[Images] - The Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists and Theories | Page 3 | INFJ Forum

[Images] The Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists and Theories

Rium


  • Total voters
    8
The psychology of anti-conspiracy theory people is that they like to talk the talk but they can't walk the walk

This is because they are full of shit
 
Pick an issue i have discussed...lets get down to business

Pick a 'conspiracy theory' i've mentioned and we'll debate it

Please don't pussy out on me

I'm supposed to be working so I don't have time to go in depth right now but I have no problem debating you on anything and am willing to look at a specific theory and debate with you. It would be great if you would debate it without throwing a whole bunch of videos that offer no proof but just opinion. You also keep labelling everything as part of the conspiracy which you don't offer any real proof of and which makes it hard to actually logically debate the topic. Honestly, I am willing to consider anything if it is logically debated which I don't find you do well, and so I probably discount some stuff that might have some value because I don't want to wade through the sheer quantity of stuff that doesn't have much value.

Please go ahead and choose a topic that you would like to debate and I will be glad to do so, but actually debate and don't just post a whole bunch of stuff.
 
I'm supposed to be working so I don't have time to go in depth right now but I have no problem debating you on anything and am willing to look at a specific theory and debate with you. It would be great if you would debate it without throwing a whole bunch of videos that offer no proof but just opinion. You also keep labelling everything as part of the conspiracy which you don't offer any real proof of and which makes it hard to actually logically debate the topic. Honestly, I am willing to consider anything if it is logically debated which I don't find you do well, and so I probably discount some stuff that might have some value because I don't want to wade through the sheer quantity of stuff that doesn't have much value.

Please go ahead and choose a topic that you would like to debate and I will be glad to do so, but actually debate and don't just post a whole bunch of stuff.

Ok let me save us both a lot of time

It seems that you like to listen to professors? Is that fair to say?

Ok well i know of some professors that say some very interesting things....

'Oh'...you might think...'but they're going to crazy kooks from the firnges of society' right?

Well lets look at the words of a professor who taught president clinton....would that be in the system enough for you?

Here is the words of the professor of history Carrol Quiqley from his book 'tragedy and hope'
“The Rhodes scholarship established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes’ seventh will are known to everyone. What is not so widely known is that Rhodes, in five previous wills, left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire. And what does not seem to be known to anyone is that this secret society … continues to exist to this day. To be sure, [it] is not a childish thing like the Ku Klux Klan, and it does not have any secret robes, secret handclasps, or secret passwords. It does not need any of these, since its members know each other intimately. It probably has no oaths of secrecy nor any formal procedure of initiation. It does, however, exist and holds secret meetings…. This Group is, as I shall show, one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century.”

And what were the goals of this “group”? According to Quigley (Tragedy and Hope, pg. 324):

“…nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and he economy of the world as a whole. The system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basil, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank …sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world”

And how does he know that? Two pages later he writes:

“I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years during the 1960’s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have for much of my life been close to it and to many of its instruments. In general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown.”
 
Ok let me save us both a lot of time

It seems that you like to listen to professors? Is that fair to say?

Ok well i know of some professors that say some very interesting things....

'Oh'...you might think...'but they're going to crazy kooks from the firnges of society' right?

Well lets look at the words of a professor who taught president clinton....would that be in the system enough for you?

Here is the words of the professor of history Carrol Quiqley from his book 'tragedy and hope'

“The Rhodes scholarship established by the terms of Cecil Rhodes’ seventh will are known to everyone. What is not so widely known is that Rhodes, in five previous wills, left his fortune to form a secret society, which was to devote itself to the preservation and expansion of the British Empire. And what does not seem to be known to anyone is that this secret society … continues to exist to this day. To be sure, [it] is not a childish thing like the Ku Klux Klan, and it does not have any secret robes, secret handclasps, or secret passwords. It does not need any of these, since its members know each other intimately. It probably has no oaths of secrecy nor any formal procedure of initiation. It does, however, exist and holds secret meetings…. This Group is, as I shall show, one of the most important historical facts of the twentieth century.”
And what were the goals of this “group”? According to Quigley (Tragedy and Hope, pg. 324):
“…nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and he economy of the world as a whole. The system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basil, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank …sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world”
And how does he know that? Two pages later he writes:
“I know of the operation of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years during the 1960’s to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have for much of my life been close to it and to many of its instruments. In general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown.”

No, my mistake...I should realize that some anonymous person online has all the answers and everybody else, including every single professor is full of shit (sarcasm of course). How stupid would I be if I just took your information and believed it fully without actually checking it out. If you actually read my post, it states that I questioned my professor extensively, which means that I didn't take everything he said at face value either.

It's too bad that you seem to be incapable of having a proper logical debate. It would be interesting to so.

Seriously, you just attack instead of discuss. Where's the logic in that?

Edit: Ok, I'm rereading your post and I'm seeing that you are saying that this professor is backing up your conspiracy. What is your point? Please bring up a proper debate, and someone's opinion without backing evidence is no more proof if they are a professor. Some of them are pretty crazy too and many have been known to be wrong, as well as to lie. As I said, I question everything and everyone and you have to provide some evidence for me to consider it, not just opinions.
 
Last edited:
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
- Stephen Hawking
 
No, my mistake...I should realize that some anonymous person online has all the answers and everybody else, including every single professor is full of shit (sarcasm of course). How stupid would I be if I just took your information and believed it fully without actually checking it out. If you actually read my post, it states that I questioned my professor extensively, which means that I didn't take everything he said at face value either.

It's too bad that you seem to be incapable of having a proper logical debate. It would be interesting to so.

Seriously, you just attack instead of discuss. Where's the logic in that?

Listen.....forget all the argumentative bullshit for a minute......there was a group of jewish marxist intellectuals in germany called the 'frankfurt school'

They left germany when the nazis came to power

They were given jobs in US universities by the powerful jewish banking fraternity centred mainly in new york who influence education through 'foundations' through which they channel funds into causes they wish to further and to people they wish to support for example the banking family the rockefellers of standard oil and chase manhatten bank (who are also one of the shareholders of the federal reserve bank and david rockefeller was also the chairman of the council on foreign relations) created the rockefeller university

The point of the frankfurt school is to destroy capitalist society in order to then create a new society where everyone is controlled by a central authority that spies on them constantly and controls every aspect of their lives

david rockefeller wrote his university thesis on fabian socialism

These guys want to create a world government that they will control so they gave the frankfurt school jobs in the universities and funded them and in return the frankfurt school created 'critical theory' which is about constantly criticising every aspect of capitalist society in order to discredit it in the minds of the young (students) to prepare them to accept a new system of government (a dictatorship)

So when you say your professor is a 'marxist' this does not suprise me, but these marxists do not want to create a society where the workers exercise power from the bottom up, they want to create a society where the workers are RULED from above by the banking fraternity

So let go to 911

below is a clip of a GENERAL from the US military admitting that there was always a LONG RANGE plan to invade a whole bunch of countries in the middle east. This is part of the bankers plan to subjugate the critical oil fields of the middle east in order to build their global government ('new world order')

[video=youtube;9RC1Mepk_Sw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RC1Mepk_Sw[/video]

President Bush telling you about their 'new world order':

[video=youtube;Rc7i0wCFf8g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rc7i0wCFf8g[/video]

A right wing neo-con think tank called the Rand Corporation wrote a paper called 'a project for a new american century' in which it said that in order to achieve its new global objectives it would need a new pearl harbour event in order to win the support of the US public for the actions they wanted to take

A year later they got their pearl harbour when the world trade centre was knocked down

Another professor looking into 911:

[video=youtube;mVxaf6mhagM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVxaf6mhagM[/video]
 
Last edited:
Israeli professor of history Schlomo sand explaining that modern israeli jews are descended form khazars NOT the biblical jews ans that political zionism is built on a lie:

[video=youtube;slucY378L-U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slucY378L-U[/video]
 
Professor Michael Hudson saying the US has declared financial war on the rest of the world (all these things tie into the conspiracy which involves the federal reserve bank, central banking and the military industrial complex)

[video=youtube;53hrju3qPz4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53hrju3qPz4[/video]
 
The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.
- Stephen Hawking

Ok so its time for you to dispell the illusion
 
Professor fekete: the system will collapse (so that the bankers can create their new world order)

[video=youtube;3iYADquljNY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iYADquljNY[/video]
 
[h=1]NWO - Professor Noam Chomsky - On the Ideology of the New World Order - strength of movements[/h][video=youtube;R6WN1rUdwzk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6WN1rUdwzk[/video]
 
  • Like
Reactions: Elegant Winter
Occupy wants to destroy your debt...professor David Graeber

[video=youtube;m-EMlVfQtVI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-EMlVfQtVI[/video]
 
Please do research what i'm talking about
 
Last edited:
No, my mistake...I should realize that some anonymous person online has all the answers and everybody else, including every single professor is full of shit (sarcasm of course). How stupid would I be if I just took your information and believed it fully without actually checking it out. If you actually read my post, it states that I questioned my professor extensively, which means that I didn't take everything he said at face value either.

It's too bad that you seem to be incapable of having a proper logical debate. It would be interesting to so.

Seriously, you just attack instead of discuss. Where's the logic in that?

Edit: Ok, I'm rereading your post and I'm seeing that you are saying that this professor is backing up your conspiracy. What is your point? Please bring up a proper debate, and someone's opinion without backing evidence is no more proof if they are a professor. Some of them are pretty crazy too and many have been known to be wrong, as well as to lie. As I said, I question everything and everyone and you have to provide some evidence for me to consider it, not just opinions.

My point is that the conspiracy theorists are right that there is a conspiracy going on

And that they are not crazy as the above people would suggest

In fact you'd have to be crazy not to be talking about it
 
Last edited:
[h=1]Professor Norman Finkelstein: "Zionism for most people is a hairspray, a cologne"[/h]
[video=youtube;jquFBluif6M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jquFBluif6M[/video]
 
[h=1]8 clues your friend is becoming a crazy conspiracy theorist[/h]
SHARE
15.1k

138

0

3

26




smallWorld_conspiracies_pyramid-1024x588.jpg




In Entertainment by Robyn Pennacchia / May 7, 2013Follow: @robynelyse

It’s happened to all of us. Some friend we had in elementary school or from an old job is all of a sudden making super weird comments on Facebook, or you’re in a bar and some random is trying to talk to you about fluoride for some reason. It’s not always immediately clear. Like, I realized one day that people saying crazy things were always following it up with “Do your own research!” and then finally discovered that it was sort of a “buzzphrase” for conspiracy theorists.
So, I thought I’d compile a list of the ways to know that someone in your life is starting to head down to tin foil hat alley.
1. Says insane thing (probably about chemtrails), and if you dispute, insists that you “Do your own research!”
This is one of the earliest signs of this type of crazy- and it’s also a major Glenn Beck-ism. I don’t know about you, but when I state a fact, I’m usually able to explain that fact. Especially if it’s something that may be controversial.
For instance, I do not so much believe that Joan Crawford beat her children. This is a thing that most people believe, because of the movie “Mommie Dearest”– however, when asked to explain, I don’t yell “Do your own research!” at people, I explain that all of the other children (save for Christopher) have refuted Christina’s book, as well as Crawford’s actual personal assistant, and Myrna Loy, and pretty much anyone else who was around during that time. I’m not saying I’m 100% definitely correct on this, but I err on the side of “probably not.”
Still, I don’t throw out something weird, get mad at people for not immediately taking me at my word, and then yell at them to do their own research. I mean, if they want to, that’s fine, but I’m usually quite able to support my arguments.
2. Freaking Flouride
UGH. These people and their fluoride. They love to make up crap about how the government puts fluoride in the water to keep us dumb and rebellion-resistant, like no one has ever seen “Dr. Strangelove” before or something. This is usually what they start with, probably because it sounds slightly more realistic than like, Lizard People.
It is not, however, true. At all. And yes, I’ve “done my research.” But don’t tell that to these people, especially if they are drunk at a bar, because they will, in fact, start screaming at you about it. Fluoride and the “vaccinations cause autism” thing are like the gateway drugs into tin-foil hat land.
3. Rejecting the tyranny of paragraph breaks
I swear to god, this is a thing. Whenever I see a comment that’s just a giant block of text with no breaks in it, I immediately just go “Welp, this one’s gonna be crazy” and I am pretty much always right. I don’t know why this is a thing, it just is.
4. When a person who you already kinda know isn’t too swift starts trying to pretend that they are some kind of intellectual who is totally going to school you on “how things are in the world.”
I hate to say this, but it’s true. It’s always the dumb ones. I feel bad, because like, they’re usually just coming across this stuff for the first time and it istotally blowing their minds. Like, I already know that some people think that the Rothschilds control the world and that there are Mason things on the dollar bill and also THE MOON LANDING WAS FAKED or whatever. I’ve known for years, and I’ve already figured out that it’s all bullshit.
The more you read about history, the more you realize that people are so not getting it together to form a whole “New World Order” anytime soon. While there have been “conspiracy” type things throughout history (MKUltra, Tuskeegee, Project Paperclip, the COINTELPRO that actually existed and not the one people pretend still exists), they have been discovered fairly quickly. Because someone always has a big mouth.
5. They use the term term Big Pharma (or Big Anything) in all seriousness
There are about a 1000 problems with the pharmaceutical industry, for sure. However, when your friend is talking about “Big Pharma” they are not usually talking so much about overpriced cancer medication as they are like, vaccines causing autism and things like that. Also, sane people, when discussing the problems with the pharmaceutical industry just do not say things like “Big Pharma” because they like being taken seriously.
6. “Wake up, Sheeple!”
Being awake or being asleep is like, tin-foil hat code for being hep to all kinds of nonsense. Which is why on those weird personal ads for Infowars everyone was like “I’ve been awake for 4 months” and things. Sheeple is what they call people who do not go along with them.
See, usually, these people are kind of “new.” Like, they think that the information they are about to rock you with is A) Nothing you have ever heard before or B) Something you are going to buy wholesale, immediately, because their “evidence” is so vastly compelling. If you do not believe them, you are obviously a sheep of a person.
7. You lose!
Um, just some weird thing that they always seem to say when they think they’ve trumped your logic. Because they are very mature.
8. They say things about ZOG or “Zionist Occupied Government” or “The Rothschilds are controlling the world!” without understanding that that shit is pretty anti-Semitic
I have actually had to explain, on several occasions that, yes, the term “ZOG” is an anti-Semitic “the Jews are controlling the government!” thing. And also like, a Randy Weaver/ Ruby Ridge thing. I imagine they just hear the term a bunch around the Infowars type sites and think is a real thing? I don’t know. Like I said, not the swiftest bunch of humans.
At this point, however, it is probably best to start avoiding these people. Not much you can do to help. Next step after this is Lizard People, and I’m not sure there’s much hope after that.



http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/198326/8-clues-your-friend-is-becoming-a-crazy-conspiracy-theorist/
 
POLITICS
Elections, Media, Obama, Top Stories

[h=1]Chart: Almost Every Obama Conspiracy Theory Ever[/h]
[h=3]Fake birth certificates, ghostwriters, teleprompters, a teenage trip to Mars, and more of the most paranoid and bizarro Obama conspiracy theories out there.[/h]By Asawin Suebsaeng and Dave Gilson / Illustrations by Steve Brodner




Barack Obama's presidency has been an inspiration to many Americans—especially nutjobs. Ever since the first-black-president-to-be appeared on the national political stage, a cottage industry of conservative conspiracy theorists has churned out bizarro, paranoid, and just plain racist effluvia—some of which has trickled into the political mainstream. Below, we've charted some of the Obama-baiters best (i.e., worst) work. (Scroll down for more detailed descriptions of the conspiracy theories in the diagram.)
mojo-obama-conspiracy.png

[h=3]THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES[/h]Disclaimer: It should go without saying that none of these are true. Follow links at your own risk.
Obama is a secret Muslim: This one began right after he took the stage at the 2004 Democratic convention, with chain emails alleging his "true" religious affiliation. The rumor soon found its way onto the popular conservative online forum Free Republic, and took on a whole new life in the years to come. Related: Obama secretly speaks Arabic, attended a madrassa as a kid in Indonesia, referred to "my Muslim faith" in an interview, and was sworn in on a Koran.
muslimt.jpg
Steve Brodner

Obama is bringing 100 million Muslims to America: Avi Lipkin and his PR outfit Special Guests claimed to have evidence of a scheme to bring roughly 100 million Muslims from the Middle East into the United States, converting the country into an Islamic nation by the end of Obama's second term and making it easier to obliterate Israel.
Obama once aided the mujahideen: Harlem pastor and professional race-baiter James David Manning contended that in his younger days, Obama went undercover as a CIA agent to facilitate the transfer of cash and weapons to the Afghan mujahideen in the '80s, thereby aiding what would become the Taliban.
Obama is in the pocket of the Muslim Brotherhood: Billy Graham's son Franklin wants you to know that Obama is allowing the Muslim Brotherhood to take over the federal government.
Obama redecorated the Oval Office in Middle Eastern style: Driven by his fierce sense ofanti-American interior design, Obama got rid of the red, white, and blue decoration scheme in his White House office.
Obama married a Pakistani guy: World Net Daily correspondent and conspiracymonger extraordinaire Jerome Corsi posted avideoin which he claimed to have "strong" evidence that Obama was once married to his college roommate from Pakistan. The smoking gun: Photos of the chums in which the future president is "sitting about on the [Pakistani roommate's] lap." Related:For years Obama wore a gold ring on his left hand. Was it his gay-wedding ring?
Obama's ring has a Koranic verse on it: The very same ring, which Obama now wears as his (straight) wedding band, is allegedly emblazoned with a key phrase in the Islamic declaration of faith: "There is no god except Allah." (It's not.)
Obama was funded by a Saudi prince: Another fairy tale courtesy of Corsi: In late-'70s Chicago, Obama secured political and academic funding from a variety of sketchy Arab sponsors, including a Saudi prince. Which may explain why President Obama bowed to the Saudi king when they met in 2009.
Obama was born in Kenya: In early 2008, fringe theorists began a push to prove Obama was born on foreign soil and was therefore ineligible to live in the White House. The theory gained national attention thanks to the efforts of perennial GOP candidate Alan Keyes, "birther queen" Orly Taitz, and Corsi. Related: Obama's birth certificate is a fake, he killed his grandmother in Hawaii because she knew the truth, sealed access to his birth certificate and other damning documents, and did pretty much everything horrible you could possibly do for the sake of a phony birth certificate.
Obama lost his US citizenship: According to Corsi, Obama became a citizen of Indonesia while he lived there as a child.
kenyan.jpg
Steve Brodner
Michelle's "whitey" tape: During the 2008 campaign, rumors surfaced that a video of Michelle Obama using the word "whitey" would be released to sink her husband's campaign. It's never materialized. Related: The time Glenn Beck called Barack Obama a racist.
Obama was a Black Panther: Well, only if you're not very good at spottingphotoshopped images.
Obama is the son of Malcolm X: Because, you know, black people. This charmer popped up on Atlas Shrugged, Pamela Geller's anti-Muslim website. (Geller is also known for obsessing over Shariah turkeys she believes are destroying Thanksgiving.)
Obama is the son of Frank Marshall Davis: The conspiracy film Dreams From My Real Father espouses the theory that Davis, a leftist activist, was not only Obama's ideological mentor but his biological father. Related: Obama got a nose jobto make his nose look less like Davis'.
Obama's mom and dad were communists: That would be his real father, Barack Obama, Sr. And you know thatcommunism is an inherited condition.
Obama's ghostwriter was Bill Ayers: Conservative commentators claimed they uncovered evidence that ex-Weatherman Bill Ayers was the true author of Obama's 1995 memoir Dreams from my Father. Beyond their shared radicalism, Obama asked Ayers to help because he had writer's block.
Obama trained to overthrow the government: In 2008, leading Obama conspiracy theorist Andy Martin declared on Fox News' Hannity's America that the then-presidential candidate had trained for "a radical overthrow of the government" during his time as a community organizer in Chicago.
Obama wouldn't say the Pledge of Allegiance: During the '08 campaign, Obama was rumored to have refused to say the pledge during a town hall meeting. A photo of the incident was actually taken while the national anthem was being sung.
Obama removed the flag from Air Force One: …and replaced it with his campaign logo.
Obama ordered soldiers to swear allegiance to him: In April 2009, a clearly satirical report detailing how secretary of defense Robert Gates was growing "extremely frustrated" with the White House's plans to scrub the Constitution from the military oath of loyalty made the rounds on the right-wing blogosphere.
Obama secretly gave away American islands to Russia: Texas House candidate Wes Riddle endorsed this theory and noted the relinquishment as grounds for impeachment. However, the seven Arctic islands were actually given away in 1991 by President George H.W. Bush.
castro.jpg
Steve Brodner
Obama caused the recession—in 1995: According to a recent Daily Caller story, Obama's efforts to force banks to lend to African Americans in the mid-'90s led to the subprime mortgage crisis that killed the economy in 2008.
Obama's youth reeducation camps: Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) warned that "young people will be put into mandatory service" at politically correct, billion-dollar camps run by the Democrats.
Obama's coming for your guns: Extreme gun-rights outfits, along with Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), alleged that the Obama administration is supporting the (nonexistent) United Nations Small Arms Treaty, which would lead to nationwide gun confiscation. Unfounded fears of gun confiscation have multiplied since the Newtown massacre.
Obama's coming for your gold: This theory was floated by Glenn Beck—and the gold company he shilled for.
Obama is planning FEMA concentration camps: Again with the camps. This theory got a big boost from Glenn Beck (whoclaims he didn't mean anything by it). Related: An executive order titled, "National Defense Resources Preparedness," was issued in the middle of March 2012. Conservative commentators saw it as a martial law power-grab that allowed the president to commandeer farmland, steal everyone's food, and draft any American into slave labor for a war of aggression against Iran. Also, he has a "secret vault" at Interpol's headquarters for imprisoning Americans. (Chuck Norris is on the case.)
Obama wants to confiscate your IRA: Townhall.com sent out an message ad claiming that Obama wants to seize your retirement account by force.
Obama caused the BP oil spill: Conspiracy-minded radio host Alex Jones promoted the theory that the Deepwater Horizon spill was all part of the administration's plans of oil nationalization and global government.
Obama was behind the Aurora massacre: In July, Gun Owners of America blasted out a press release claiming that the mass murder at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, was suspiciously timed. "Someone in Washington" was probably behind it, paving the way for Obama-led firearm confiscation and "government genocide."
Obama personally caused Hurricane Sandy: It wasn’t global warming that made Sandy so intense; it was Barack. Alex Jones' site reported the president engineered the storm using a Pentagon weather modification project. The mayhem caused by the hurricane would afford Obama the opportunity to score points by briskly managing disaster relief a week before the election.
Obama had Andrew Breitbart killed: In March 2012, conservative media impresario Andrew Breitbart died of heart failure. Less than a month prior to his death, he had announced that he had uncovered footage of Obama's formative years as a radical. So obviously, Obama had him offed. (The tapes were later revealed to contain things like a young Obama hugging a black college professor.) Related: People—like a Rod Blagojevich fundraiser and an Obama impersonator—died between 2008 and 2012. Obama was in office between 2008 and 2012…coincidence?!?!
hypnotist.jpg
Steve Brodner
Obama spiked the jobs report: "Jobs truthers" (like former GE CEO Jack Welch and Florida tea party congressman Allen West) accused the Obama administration of cooking the September unemployment numbers to manufacture a rosier picture of the economy and boost the president's chances of reelection.
Obama faked bin Laden's death: Since no photographs of Osama bin Laden's corpse were produced, the Al Qaeda leader must still be out there. Fox News' Steve Doocy and Andrew Napolitano entertained the idea that Operation Neptune Spear was merely a ploy to revive Obama's sagging approval ratings. Related: Obama was photoshopped into the iconic killing-OBL White House photo.
Obama's plan to fake an assassination attempt: A false-flag operation would create urban tumult and give Obama the pretext to declare martial law, thus suspending democracy, postponing the 2012 election, and prolonging his stay in office. The theory was flagged by Tenn. State Rep. Kelly Keisling, among others, after circulating online.
Obama's planning a third term: The dust from the 2012 election had barely cleared when this one popped up.
Obama the brainwashing hypnotist: As a master of neurolinguistic programming, Obama convinced Americans to vote for him via subliminal messages. Related: Rush Limbaugh pondered if hypnosis was the reason that so many Jewish voters were in the bag for Obama. In October, Georgia GOP lawmakers held a briefing on the president's secret mind-control plot.
Obama's teleprompter: Obama's eloquence is a myth! The 44th president is incapable of speaking in public with his teleprompter.
Obama had a ghostwriter for everything: Jack Cashill over at WND had a hot scoop on how Obama's love letters to his college girlfriend were ghostwritten.
Obama's anti-Semitic poetry: However, according to the American Thinker, Obama's ghostwriters did not write his youthful poem "Underground," which compares Jews to fig-eating underwater apes and echoes Koranic verse.
Obama's exiled lover: Obama was supposedly fooling around with an attractive young staffer from his 2004 Senate campaign. Michelle Obama had the temptress packed off to the Caribbean before the '08 campaign.
Obama is gay: Which explains why he joined Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church. No, really. (Via Corsi, of course.)
Obama's crack cocaine/gay sex/murder orgy cover-up: In 2008, a small-time conman named Larry Sinclair and his kilt-wearing lawyer held a press conference to tell the world of the future president's murderous, drug-and-sodomy-fueled crimes.
Obama's campaigns were funded by drug money: During an October conference call organized to oppose pot legalization, a writer from Lyndon LaRouche's magazine asked about "reports [that both Obama's] 2008 and 2012 presidential campaigns have been financed in part by laundered drug money."
Obama is the Antichrist: Obviously. Related: If you play his 2008 Democratic nomination acceptance speech backwards, you can hear him instruct listeners to do Satan's bidding.
komodo.jpg
Steve Brodner
Obama is a lizard overlord: According to codes hidden in Biblical verse, Obama is a reptilian humanoid. This idea has found its way on to some right-wing radio shows, and twoDaily Caller reporters recently published a (satirical?) e-book on the topic titled, The Lizard King: The Shocking Inside Account of Obama's True Intergalactic Ambitions by an Anonymous White House Staffer.
Obama's adventures on Mars: As a teen, Obama participated in a CIA initiative to teleport to Mars using a top-secret "jump room." Self-described time travelers William Stillings and Andrew Basiago claim to have met the future POTUS at American space bases on the Red Planet. In early 2012, a spokesman for the National Security Council actually acknowledged these claims, and issued a fairly convincing denial.
This article has been revised and updated.





http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/chart-obama-conspiracy-theories
 
Have you got any facts?

Or just pro-government propaganda?

Have you watched the video clip i posted of professor Barret speaking?

You won't watch them will you?

lol

There is in fact no point even speaking to you is there stu

When are you going to get your flu shot by the way?
 
Interview With the Authors of American Conspiracy Theories

Posted: 12/08/2014 8:04 pm EST Updated: 02/07/2015



  • Comment
What, exactly, is a conspiracy theory? How do you define the term?
I have to admit I had never really given these questions much thought before. Conspiracy theories seem to be almost self-evident, usually through the context in which they are presented. If you read something written by a serious believer, it's pretty obvious. If you see conspiracy theorists portrayed in a movie or television show, once again it's usually obvious -- even when they're not literally wearing tin-foil hats. But when studying the history of conspiracy theorizing, coming up with a clear definition of the term is an absolutely necessity, since it will dictate which data are included and which are omitted in the study.
When reading the new book American Conspiracy Theories (Oxford University Press), and while interviewing its two authors, I found myself returning again and again to my own personal definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory. If any given conspiracy theory is later proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be true, would you still call it a conspiracy theory -- either before or after the actual conspiracy has been shown to exist?
The authors of American Conspiracy Theories are Joseph E. Uscinski and Joseph M. Parent, both political science professors at the University of Miami. They devote the initial chapters of the book to explaining their own definition of what constitutes a conspiracy theory for the purposes of their study and then present a historical overview of American conspiracy theorizing for roughly the past century. The three sources they used to compile their data are interesting: They fielded a survey in an attempt to understand conspiratorial thinking (and who is affected by it), they studied a very recent slice of conspiracy theories posted on the Internet to see the current state of such theorizing, and they conducted an exhaustive search of over 120 years of printed letters to the editor of The New York Times. This last source is particularly brilliant, because it reveals the extent of conspiracy theories all the way back to the 1890s (a decade that was, incidentally, a hotbed of conspiratorial theorizing).
The book is not a history of American conspiracy theories, however. It doesn't purport to be an encyclopedia of the past 12 decades, listing which theories appeared when. Instead it is an academic attempt to seek out the relative prevalence of such conspiracy theories in American life, and to explain which types of people are drawn to such ideas. The book does present many fascinating examples from history, and the writing itself is amusing and lighthearted at times. (It would probably be impossible to write about conspiracy theories without occasionally noting how ridiculous some of them are, especially when seen through a historical lens.)
Of course, when defining conspiracy theories, there is always an element of bias, whether political or personal. The authors do footnote their own possible biases thus:
This study was written by two unmarried, 30-something, overeducated white males. Uscinski advises the local College Republican and Libertarian groups and Parent interned for Democratic politicians, but neither identifies with either major party or votes consistently for one.
Writing about conspiracy theories from the 1890s or 1930s is relatively easy and safe to do, but the closer the timeline gets to the present, the more delicate it becomes.I fully admit that when conducting the following interview (via email) with the two authors, I had my own set of biases. While reading the book and taking notes in preparation for the interview, I focused on certain subjects, while a reviewer with a different political viewpoint might have focused on entirely different items.
But I did enjoy the book, as I am somewhat of a conspiracy-theory dilettante -- I enjoy a good conspiracy theory (from the right, left, or outer space) mostly for the entertainment value it brings. Thinking "what if..." and suspending disbelief is enjoyable in the same way watching a scary movie is: It gets the blood pumping and the adrenaline flowing and allows for a certain amount of escapism from reality.
Overall, though, the deepest thing I took away from reading American Conspiracy Theories was how hard it is to actually define the term. Especially while conducting the interview, I was forced to reexamine and redefine what I would personally qualify as a conspiracy theory. In other words, the book made me think -- especially about my own biases and perceptions. From me, that's a pretty strong recommendation for any book. I would definitely recommend the book to anyone interested not so much in conspiracy theories as entertainment but in why people believe in them and why the fact of who does so doesn't change much over time -- or in any sort of partisan fashion.
(Note: The following interview has been edited for length. Preceding each answer is the name(s) of who is actually answering the question.)
You rely on three sets of data in your book: letters to The New York Timesover approximately the past century, a one-year slice of the Internet from more modern times, and a recent opinion survey about people's attitudes towards conspiracy theories. Given the extensive time period for the letters to the editor, why did you so severely limit the time period for the Internet data? One year doesn't seem like enough time to accurately measure modern public attitudes. It seems that, at a minimum, you should have chosen one year during a Democrat's presidency and one year during a Republican's (Obama and George W. Bush, obviously, since the Internet was in its infancy in Clinton's time and didn't really previously exist), especially considering the conclusions you draw about partisanship later in the book.
Uscinski: The Internet data weren't used to measure public opinion in the way that the survey data or letters to the editor were; they were intended to measure the online information environment. A common claim about conspiracy theories is that the Internet is an echo chamber that amplifies them. To find out, we compared a measure of Internet usage over time to our letters to the editor data and show that the introduction of the Internet does not affect the level of conspiracy talk in the letters. If the Internet really drove conspiracy talk, we would have expected lots more letters to discuss conspiracy theories, but we don't find that. The second way we tested this claim is with the Internet news data. Using Google's news alert function, we gathered all the stories each day over the course of a year that contained the term "conspiracy theory." We then coded these stories to see how conspiracy theories were treated. About 70 percent of the stories -- from all sorts of news outlets and blogs -- treated conspiracy theories very negatively. This is strong evidence that the Internet does not really drive conspiratorial thinking -- instead, the Internet, and the media more generally, seem rather anti-conspiracy-theory.
I've kept the Google Alert running, so in a few years (assuming a Republican wins in 2016) I will have data as you suggest. Unfortunately, I didn't start the Google Alert until 2012, and you can't really go back in time with it.
On a separate note, one thing that we do as a robustness check to our letters-to-the-editor data is to look at Google Trends. (This is not in the book but is discussed here.) Google Trends allowed us to examine people's Internet search patterns over time since 2004. What we found was that people searched the Internet for conspiracy theories that implicated Republicans during the George W. Bush administration, and for conspiracy theories that implicated Democrats during the Obama administration. We also found that geography was associated with Internet searches: Blue states searched for conspiracy theories that implicated Republicans, while red states searched for conspiracy theories that implicated Democrats.
While looking at letters to the editor of The New York Times is indeed an inspired method of measuring public opinion about contemporaneous conspiracy theories, your book never really addresses the human element of the editors of such letters. To put this another way, doesn't the possibility exist that any given conspiracy theorist's letter was printed in the Times not because the theory itself was particularly valid or widespread among the public at large but because of the entertainment value of the letter? If the editor had a couple of column inches to fill and decided to use a highly amusing (and well-written) letter about aliens from Pluto taking over the government, does that really say anything valid about the public's attitude towards such an idea? Or could it just be that the editor wanted to give the readers a good belly laugh?
Parent and Uscinski: We sure hope that the editors (and readers) of The New York Times have a sense of humor, and we don't doubt that sometimes that makes its way into published letters. Still, senses of humor -- and the need for laughs -- are constants, but the level and types of conspiracy letters published varies over time. If this was more about entertainment than reflecting public preferences, conspiracy theories would appear regularly or randomly. They don't. Instead, the letters are published in predictable patterns that follow changes in political power. Sadly, almost all the conspiracy-theory letters we came across were not that funny, and the ones that were funny were not conspiratorial.
That's an interesting distinction. Were obviously "funny" -- that is, obviously printed for amusement value -- letters not counted in your data? How did you handle such letters? Would the aliens-from-Pluto letter have qualified?
Uscinski: We didn't remove any letters because we thought they were funny. If they fit our definition, they were included. We did find some letters that we thought were bizarre: letters about Bigfoot and letters about leaders from other planets. But those letters indicated paranormal beliefs and not conspiratorial beliefs. Therefore they were not included.
I had never considered it much before reading your book, but it seems to me that one of the biggest questions in studying the subject is how you determine what exactly to call a "conspiracy theory" and what to ignore. In particular, if a conspiracy theory later is proven to be true (or even mostly true), then how did you classify it? In the following list, which (if any) would you have counted as conspiracy-theory letters?
(a) A late-1960s letter to the editor of The New York Times that accused the FBI of infiltrating leftist and anti-war student groups and black power groups but was written before the revelations from the burglary of the Media, Pennsylvania, FBI office were made (proving such accusations to be true).
(b) A letter accusing the United States military of manufacturing the Tonkin Gulf incident to inflame public opinion, written before the people knew the facts (say, before the Pentagon Papers were released).
(c) A letter accusing Adolf Hitler of running extermination camps for Jews, written before such news had been widely confirmed.
In each case, at the time that they were written and published, these were nothing more than wide-eyed conspiracy theories. No proof backed them up. They were completely unsubstantiated, and they all sounded impossible to believe, but they were all later proven to have more truth behind them than conspiracy theory. So how did you handle such letters when determining whether they were conspiracy-theory letters worth counting in your data or not? Was later vindication of any conspiracy theory taken into account?
Parent and Uscinski: No. The line we drew on coding conspiracy theories was a pretty standard one: whether it was an explanation of a past, present, or future event that relied primarily on a small group, working in secret, against the common good, which ran counter to the consensus of impartial experts. All conspiracy theories could be true, and sometimes it turns out that they are.
But one of the things that we avoid doing in the work is assessing which conspiracy theories are true and which are false. For the purposes of the book, the truth or falsity of particular conspiracy theories is not what's most important. What we care about is how people are engaging in conspiratorial thought and actions, and the underlying reasons for doing so. Our survey data suggests that belief in conspiracy theories is driven in large part by predispositions, specifically a predisposition to view the world through a conspiratorial lens, but political, cultural, religious and other predispositions are also important. Two people could be given the same information about a conspiracy theory yet come to very different conclusions about it.
Suppose two Republicans, one with strong predispositions towards conspiratorial thinking and the other without strong conspiratorial predispositions, are given information about "Obama's faked birth certificate." The Republican who views the world through thick conspiratorial lenses will likely believe the evidence and become a "Birther." The Republican without strong conspiratorial predispositions will likely not buy into that same evidence. Just the same, Democrats, because of their partisan affiliation, will not view evidence purporting to show that Obama faked his birth certificate as credible, and they will therefore not subscribe to "Birther" theories. And for the Democrat, it doesn't matter how strong the Democrat's conspiratorial predispositions are; she would have little incentive to see a conspiracy. But in any case, it isn't so much the evidence that drives individual beliefs; it's predispositions.
Or imagine a person who believes in countless conspiracy theories. Some will eventually turn out to be at least partially true. Does this mean that the person is not a conspiracy theorist but just a correct thinker? Probably not; broken clocks are right twice a day. What matters is not so much that the person was right here or there but how they got there. If predispositions marry people to conclusion with little consideration of conventional logic and evidence, then being right or wrong is not what's at issue.
In Chapter 6 of your book, you attempt to measure conspiracy theories about foreign threats, and you break down your total 114-year timeline (1897 to 2010) into two groups: when America is at war (cold or hot) with great powers, and when America is not. However, your inclusion of the Cold War seems to unbalance the data, due to its length. From 1897 to 1938, America was at war for six years and not at war for the other 36 years. However, when you add World War II to the Cold War, this means America was at war (by your definition) from 1939 to 1991, a period of 53 uninterrupted years. Doesn't this make it a little hard to draw any definite conclusions about foreign conspiracy theories?
Parent and Uscinski: That's an interesting concern. The problem is we're hostages to theory and evidence. There are good theoretical reasons for thinking there was a correlation there, and empirically that turned out to be the case. On the theory side, hot wars and cold wars present real danger and threat. The Cold War could have ended in mass annihilation, just as World War II could have ended with a Nazi victory. These types of wars are clearly different from our incursions into Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. These countries posed minimal threat. No one was worried that any of these countries could rival American power, or that possession of these countries would seriously shift the distribution of power.
Further, the granular details support the theory. At the peak of Cold War tension, many of the letters were about foreign threat. As tensions eased, letters on foreign threat abated. Since the end of the Cold War, there's a lot less concern about foreign conspirators. In terms of hot and cold wars taking up half of our timeframe, that's actually a strength in the analysis. It gives us enough observations on which to draw meaningful conclusions.
Again and again in your modern examples, you present theories from the right that are largely unverifiable or unprovable, and then present examples from the left that are indeed verified by concrete facts, to somehow balance them. Perhaps this is my own bias talking, but this seems an awful lot like what the left accuses some journalists of: presenting a "false equivalence" between the two sides so as to not make the Republicans seem so bad.
Uscinski: So the left thinks the media does not make the right look bad enough, and the right thinks the media does not make the left look bad enough. Why should this shock anyone? Both sides think the other is "bad," and they both want the truth to be known. The reactions to our book follow a similar pattern: People on both sides are upset that we don't make the other side sound like a bunch of conspiracy nuts. Unfortunately for everyone, we have to side with the best available data, which shows Republicans and Democrats as equally conspiratorial.
Parent: We all have our biases, which is why it's so important to subject them to critical scrutiny. What evidence would change my views? We started with the least controversial definition of "conspiracy theory" and used the best methods we could to transparently collect data. When our results came back -- and they fit with Dan Kahan's at Yale, and Larry Bartels' at Vanderbilt, which find that partisans on both sides about equally good at assessing inconvenient facts -- they angered people on all sides. Paul Krugman dismissed us as "crazy centrists." But the attacks were basically anecdotal. Many people miss the forest because they prefer to see the cherry-picked tree.
There are good reasons why, of course. Righteousness is comforting and fortifying; it's also blinding and intolerant. There's an element of religious warfare to this. Note how such accusations galvanize one side while delegitimizing the other. Roughly half the population is fools or knaves. Republican elites are awesome snake charmers while Democrats are the people of sweet reasonableness (or vice versa). The fate of the country is in the balance. These are politically expedient arguments to make, but they are not scientifically supported. With the current evidence it would take some creative accounting to show that one party or the other has been systematically less susceptible to facts over long periods of time.
Since you have divergent political beliefs yourselves, I have to ask: Did each of you choose the examples from "your own side," or did you pick the examples for the opposition?
Parent: No, that never came up. Oddly enough though, we did disagree about which examples to use from the natural sciences once.
Uscinski: Having worked on the topic for five years, I have observed a few prevailing constants.
(1) The quality of evidence is subjective. This applies to conspiracy theories as well as to other ideas. Different people, given the same evidence, can come to very different conclusions. This is because individual's predispositions drive how they interpret evidence. People ignore evidence that contradicts their beliefs and focus instead on evidence that supports their beliefs.
(2) Partisans think the other side is conspiring. Over and over again, no matter how we slice it, data always shows that Democrats think Republicans are up to no good, and Republicans think Democrats are up to no good. People's political competitors tend to be the mustache-twirling string pullers.
(3) Both sides agree that conspiracy theories exist on their side but insist that they are confined to the fringe. In accusing the other side of being a bunch of conspiracy kooks, each side must admit that there are at least some conspiracy theories propagating on their own side. It would be hard for Republicans not to take responsibility for the majority of Birther beliefs, and hard for Democrats to not take responsibility for the majority of Truther beliefs. But both sides think those beliefs are confined to a small fringe. (They are not confined to a small fringe.)
(4) Both sides of the political divide think the other side is a bunch of conspiracy kooks. Each side thinks their own side is tied to facts and truth, while the other side is a bunch of science-rejecting conspiracy mongers. Republicans think this of Democrats, and Democrats think this of Republicans. Each side believes they came to their conclusions based on sound reasoning and unbiased evidence, but that the other side came to their conclusions through ignorance, manipulation, or willful denial. Our research, however, is unequivocal on this point: It shows that Republicans and Democrats are equally susceptible to conspiratorial thinking and hold conspiratorial beliefs about equally. Neither side is kookier than the other -- and we are sorry if this offends everyone's sensibilities.
(5) Everyone believes their conspiracy theories are conspiracy fact and not just conspiracy theory. People don't like to admit that they believe in conspiracy theories, partially because there is a negative connotation to it but also because people view their conspiracy theories as conspiracy fact. Why would someone believe in a conspiracy theory if they did not believe it was true? Instead, it's the other guy's conspiracy theories that are not true.
And finally I have to ask: Do the two of you have your own favorite conspiracy theories? Most outlandish, perhaps? Or most creative? After spending so much time digging through so many conspiracy theories, you must have a few that were personally memorable when you came across them for the first time.
.
 
OPICS: ALTERNET, CONSPIRACY THEORIES, GLENN BECK, BENGHAZI, CONSERVATISM, POLITICS NEWS
(Credit: Right Wing Watch)
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
The New York Times recently published what is arguably the most comprehensive examination of the events that took place leading up to the deaths of four Americans in Benghazi. The six-part, multimedia report is not only the most exhaustive account of the tragedy ever published by a major news organization, it is also completely apolitical. In other words, it revealed the truth. Yet right-wing conspiracy theorists refuse to believe it.
While the article hardly paints the administration in a positive light, it makes clear that right-wing, echo chamber-generated conspiracy theories have no basis in reality. Central to the right’s Benghazi narrative was the claim that President Obama, facing a fight for reelection, chose to lie and conceal the truth on Benghazi. In other words, the administration “knew” it was a carefully planned and orchestrated attack carried out by al-Qaeda, but instead chose to spin the story that it was a spontaneous protest carried out by a mob of Islamists, who were reacting to the release of anti-Muslim YouTube documentary.
The truth, however, punches holes in the GOP’s preferred version of what happened that day, and in doing so, yet another right-wing conspiracy unravels before our eyes:
“Months of investigation by The New York Times, centered on extensive interviews with Libyans in Benghazi who had direct knowledge of the attack there and its context, turned up no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault.
The attack was led, instead, by fighters who had benefited directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi. And contrary to claims by some members of Congress, it was fueled in large part by anger at an American-made video denigrating Islam.”
Benghazi now joins a laundry list of debunked right-wing conspiracies during the Obama presidency, taking its place alongside such faux-scandals as the IRS, Fast & Furious, and Obama’s birth certificate. But the GOP, having invested so much into Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi, has now taken to the airwaves to reassure its faithful that the NYT report is a conspiracy to help elect Hillary in 2016. Yes, a conspiracy wrapped in an enigma, inside another conspiracy.
When a conspiracy theory is debunked, its proponents are faced with one of three options: they can either accept reality and move on to the next fancy; they can look for additional evidence that supports their hypothesis; or they can reevaluate their conspiracy in the light of new information. For the evolution, science, climate-change deniers on the Right, they can, evidently, accept only a fourth option: that the NYT is part of an even grander Benghazi conspiracy theory.
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA), a member of the House Intelligence Committee, alluded to a “grander conspiracy” on Fox News when he said, “Of course, Secretary Clinton was in charge at the time, and you know there are just now a lot of rumors going and pushing about her running for president in 2016, so I think they are already laying the groundwork.” Rep Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, stood by claims that a group affiliated with al-Qaeda was involved in the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate.
Neither Issa nor Westmoreland has any evidence to support their claims.
Why do those on the Right revel in conspiratorial crap? Because the Republican Party’s base is the Christian Right. The evangelical base has latched onto every urban legend and bizarre Internet-generated memes because their worldview does not allow them to really understand how the world works. It’s healthy to be skeptical. A functioning mind demands evidence before formulating an opinion, which is why belief in religion infers the exact opposite. But evidence is the key word here. Conspiracy theories are not something to become emotionally unhinged and paranoid over, but the far right has become toxic over wild conspiracies, from same-sex marriage is an elaborate scheme to entrap men, to Planned Parenthood is trying to get kids hooked on sex. (Google those if you don’t believe me.)
Barry Beyerstein, a professor of psychology, says people are often unable to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. “People like to enchant themselves and this is classic mystery mongering,” he says. “People want there to be grand conspiracies and they want the world to be an ever mysterious place than it is and want more simplistic pat answers as to why they are not happy and why the world isn’t the wonderful place they think it should be. And that’s more satisfactory psychologically than the sort of thing that science and decent scholarship will say.”
Conspiracy theories make the uninformed think they’re in the know; that they know the “truth.” The truth, however, is they’re afraid. They’re afraid of what they don’t know. They’re afraid of dealing with a complex political and economic world they don’t understand. It’s why religion has thrived since the moment we became afraid of the dark, disease, earthquakes, and droughts. Humans have a proclivity for simple answers to complex problems. Religion and conspiracy theories make for a comfortable intellectual shortcut. A crackpot conspiracy theory gives the intellectually lazy not only a simple explanation but also someone to blame.
One article about conspiracy theories explains, “For those people who may be on the ‘losing’ side (politically, socially, economically) of society, believing in conspiracies is therapeutic. It allows them to explain why they are on the losing side (“we were robbed, lied to”), ease their hurt (“our opponents are too powerful and so evil, it’s no surprise we lost”) and then finally, restore their egos (“we know the truth, we are smarter than normal people, we are not sheep, we are special”).”
Public Policy Polling issued a couple of surveys on conspiracy theories earlier this year, which demonstrates how belief pretty much breaks down along partisan lines:

  • 34 percent of Republicans and 35 percent of Independents believe a global power elite is conspiring to create a New World Order—compared to just 15 percent of Democrats.

  • 58 percent of Republicans believe global warming is a hoax; 77 percent of Democrats do not.

  • 62 percent of Republicans and 38 percent of Independents believe the Obama administration is “secretly trying to take everyone’s guns away.” Only 14 percent of Democrats agree.

  • 42 percent of Republicans believe sharia law is making its way into U.S. courts, compared to just 12 percent of Democrats.

  • More than twice as many Republican voters (21 percent) as Democrats (9 percent) believe the government is using “false flag incidents” to consolidate its power.

  • 44 percent of Republicans and 21 percent of Independents believe that Obama is making plans to stay in office after his second term expires. Only 11 percent of Democrats agree.
Arthur Goldwag, author of The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right, writes, “America is becoming more multicultural, more gay-friendly and more feminist every day. But as every hunter knows, a wounded or cornered quarry is the most dangerous. Even as the white, patriarchal, Christian hegemony declines, its backlash politics become more vicious.”
The right-wing echo chamber becomes an endless positive feedback loop for the conspiracy theorist and the shrinking white Christian majority. It helps put paranoid thinkers in touch with like-minded individuals and groups. In ignoring every piece of evidence that points the other way to their warped sense of reality, these people can become dangerously nihilistic. Their language and beliefs become toxic, and that ultimately corrupts the political conversation in this country.


http://www.salon.com/2014/01/07/inside_the_right_wing_love_affair_with_conspiracy_theories_partner/