I consider every possibility. Even when I don’t happen to agree, I never say the mere suggestion of a said conspiracy is stupid, or that whoever believes in that specific conspiracy is pure tee stupid. You can be wrong and still not be stupid wrong. Considering all the previous documented conspiracies I just named, everyone should have their guard up about future possible conspiracies.
It’s Okay to Ask Questions
Whenever I don’t agree with a given conspiracy, my argument is never “That ain’t what they said on CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, ABC News, XYZ news, 123 news, or whatever future news media channel is invented, owned, and controlled by the government and corporations.” I also won’t argue “Our government, medical establishment, or other elite institution wouldn’t do that to us.” Because I know not only will they do that to us, they have done that to us. My argument against any given conspiracy will be based on reasons related to the specific info not adding up. But I will still add that the theory is not far-fetched, you are not stupid for suggesting that, and you have a good rational basis for believing that because I know how the elites get down.
A problem I see with some thought processes whenever a new “breaking news” story hits the news is that people feel they have to have a hard-lined speculating stance believing in 100% one way – either for foul play conspiracy and ruling out the possibility of random happenstance, or vice versa. We’ve been taught to stand on our square and pick a side and totally rule out the possibility of the opposite alternative theory of a specific story before all the facts are revealed either by a future whistleblower of the conspiracy, unclassified documents revealing the conspiracy, or the news giving the “our bad, we got it wrong” recanting news story 30 years later. This isn’t standing firmly on your square. This is an unhealthy display of mental rigidness.
Leave open the possibility of either/or. You get no reward for being right other then being able to say, “I told your dumb ass.” You also get no punishment for being wrong, other than having your egotistical, debating loved one calling you a dumb ass for being wrong.
Left or Right?
It’s always good to believe a more-than-likely chance of it being left, but not being surprised if it’s right – even to the point of thinking in percentages of both opposing truths. It’s a 70% chance of it being left – meaning I’m almost 100% sure it is left. But then again, I wouldn’t be surprised at the 30% chance of it being the opposite at right – or 80/20, 85/15, 90/10, and even 60/40 or 50/50. You just have to keep your mind open to different suspicion-based opinions in the midst of the mass confusion existing in the western hemisphere.
And also, just be patient with the TV news story-theorists who go “Hell no. It’s 100% right like they said in the news and not a chance in hell of the opposite of left. It’s cut and dry so stop all that conspiracy talk.” Also, be patient with the overly-emotional, jump-the-gun, conspiracy realist who says it’s 100% left and no chance of being right – “It’s a conspiracy. It’s left and not right. The media lying like hell!” You wouldn’t need as much patience with their flawed tendency of thinking in exacts though, because you know their thinking in exacts of belief in the conspiracy is at least based on reality based on prior proven lies and conspiracies. At least they have their guards up with healthy and justifiable paranoia. They just need to stop believing prematurely before the facts unfold and to stop thinking in exacts.
Speculating on Possible Conspiracies
Here’s an example of me speculating on a possible conspiracy theory. I used to think there was an 80% chance that the news media is controlled by elite forces and a 20% chance that it’s an independent entity designed to report objective journalism. Whenever I watched the news I just intuitively felt I was being gamed and trolled and not informed. They’re gaming me – or trying to anyway – into subjectively thinking a certain way, and trolling me into having a certain emotional reaction. Be it race-baiting, fear-mongering, trying to induce panic by hysteria-based reporting of mass shootings, bombings, terrorist groups and attacks, police brutality, new viruses coming out of nowhere, or blatant, subjective smear campaigns of certain celebrities or groups, and excessive and undeserved praise for other celebrities or groups, something just didn’t sit right with my spirit watching the circus news.
They even cherry pick certain circumstances to report on on a regular basis and give you a false perception that this is happening all over the nation or world more than anything else. I would even speculate what emotion they are trying to evoke from certain stories, and what opinion they are trying to stir me into having based on other stories. And that goes for CNN, MSNBC, ABC News and any other liberal-leaning media, not just conservative FOX News. This was simply right-brain intuition causing my suspicion.
Guess what? It’s no longer 80% speculation. It’s now 100% confirmation one way and 0% chance the opposite way. I later read John Potash’s book. According to John Potash’s book The FBI War on Tupac Shakur and Black Leaders, in 1952, Office of Strategic Services agent Frank Wisner supervised 2,800 personnel in the U.S. and 3,100 overseas working on psychological warfare operations through the media on the public with an $82 million budget. The New York Times said that Wisner also kept a secret “Propaganda Assets Inventory” which represented a network of more than 800 news and public information organizations and individuals. This was part of the CIA’s opinion-making propagandists within both American and International mainstream media.
Proof of False Propaganda
Potash’s book describes how, in 1950, the National Security Council described the following in an NSC Directive: “Psychological warfare through propaganda to influence people’s thoughts and actions so that the subject moves in the direction they desire for reasons which he believes to be his own.”
In the 1950s, Wisner even bragged that he could “play the media like a mighty Wurlitzer.” Former veteran CIA agent Ralph McGehee obtained a CIA memo in 1991 claiming the agency had representatives in every media outlet in the country who helped spin and censor the news.
Ah ha! I knew it! This is now, simply my left brain logic causing my confirmation. Epiphany complete. Now who’s a conspiracy theorist?
P.S. In behavioral scientist Carl Gustave Jung’s book Man and His Symbols: Approaching the Unconscious, he states,
“A symbol is a term, a name, or even a picture that may be familiar in daily life, yet that possesses specific connotations in addition to its conventional and obvious and immediate meaning. It has a wider unconscious aspect that is never precisely defined or fully explained. As the mind explores the symbol (or term), it is led to ideas that lie beyond the grasp of reason.”
Here’s my case in point for a term with a “conventional, immediate, and obvious” meaning. It’s called conspiracy theory.
Defining a Conspiracy Theory
The obvious meaning of conspiracy is two or more people planning something evil or unlawful. The immediate meaning of theory is a system of ideas meant to logically explain something off general principles.
The unconscious, underlying connotation beyond the grasp of reason for a conspiracy theory is an irrationally paranoid lunatic with unjustified suspicion with an over the top need to be woke and think different from everyone else.
Jung has nothing to do with U.S. Intelligence, by the way. I’m simply quoting him above. Nonetheless, I’m quite sure, U.S. Intelligence studies behavioral science, as well as group and individual psychology, in order to “influence people’s thoughts and actions” while thinking they are their own. And guess who coined the term conspiracy theory? You guessed it – U.S. Intelligence and their controlled media. I’m done talking.
(Drops the mic).
