Why “Conspiracy Theory” Is Hate Speech

“Hate speech” of course is a fairly silly term, since intent doesn’t necessarily follow the literal meaning of words. Let me give you an example:

I once sold a house to a gay couple. The one of the pair I dealt with happened to be a really decent guy with a good sense of humor. At the walkthrough our conversation went something like this:

James (laughing): So, Paul, you don’t mind selling your house to a couple of fags?

Paul (also laughing): Nah, it’ll make the neighbors happy. You guys are always neat and stylish, aren’t you?

I assure you, there was no hate involved in this conversation. James started the joke and I joined in with him. And while I don’t normally call people “fag,” in this case I played along because it was just that… playful. Using “fag” this way diffused tensions rather than caused them.

That said, I’ll play along with the political term, “hate speech,” today, because the term, “conspiracy theory,” as it’s so often used, really does have aggression and hate built into it.

How Adults Speak

I’m talking about actual adults now, not just people of a certain age. I’m referring to people with some level of maturity.

Mature people speak to communicate and (hopefully) to find the truth of things. And if things are too complex or obscure for truth to be clearly seen, they try to understand the other party’s viewpoint and to clarify their own.

Immature people speak for the purpose of winning. And that’s simply barbaric. It’s almost excusable for the fifth grader on a playground; it’s not for the 30-year-old or, God forbid, the 50-year-old.

And sad to say, I’ve seen a lot of older people – in their 40s, 50s, and even older – who are woefully immature in their speech. You can see plenty of them on TV (expensive suits don’t actually impart maturity), where the common denominator of their immaturity is politics, a blood sport devoted to winning at all costs.

A Weapon Is as a Weapon Does

There was a cute line in the Forrest Gump film, “Stupid is as stupid does.” In other words, stupidity is shown by its actions. Likewise, a weapon is shown by its actions. And if that’s true, the term, “conspiracy theory,” is very clearly a weapon.

This term was popularized by the CIA, by the way, when they were trying to quash discussions surrounding the JFK assassination((You can find the details in Conspiracy Theory in America, by Lance deHaven-Smith. There was even an official memo on precisely this.)). In other words, it was promoted to shut down inquiry, not with reason, but with intimidation, ridicule, and shame.

Since then it has been used widely, usually with fear mixed in. As in, “You are challenging authority, and people who do such things get hurt.” Clearly, this is a weapon-like usage.

Likewise in daily life. I think all of us have said something that generated the reply – the blow – “That’s a conspiracy theory.” Whereupon people in the vicinity take a sort of step back from us. And again, reason has nothing to do with this. “Conspiracy theory” is not a reason; it’s a verdict… a verdict supported, not by fact, but by fear and its dark associates.

And we should make no mistake, most of time this phrase is used, it is used with malice. To call someone a “conspiracy theorist” is to slap them. It’s to hammer them down, shut them up, scare others from considering what they said, and to shame them as badly as possible.

So, yes, such uses of “conspiracy theory” really are hate speech. The only serious difference between them and the so-called n-word is that one attacks race and the other attacks cognition.

The Dark Faith of the Heretic Hunter

Michael Barkun, a political scientist who has studied conspiracy theories at length, concluded that a common feature among conspiracy theories is that they form a closed system that is unfalsifiable. That is, they are cut off from reasoned examination. Because of that, he says, it becomes “a matter of faith rather than proof.”

Ironically, that’s precisely what has become of the epithet, “conspiracy theory.” The term is used as a verdict, enforced with dark and aggressive emotion, and is thus cut off from examination. It is a slander that stands upon a dark type of faith. The user of the term, “conspiracy theory,” is all too similar to the heretic hunter.

“Conspiracy theory” is launched more than spoken, intended to deliver shame and cut off from examination by the dark triad of intimidation, ridicule, and authority.

Very often it is hate speech.

* * * * *

TheBreakingDawn

A book that generates comments like these, from actual readers, might be worth your time:

  • I just finished reading The Breaking Dawn and found it to be one of the most thought-provoking, amazing books I have ever read… It will be hard to read another book now that I’ve read this book… I want everyone to read it.

  • Such a tour de force, so many ideas. And I am amazed at the courage to write such a book, that challenges so many people’s conceptions.

  • There were so many points where it was hard to read, I was so choked up.

  • Holy moly! I was familiar with most of the themes presented in A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the concepts you presented at the end of this one.

  • Get it at Amazon or on Kindle.

* * * * *

Paul Rosenberg
www.freemansperspective.com

The Mass Conspiracy of Blame Avoidance

MassConspiracy

If you can ever get far enough from the status quo, one of the most shocking sights you’ll see is the mass conspiracy of blame avoidance. This phenomenon is so pervasive  that most people go their entire lives without taking serious notice of it. It simply is, and the possibility of another way has never occurred to them.

People do see this from time to time of course, but only as it intrudes on them personally. And even then, they generally wander away from the conflict and slide back into the conspiracy, wondering what just happened.

I call this a mass conspiracy because it’s something all of us enforce upon each other. I’m sure there must be a few people who’ve been immune to it since birth, but I can’t really point to anyone. And while I was less prone to this than others by a good piece, I’ve enforced it upon others myself. (Though not in some time, I’m pleased to report.)

“Okay. So, What Is It?”

Let me start with the part of this most of us have run into:

Have you noticed that staying in lock-step with authority absolves you of blame?

And have you noticed that new things – things not acknowledged by authority – are held to the opposite standard: that even one flaw excludes them from consideration?

Let’s take “social services” as an example.

Everyone knows that these operations consistently fail the children they’re supposed to save and that a shocking number of these children are ignored, abused, and even killed. The operators of the system, though, are never seriously held to account (certainly not personally), and their funding increases year after year.

Let someone propose a different way of handling the same “social” problems, however, and criticism jumps to the highest possible level. “What if” questions are not so much asked as launched at the new idea, and unless all of them are deflected, the new idea is instantly rejected.

A reasonable approach would be to count the failures under the current version, project the number of failures under the proposed version, and compare. But that doesn’t happen. Instead, the failures of the accepted version are flatly ignored, and a single imagined failure of the new way disqualifies it.

That is simply illogical and unreasonable. In fact, it’s cult-like.

And yet, nearly all of us have done this at one time or another. Some of us have done it many times.

The Payoff

If millions of us are doing this, you’d guess that there has to be some kind of payoff from it. And there is. The payoff is psychological comfort, and it works like this:

When we attack the new idea (social services-related or otherwise), we’re not defending children from risks, we’re defending our previous choices and the hedge that stands between us and blame.

Most people feel overmatched by the world. This begins in childhood and is nurtured in government schools, where years of an obscure but persistent curriculum teach us to obey without question and never to place our judgment above authority.

Because of this and other factors, we retain the sick feeling of being overmatched all our lives.

On top of that, we live in a guilt-ridden culture… and guilt feels bad.

And so we find refuge in a dimly recognized conspiracy:

We’ll support authority – and will ridicule anyone who strays from it – so long as authority protects its adherents from blame.

You can see this in the way people deal with the edicts they are given by authority: They hide behind them.

Rules provided by authority stand as the responsible party instead of us. No matter that we actually performed a harmful action, if we did it under authority, we can hold ourselves blameless, to which other members of the conspiracy will attest.

And that’s why we trash anything new and unauthorized, because if authority can be ignored, our protection from blame can be ignored too.

Are We Really That Fragile?

This conspiracy presumes that we’re far too fragile to handle blame. It roots in our childhood vulnerabilities and calls up the intimidations of enforced schooling. Regardless that we’re no longer fragile seven-year-olds, we feel that way… because the conspiracy was forged in us when we were weak seven-year-olds and rests upon those feelings.

The conspiracy, then, is cruel to us. We are no longer children, and we shouldn’t still be suffering childhood fears. We no longer need parents. If anything, we need to be parents.

This conspiracy of blame avoidance further keeps us from appreciating ourselves. Because if we started taking blame for our faults, we’d also start accepting credit for our virtues and successes. And those are far more numerous.

I hope I’ve given you a glimpse of this mass conspiracy, because it’s a sneaky and seductive destroyer.

We really have outgrown childhood and its fears. We’ll do far better by leaving them and the conspiracy behind.

* * * * *

A book that generates comments like these, from actual readers, might be worth your time:

  • I just finished reading The Breaking Dawn and found it to be one of the most thought-provoking, amazing books I have ever read… It will be hard to read another book now that I’ve read this book… I want everyone to read it.
  • Such a tour de force, so many ideas. And I am amazed at the courage to write such a book, that challenges so many people’s conceptions.
  • There were so many points where it was hard to read, I was so choked up.
  • Holy moly! I was familiar with most of the themes presented in A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, but I am still trying to wrap my head around the concepts you presented at the end of this one.

Get it at Amazon ($18.95) or on Kindle: ($5.99)

TheBreakingDawn

* * * * *

Paul Rosenberg
www.freemansperspective.com

A Conspiracy Theory About Conspiracy Theories

conspiracytheories

One of the funny things about conspiracy theories, including false flag attacks, is how often they are proven to be true. You have to wonder how long the shame-inducing slam, “That’s a conspiracy theory,” will keep working.

But that’s not my point for today. Today, I want to introduce a conspiracy theory of my own, a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories. Here it is:

The powers that be – the elite, the deep state, whomever – want wild conspiracy theories to spread. Because after these wild theories set the “outrage meter” very high, they can get away with almost anything below that line.

In other words, wild theories ensure that the “I’ll act if I see that” trigger is never reached and Joe Average remains docile, even as he is progressively abused.

I hope I haven’t given any nefarious people ideas, but I think this is already happening. And in any event, I’m fairly certain it’s worth pointing out.

A Second Theory

There is a second reason for the lords of the status quo to love conspiracy theories, which is that such theories make it easy to discredit troublesome ideas.

For example, we now know – thank you again, Edward Snowden – that government agents are infiltrating websites to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt, as well as to destroy reputations.

So, rather than just pulling out the usual manipulation to discredit a troublesome idea (“conspiracy theory!”), why not tie it to some really nasty racist crap?

Lots of people have avoided discussions of the Federal Reserve, for example, because trolls attached to the discussions demonize Jews. Disgusted by anti-Semitism, people turn away from the whole subject, and the central banking scam remains unquestioned.

There are reasons open comment boards are overrun with hate-spewing trolls, and it’s not that deeply deluded people make up that much of the general populace. (Though they do exist, and they do love to spew their filth.)

So, this is my second conspiracy theory:

Disgusting trolls are paid to promote certain ideas… ideas the elite want to eliminate.

And nowadays, paid trolls aren’t even needed; artificial intelligence bots can carry out the work quite well and can even respond to counter-posts.

Can I Prove This?

Not entirely, no. And I’m not going to spend hundreds of hours tracking down evidence. That’s not my job; I’m not an investigative journalist. (Neither is anyone else these days, but that’s a separate point.)

Still, the links I’ve inserted above prove a lot of what I’m writing, and the rest will have to remain my own personal theories… and I’m just fine with that. People can take them or leave them as they choose.

The Other Problem

Beyond everything covered above, the other problem with conspiracy theories is that they are far too hopeful. Yes, hopeful.

The implication buried in conspiracy theories is that the world is being controlled. Whether it’s controlled by the Illuminati, the Jews, the Masons, or whomever, there is a strange sort of comfort in the idea that the world is controllable.

The comforting thought goes like this:

The world is being controlled by evil people. So, if we can just get rid of them, control will revert to good people, and things will be great again.

This thought is false. The world is not controlled by any single group of people. Rather, it’s a large, chaotic mess. Yes, the deep staters, central bankers, and so on do manipulate a lot of things, but they struggle endlessly and very often fail. Consider just two recent examples:

  • If they were that smart, these groups wouldn’t have allowed the internet to jump onto the scene in the early 1990s.

  • If they were that potent, they would have killed Bitcoin as soon as it appeared.

The truth is that they’re not that smart, and they’re not all-powerful. In fact, they have power only to the extent that they hoodwink people into serving them. And that’s not an iron-clad arrangement.

So…

Presuming that everything above is true, what do we do about it?

My first thought is that we should stick to facts, not imaginings. I suspect, for example, that Building 7 at the World Trade Center was purposely brought down, but I don’t know that. My suspicions don’t make it true. Furthermore, it isn’t worth obsessing over. There are dozens of more important things to invest with time and energy – like actually building a better world.

I can’t think of a single conspiracy theory that’s worth majoring upon. Aliens at Roswell or the Kennedy assassination may be fun speculations – and I’d love to know the God’s-honest truth about both – but they’re simply not that important.

Rather, we should be busy building a better world, bypassing the institutions of abuse that dominate life in the West.

* * * * *

If you’ve enjoyed Free-Man’s Perspective or A Lodging of Wayfaring Men, you’re going to love Paul Rosenberg’s new novel, The Breaking Dawn.

It begins with an attack that crashes the investment markets, brings down economic systems, and divides the world. One part is dominated by mass surveillance and massive data systems: clean cities and empty minds… where everything is assured and everything is ordered. The other part is abandoned, without services, with limited communications, and shoved 50 years behind the times… but where human minds are left to find their own bearings.

You may never look at life the same way again.

Get it now at Amazon ($18.95) or on Kindle: ($5.99)

TheBreakingDawn

* * * * *

Paul Rosenberg
www.freemansperspective.com