They often mix UFOs, the New World Order, the claims of David Icke and Zecharia Sitchin, anti-Freemasonry, and virtually anything promoted by Alex Jones, all at the same time. Why?
I have a friend that is like this. A couple friends, actually. If you're receptive to one unreasonable belief, you're receptive to all sorts. Pattern recognition is hard-wired into us by evolution. Look at it this way: you're walking through the tall grass and can't see very far in front of you. You hear a rustle in grass behind you. Could it be a tiger? Probably not, but the consequences of assuming it's not could be catastrophic. You lose nothing by assuming it is a tiger and running away. Better safe than sorry.
Luckily, we don't have to worry too much about predators in the grass anymore. The predators in the grass have been taken over - at least in some people - by conspiracies. This looks weird, or doesn't conform fully to my expectations, therefore there MUST be more to it. There were some anomalies to the crashed on 9/11, therefore it MUST have been a huge conspiracy by the Bush administration... etc.
So I think this is natural to some degree, but people who take it to extremes (i.e., anyone who believes a word out of David Icke's mouth) might actually have schizoid personality disorder.
I absolutely agree. If you can sell a sucker one insane idea, you can feed them more of the same garbage and they can't tell the difference. It's all a distortion of reality and the observations thereof.
There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: Not going all the way, and not starting- the Buddha.
I always think it's better to believe in all the possibilities of the universe rather than set limitations. That doesn't mean going all kooky over every strange theory out there, but it does mean keeping an open mind. Wouldn't it be shame to miss something awesome because our own set of limited beliefs blinded us?
Once the veil has been lifted on one aspect of your life, you can not look at anything in the same way ever again. An experience like that literally rewires your brain to be both sceptical and open-minded about everything, so, for example, rarely will you ever find a 9/11 truther that does not believe in the sins of freemasonry or the New World Order. In actuality, the only way a false flag that big could be sustainable would be for something as all encompassing as global control. And in order to believe that you have to believe that those in charge are governed by more than simply greed - why give so much stake to something you won't even be alive to see? This is where theories surrounding religion and the occult occur: the elite work for something they perceive to be higher than themselves.
I happen to be a 9/11 truther (I don't understand why anybody wouldn't want to be, except if you had a vested interest in keeping the truth at bay), but don't touch on it a whole lot because in order to accept the possibility of that, you have to accept the possibility of every single thing you've been brought up to believe being false. That is too much for most people, so respond to the very idea with violence. The same goes for many things I am wary about, including freemasonry, UFOs, reptilians and the more esoteric aspects of the global agenda. I tend to stick to things that are totally provable and testable to history, and general principles if taken up would preemptively stop any suggestion of a global dictatorship or any other tyranny. The idea is liberty, which Americans understand more than others, but take for granted. And even still, you wouldn't believe the amount of vitriol I get when I even suggest NOT using violence. The very basic tenants of our existence on this planet are difficult enough to talk to people about without delving into the illuminati.
I'm glad we can have this discussion, I just hope people don't go around calling others crazy simply for touching upon topics that most won't.
That was a really interesting perspective. Thanks for sharing it.
I'm wondering, what are your thoughts on Waco and Ruby Ridge?
I don't know much about that so I couldn't really comment on it. There have been many similar false-flag events used to demonise things like the militia movement and the 2nd amendment so I wouldn't be surprised if this was another one. An armed population is a threat to all tyrants.
"freemasonry, UFOs, reptilians and the more esoteric aspects of the global agenda" Possible does not equal likely. It is possible that George Bush and other world leaders are reptilians in disguise, but how likely is it? About as likely as John & George getting back with Paul & Ringo for a reunion tour.
Also, anomalies in a tested theory do not mean that the opposite is true.The fact that there were some anomalies in what happened on 9/11 doesn't mean that there was a vast conspiracy (beyond the 19 hijackers, that is). Gaps in the evolutionary fossil record does not mean that Biblical creation is literally true.
Agreed on principle - this is why I don't labour on reptilians and the like as there is no way to test it other than to blindly believe eye-witness accounts. That's not really enough for your average Joe - most don't even accept glaring scientific evidence.
9/11 scientifically could not have happened as the official story tells it, yet the very idea is 'preposterous'. If we applied the same skepticism to all theories about a particular event, we might be getting somewhere, but people go on the official story simply because of the fact that it is official. It is an emotional decision rather than a rational one.
But really, the point is not to propose another theory about how 9/11 was carried out, but to demand the truth. Anybody interested should check out Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth and their thorough scientific debunking of the official story.
I don't really want to turn this into a discussion about 9/11, but again, anomalies do mean that the opposite is true. Despite a few engineers insisting that things couldn't have happened the way they did, there are mountains of evidence that indicate that things happened the way they were reported, including the corroborating testimony of thousands of witnesses.
For any conspiracy to succeed, it has to have people colluding. For the 9/11/ conspiracy to succeed, there would have to be thousands of people colluding, and all repeating the same story, and not a single one of them admitting that they were part of a conspiracy. You have to ask yourself, is it more likely that things are as they seem to be, or that many thousands of people are all conspiring together on exactly the same story in order to further an agenda that we can't even put our finger on.
Not one single firefighter or ironworker or anyone else has admitted that they were part of a conspiracy, or that they were told by higher ups to keep quiet, or anything of the sort. Why is that? If there were only a few people involved, it's possible that they were told to keep quiet under threats, but thousands? Of all the people who witnessed it and helped in the cleanup, where are the people who found a piece of a missile at the Pentagon, or demo charges at the WTC? And what purpose would a conspiracy serve?
Here are some links you might want to check out:
9/11 in general:
Specifically about the Pentagon:
I'm arguing that since there ARE anomalies, there needs to be a more comprehensive independent investigation. Your argument seems to be that since most people agree that the official story is true (an opinion, most of the original 9/11 commissioners and the families of the 9/11 victims don't share, by the way) that it's not even worth following up. You're not holding the official story to the same standard.
For example, why do you believe in such an unlikely scenario: that 19 hijackers with rudimentary flying skills, with instruction from an Arab in a cave, managed to infiltrate a country with the best security measures in the world and fly 3 out of 4 747s into prominent buildings with pinpoint accuracy? In order to believe in the official story you have to believe so many unlikely things.
'What purpose would they have?' and 'Why has nobody come forward?' have NO relevance when it comes to the scientific method.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree … bigcoverup
You don't have to believe the opposite is true, but you can not deny that is still an open case!
Our hijackers attended flight school, and flying a huge object into an even larger object doesn't take that much skill.
The flight instructors rated the 'terrorists'' skills flying a little Cesena as mediocre at best. I don't pretend to know how to fly a plane, but it is highly implausible that these individuals were suddenly blessed by Allah with the skills to navigate an aircraft 5 times the size of what they were trained with, at an incredible speed to their targets. In particular, the official manoeuvre of the aircraft that hit the Pentagon is difficult even for experienced pilots (check out Pilotsfor9/11truth for details).
Funny you should mention that, because the BBC is doing a series where they take some "true believers" and debunk their conspiracy theories. (It's more complicated than that, I just wanted to keep it short) The first episode features 9/11 Truthers, and one of them insisted that guys with only a few flying lessons couldn't have flown the planes into the WTC. A flight instructor proves them wrong, and takes one of them up into a plane and gets her to land it with only a half hour of flight time. The video is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVnQPGE3 … r_embedded
The show is called "9/11 Conspiracy Road Trip." It's about an hour long, but is well worth a watch.
I saw it when it was released. As per usual from the BBC, it was a complete white wash, missing everything but the most irrelevant of details. Its debunking of the controlled demolition theory mainly consisted of a tower of lego - hardly scientific rigour.
Also, considering how easy it was for that girl to fly and land the plane, the fact that the supposed hijackers could not even do that with any competency should ring alarm bells. 'Proved them wrong' - I don't see anything like that at all.
The documentary, rather than approaching the subject objectively, simply set out to make a fool out of these young people, often without the science and facts at hand to counter those trying to debunk them. The host responded to them with patronisation and acted like he was insulted by the very suggestion. It missed out several key subjects, including WTC 7. It's yet another 9/11 documentary that, in the end, simply comforts believers of the official story and angers truthers because it adds essentially nothing to the debate.
I just read a quote yesterday that is perfect for this discussion, from the book "John Dies at the End" by David Wong. The quote: "They came looking for dark and terrible revelations and instead found out something even more dark and terrible: that their lives were trite and boring."
OK, maybe they weren't proved wrong, but it showed that despite the truthers' fervent claims, it could (and probably did) happen like the official reports said. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the truthers do not have extraordinary evidence.
I spent ten years in the USAF. I've experienced ultra-realistic, ultra-expensive flight simulators. I'm can tell you that a simulated runway is far smaller than twin 110-story buildings.
Often a belief in one unlikely thing logically requires you to believe in other unlikely things in order to bolster that first belief. Then it kind of snowballs. You can find many people who subscribe to a host of fringe theories who are yet surprisingly logical in their own fashion.
The critical thing about any conspiracy theory is to search for the grain of truth[if you can trace one to verify it]that it was built around.Keep the confirmed grains and collect them.When you look at how these multi colored grains of truth come together you will see the big,real,behind the scenes,etc picture.
Thank you for bringing this up.
You're so right. There's a vocal cadre of conspiracy theorists out there who lump what seem (to me) to be unrelated, often (in my opinion) conflicting ideas together and present the conglomeration as incontorvertible fact.
Backed up by the most wacky internet sites you'll ever see.
I am urged on a regular basis to question and reject EVERYTHING.
I am not going to question everything, because much of what I believe is based on personal experience which cannot be proven false because I LIVED IT.
I am not going to question everything because if I'm right and they're wrong, life will go on. If they do happen to be right (Mayans and Quetzlcoatls and Russians doing drills in CO and UT, and FEMA camps, oh my!) then I'll be happier dead anyway.
For the record, I am a 9/11 truther also. So I guess it is possible to believe one "unlikely" thing and not drink the whole gallon of New World Order koolaid.
BTW -- serious question. How in the heck did Alex Jones get anyone -- even one person -- to believe him? Scary!
I think that you hit the nail on the head....they listen to Alex Jones. On the other hand, anyone who DOESN'T think that the world is headed toward a one-world-government, and thinks that this is NOT being guided by power brokers who act behind the scenes simply have their head in the sand.
It is already one world government and has been for
When I was growing up it was a communist under every bed.
"People who believe unlikely things believe so MANY unlikely things."
This is indeed a prominent Biblical principle.
Just because something is unlikely doesn't mean it is impossible.
by Michele Travis 8 years ago
Do you believe that the Illuminati and The New World Order are real? Are they dangerous?What do you think would happen to our country if the Illuminati and the New World Order are real?
by onthewriteside 11 years ago
We have the USSR which, even in its current tattered form, is still pretty much a union. We have the European Union. Some might argue that the OPEC nations might be considered a union. And now there is talk amongst the conspiracy theorists of a North American Union coming. ...
by Gary Anderson 11 years ago
The tower of Babel was a sign of God's displeasure with the uniting of mankind. The tower was destroyed and yet, the Pope has called for a New Financial World Order, which ultimately will break down the barriers of national sovereignty. This is wrong. Who does he think he is?...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 9 years ago
The other day on youtube, I was listening to Alex Jones. He was talking about America becoming more totalitarian with its supposed FEMA concentration camps and the lessening of the democratic process. Mr. Jones also discussed the alleged Bohemian Grove club where prominent people...
by Scott Belford 2 years ago
A comment I just read says it succinctly"By drawing down US forces in Syria to zero and Afghanistan to half, he has exposed his paltry grasp on what actually keeps Americans, their interests, and global stability on an even keel." - Nic Robertson
by ChapmanHester 11 years ago
I have been posting information for quite some time about the New World Order and agendas pretaining to the accomplishing of the goals set forth by previous administrations. There is more and more information popping up all over the place including but not limited to the idea that FEMA by...
Copyright © 2021 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|