and political parties, tribes, and many other polarities of thought, a world bound for collectivism. People, in general, are losing the ability to think their own thoughts and stand up and voice them, always tainted by some internal chatter from the many parasites that enter thought from all sorts of places — the internet and the many social platforms and podcasts, books, television and radio, workplaces and community circles.
An individual thinks his own thoughts, forms his own beliefs — the members of a group must tailor their beliefs in order to fit into the greater group, they are easily swayed and dominated by one or another that is so clever; compromises must be made and, are made for the success of the group, the life of the group, so that, that individual may/might become an excepted member. The group thinking, in the end, coerces him to makes compromises with his own scruples, his own inherent need. The individual’s beliefs might/must have to be honed down, reshaped to fit into the governing body’s rules of that group, whether it be science or mysticism.
Many groups might allude to their gathering being a collection of individuals toiling over a query or problem that the group faces. And that mental collaboration is greater than the single individual. A synergy of thoughts and ideas greater than the single thinker. But that is not so, and many that are in favor of groups are really only very timid types and weak in their willingness to stick to their own guns and put forth their argument. They need groups to encourage them. They need the group’s reassurance, with some, of course, tweaking of their final argument. Groups are not organisms without control, collections of right-minded individuals, they are lead and seek out leadership naturally. It is the natural settling of many minds on one thing, Which in itself may filter out a very strong individual who takes control. Who is looking to be in control. who is there for that very reason.
“It is widely believed that to be a conspiracy theorist is to suffer from a form of irrationality.”
To call someone a conspiracy theorist in an argument or a debate is the worst of possible things, for it dismisses them as lunacy, a mental defect. And when you dismiss them this way, you call them crazy. It is a weaponized phrase meant to disempower individuals. It questions seriously the integrity and essence of their intelligence. It places a terrible mark on everything that, that individual will say after the fact of that accusation. It is both brutal in its result, and so absolutely final in its conclusion, of, exclusion. Which is what it aims for directly or indirectly. And that result is so easily gained, simply in the fact of saying, “He is a conspiracy theorist, that is a conspiracy theory!”
‘Conspiracy Theory’, is a CIA invented declension to dismiss, ridicule and do in, anyone who questions the official government narrative, policies, science on a subject — it was first in use to discredit anyone who questioned the ethics of those who criticized the actions the Warren Commission and final Report, that stated in the end — even though four out of the seven members; Hale Boggs, John Sherman Cooper ,John J. McCloy, and Richard Russell Jr. had serious doubts about the ‘Magic Bullet’ theory. Which placed in doubt the finding of the full commission’s conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was, in fact the lone assassin of John F. Kennedy, then president of the United States of America.
Justice Earl Warren, Gerald Ford and of all people Allen Dulles, the much-hated adversary of John Kennedy, were those who remained of the total number of the commission’s conclusive in their findings that Oswald was a lone assassin.
Dulles was the head of the CIA at that time. So the idea of conspiracy theory would have come from his camp within the CIA. And Dulles knew about conspiracies. He created many of them.
Warren was a friend of Kennedy’s and supported him as president, but he was serving as both Chief Justice of the United States and Chairman of the Warren Commission at the same time. It was trying, and he was unhappy about it and was coerced by Lyndon B. Johnson to head it…as a judge, he valued the honest scrutiny and candor of witnesses to whatever happened on that fatal day. But as a politician, he believed in the need for secrecy of some matters that the public should not know about. He compromised because of this and because of his need for a speedy ending to this and the final report and was swayed by his need for a unanimous committee conclusion of the final version.
Gerald Ford was a rising star, who was a “U.S. Representative (later 38th President of the United States), House Minority Leader.” He was appointed by Johnson and was the wrong type for this appointment, a boy scout and avid Mason, he was only to be concerned with pleasing and this was his first real appointment to an important political position, happenstance possibly, and during his time there he and the experienced Justice Warren interviewed Jack Ruby the assassin of Lee Harvey Oswald. And Ford reported constantly to the FBI, during this, he would have been easily swayed by Allen Dulles, the Devil’s Chessmate. An unscrupulous man.
Allen Dulles, a smarmy kind of fella that had been dismissed by John Kennedy in 1961 for his fiasco and disastrous ‘Bay of Pigs’ and the ‘Algiers putsch’. Kennedy had known of his role in the coup in Iran and Guatemala. Dulles had not liked that President Kennedy had presented him with the National Security Medal on November the 28th, 1961. And then the next day his resignation letter signed by him was released by the White House. He was being put out to pasture. This was a new world and his type were no longer needed. Kennedy did not like Dulles and was speaking about him directly when he said, “I will splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.” He saw the CIA, run by Dulles as a sinister shadowy entity in the American fabric, something that would always be a problem causing problems politically and internally within the United States of America. A pawn of the corporations and mainly driven by their need for great power and money.
Johnson’s appointment of Dulles to the committee was in effect to coach the committee on how to speak to CIA witnesses, but really it was to have some control of the committee, as can be seen with Boggs, Cooper, McCloy, and Russell doubtful of the findings and suspicious of Dulles. Men in their own right not trusting the conclusion.
Accusers who use conspiracy theorist as an argument. who use this form of denial, as a routined strategy of exclusion, a reframing mechanism, that both deviates and defects concern about the power structure, corruption and that motive, it is an attack on the personhood and competence of that questioner. It demeans them. It is a popular ad hominem that instantly refutes any further discussion, stripping the questioning interlocutor of any reason often to avoid the need to account for one’s own actions and speech. It controls information and steers it back to the dogmatic preset of the accuser. It demonizes and demotes certain voices and at its ultimate, it stifles the further discourse of certain issues and public discourse on the party line. Penultimately, the very paradigm itself.
“The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings.” — Wikipedia
The world intellectually is driven mainly by Science I would say, it is all built on theorem, a stencilled cut-out form of thought. Formulated thought. Cutouts that are rigidly adhered too to find a fact, or solute a problem. The same process over and over and over… It is a categorizing formula that places each and everything in a place by its name, a noun, a category or a list, a family or a similarity. But it is all based on a belief. That formula of thought, a ‘Scientific method’, if used consistently will yield the truth, the fact in the end? And all this reaches from these said truth to a scientifically superlative God; A unifying theory, still to found, if it can be found, that ties all things in the universe together.
It has been surmised, through the thoughts of individuals from the past that gravity is a
constant, that it remains the same throughout the universe, everywhere? There are four underlying laws that permeate and translate and govern the universe in totality. Gravity, Electromagnetism, Weak and Strong Nuclear force. And all this is based on one-free-miracle: the Big Bang. Which when mathematically calculated can never reach past the beyond, that mystical place when it all started, a time before an object so small, with infinite mass, with infinite energy some 13.798±0.037 billion years ago exploded with such force that everything we see, feel or interact with is an evolution of that action so long ago. But that belief is as much an act of faith than an adherent of a world religion or to God creating the universe in an instant. In fact, it is the creation myth of physicists.
But what if it is an electric universe, a universe filled with plasma, a universe that is affected by those that observe it and who change it by that observing, by that experimenting with it, by the act of creation, bend it to the will of the artist. What if universes exist within universes each within their own unique and peculiar noble laws of mechanism. What if our noble laws are only native regional to this galaxy if it is a galaxy.
Skepticism by its nature is a philosophy of thought, it is an aspect of scientific inquiry pertinent to the individual using that philosophy. One cannot put on a skeptical mind. A skeptical mind is a thought form that is adhered to through an ardent belief that God does not exist, via the religion of atheism, and the formulated thought of the scientific method — and this is the ultimate truth, the ultimate philosophy of thought and thinking? Skepticism is an inflexible mode of thought even doubtful of what it finds and will continue testing indefinitely, it sets a limit to the capacity of human thinking, and human knowledge and the right response to it. Skepticism is a state of constant doubt. It is a rigidly dominant left brain theory of mind that refutes imagination and thwarts intuitive leaps of logic. It is convergent using the simplest possible answer, a linear a to b to c, against any divergent idea of many many possible solutions. The divergent could be called liberal, the convergent could be called conservative and in that lies the politically rub and the need for the term Conspiracy theorist.
What if the Universe is becoming more complex, what if it is a movement from convergence to divergence. What if what we believe is not a set of fixed laws, but a evolving predilection to the next state. I find it hard to believe that the universe evolved to what we hear, see and feel and then stopped…
I will quote Alan Moore, who said…
“Yes, there is a conspiracy, indeed there are a great number of conspiracies, all tripping each other up … the main thing that I learned about conspiracy theories is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in the conspiracy because that is more comforting. The truth of the world is that it is chaotic. The truth is, that it is not the Jewish banking conspiracy, or the grey aliens, or the twelve-foot reptiloids from another dimension that are in control, the truth is far more frightening; no-one is in control, the world is rudderless.” ― Alan Moore
…and in that lies an unusual truth that even the skeptics fear, there are those who know this, and they in their vapid belief of themselves and the world take advantage of it, and there are plans within plans to use, this rudderless world.