Why You Should Believe more Conspiracy Theories

[Revision]

According to what?

Chaim Weizmann, in a letter to Churchill, acknowledges that it was they who tipped the balance of power in the United States in favor of the Entente in World War I.

Yes, but it was in the context of the First World War and very likely just an opportunistic act. It doesn't prove that they had deep-seated hatred especially against the Germans.

[TlsMS93]

Yes, but it was in the context of the First World War and very likely just an opportunistic act. It doesn't prove that they had deep-seated hatred especially against the Germans.

Yes, if placing a powerful country against you, the result of which was territorial, population and commercial disintegration, is not profound hatred, imagine what profound hatred is, right?

[Revision]

Of course! All hitmen must have a burning hatred for their targets too! It can't be that they are just indifferent!

German Jews were also negatively affected by the First World War. Many German Jews lost their lives or the lives of their relatives. Many had their economic situation worsened.

"An estimated 100,000 German Jewish military personnel served in the German Army during World War I, of whom 12,000 were killed in action. The Iron Cross was awarded to 18,000 German Jews during the war."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_ ... orld_War_I

[Wahrheitssucher]

Many of the points Ryan makes mirror my own thoughts. The point about whistleblowers is a good one: "Someone would come forward."
People often do come forward but more often they get ignored, dismissed, smeared, or worse.

Here's another point I would make:
Governments (all institutions for that matter) have an incentive to lie/obscure the truth in instances where the truth would be embarrassing or conflicts with their interests (which is often). And governments/institutions have quite a bit of control over what information becomes available.

If you dismiss all conspiracy theories out of hand unless there is conclusive proof, you would likely be getting only the tip of the iceberg.
However, the problem is that if you try to guess about the hidden parts of the iceberg, things get very speculative. So what you end up with is a situation where "the truth" if it were known would be wildly "conspiratorial" yet at the same time most "conspiracy theories" may be wrong (even idiotic) because there are a lot of them and they are typically based on incomplete information.

What I find interesting is there are many explosive claims that actually do have quite a lot of evidence to support them. And you can even find this stuff in mainstream books. But it doesn't find itself into the mainstream conversation, or into school curricula, or into the mass media.

This goes back to the recent thread "Red-pilled by the mainstream." Scholarly texts (which few people read) can have some surprisingly explosive info.

I thought the above deserves a repeat…

[Wahrheitssucher]

…saying "conspiracy theories are almost always false" is a meaningless assertion since the definition of "conspiracy theory" is largely subjective and this is a term most often used for defamatory political purposes.

Setting the political definitions aside, the term "conspiracy" simply means "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful", and a "conspiracy theory" is simply any theory thereof.

Thus, when one says "conspiracy theories are almost always false", they are obviously not talking about every conceivable conspiracy theory; only of those which are known through political and social currents as being "conspiracy theories" — in other words, those which the establishment aims to discredit (and any other, especially ridiculous theories which they push into the same margin, to assist with that discreditation effort).

We are all the victims of a world-wide co-ordinated conspiracy to make us believe that doubting, questioning and critically investigating official narratives is something that only weirdoes, nutcases and ‘conspiracy theorists’ do.

As we all here at CODOH have discovered, one of the biggest conspiracy theories ever — in all of recorded history — is the jewish, holocaust ‘mass-gassing’ narrative.

EXAMPLE ONE:
If you believe that the wicked Nazties ‘conspired’ together to exterminate all jews on the planet and actually managed to succeed with about half of them, while miraculously leaving no trace of the crime OR their victims, then YOU believe a theory of conspiracy.

Whereas if you believe it non-credible to claim that anyone could mass-murder approx 6 million people by means that involve physically impossible details which left no trace of any mass-murder, and consequently you believe that the claim is a jewish and/or Allied psy-op narrative, then YOU also believe a theory of conspiracy.

EXAMPLE TWO:
The 911 mythology is another example of the same double-whammy: viz. whether you favour ‘terryrists in caves in Afghanistan’ or ’mossad orchestration’ or ‘inside job’, each alternative is a conspiracy theory.

CONCLUSION:
We all ALREADY believe certain conspiracy theories.

Q. Should we believe more?
A. No! We shouldn’t believe ANYTHING without critical analysis. And wherever we don’t have the interest, inclination or time to make critical analysis we should acknowledge our ignorance and not form inflexible opinions.

EXAMPLE THREE
Here’s a ’theory’ of ‘conspiracy’ which in the last decade has been almost excusively proven to be accurate. Yet it is one that jewish organisations are still working hard to discredit and to argue is an example of ‘anti-septicism’ + a ‘hateful conspiracy to misinform about poor jews’.

You decide:

In 1913 Georgia, a 13-year-old pencil company worker named Mary Phagan was last seen alive visiting the office of factory manager Leo Frank on a Saturday morning to collect her weekly paycheck. Her raped and murdered body was found in the basement early the next morning and Frank was eventually arrested for the crime.
As the wealthy young president of the Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith, Frank ranked as one of the most prominent Jewish men in the South, and great resources were deployed in his legal defence. But after the longest and most expensive trial in state history, he was quickly convicted and sentenced to death.

The facts of the case against Frank eventually became a remarkable tangle of complex and often conflicting evidence and eyewitness testimony, with sworn statements regularly being retracted and then counter-retracted. But the crucial point that the NOI authors emphasize for properly deciphering this confusing situation is the enormous scale of the financial resources that were deployed on Frank’s behalf, both prior to the trial and afterward, with virtually all of the funds coming from Jewish sources. Currency conversions are hardly precise, but relative to the American family incomes of the time, the total expenditures by Frank supporters may have been as high as $25 million in present-day dollars, quite possibly more than any other homicide defense in American history before or after, and an almost unimaginable sum for the impoverished Deep South of that period. Years later, a leading donor privately admitted that much of this money was spent on perjury and similar falsifications, something which is very readily apparent to anyone who closely studies the case. When we consider this vast ocean of pro-Frank funding and the sordid means for which it was often deployed, the details of the case become far less mysterious. There exists a mountain of demonstrably fabricated evidence and false testimony in favor of Frank, and no sign of anything similar on the other side.
https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravd ... alsehoods/

If after reading the above, you still believe no-one — let alone wealthy and powerful jews — ‘conspires’ to misinform, therefore we should NEVER question, doubt or investigate any well-publicised or officialised story, then you are a gullible fool.

[Revision]

Our view does not essentially need any grand conspiracy theory, unlike the mainstream one. Without a grand conspiracy theory their view is simply impossible.

The scale of the conspiracy is also important: is it a conspiracy between just a few people or a conspiracy that involves for example tens of thousands of people. The 9/11 "truthers" often believe that even the New York City Fire Department and the BBC was in on the conspiracy.

...consequently you believe that the claim is a jewish and/or Allied psy-op narrative, then YOU also believe a theory of conspiracy.

It does not essentially need to be some previously planned psychological operation lie. The most important revisionist today, Germar Rudolf, does not think it is.

[Revision]

Some interesting information:

"We conducted two studies (Study 1, N = 86; Study 2, N = 252), in which we found that critical thinking ability—measured by an open‐ended test emphasizing several areas of critical thinking ability in the context of argumentation—is negatively associated with belief in conspiracy theories."

Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: High conspiracy belief is associated with low critical thinking ability: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-10680-001

"Black and hispanic respondents were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than were white respondents."

Belief in Conspiracy Theories: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3791630?ma ... y-theories

"The new findings, though preliminary and limited by being based in a single European country, suggest in fact it is minorities who are more likely to endorse conspiracy-based explanations."

Dutch study finds minorities are more prone to belief in conspiracies: https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/ ... nspiracies

“Conspiracy theories are for losers”
“People who are on the outside, people who lost, people who lack control, tend to believe in conspiracy theories.”

Losers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, study finds: https://www.psypost.org/losers-likely-b ... udy-finds/

[Callafangers]

Some interesting information:

"We conducted two studies (Study 1, N = 86; Study 2, N = 252), in which we found that critical thinking ability—measured by an open‐ended test emphasizing several areas of critical thinking ability in the context of argumentation—is negatively associated with belief in conspiracy theories."

Maybe a free thinker but not a critical one: High conspiracy belief is associated with low critical thinking ability: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-10680-001

"Black and hispanic respondents were more likely to believe in conspiracy theories than were white respondents."

Belief in Conspiracy Theories: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3791630?ma ... y-theories

"The new findings, though preliminary and limited by being based in a single European country, suggest in fact it is minorities who are more likely to endorse conspiracy-based explanations."

Dutch study finds minorities are more prone to belief in conspiracies: https://www.bps.org.uk/research-digest/ ... nspiracies

“Conspiracy theories are for losers”
“People who are on the outside, people who lost, people who lack control, tend to believe in conspiracy theories.”

Losers are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories, study finds: https://www.psypost.org/losers-likely-b ... udy-finds/

The above runs into the same exact problem as already discussed, here:

...saying "conspiracy theories are almost always false" is a meaningless assertion since the definition of "conspiracy theory" is largely subjective and this is a term most often used for defamatory political purposes. Setting the political definitions aside, the term "conspiracy" simply means "a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful", and a "conspiracy theory" is simply any theory thereof. Thus, when one says "conspiracy theories are almost always false", they are obviously not talking about every conceivable conspiracy theory; only of those which are known through political and social currents as being "conspiracy theories" -- in other words, those which the establishment aims to discredit (and any other, especially ridiculous theories which they push into the same margin, to assist with that discreditation effort). There is a reason people often accuse someone of believing "flat earth theory" or a "moon landing hoax", if that person points out Israel's motive/means/opportunity in any given controversial crime or event.

Making blanket assertions about "conspiracy theories" exposes the ignorance of the person making them. Believing Jewish organizations are subverting historical narratives and Western institutions is not the same as believing in Bigfoot or that the moon is made of cheese because Earth is flat.

[Nazgul]

Making blanket assertions about "conspiracy theories" exposes the ignorance of the person making them. Believing Jewish organizations are subverting historical narratives and Western institutions is not the same as believing in Bigfoot or that the moon is made of cheese because Earth is flat.

We seek clarity, not confirmation. We do not accept the narratives of those with vested interest — for truth is greater than propaganda.