Populism: The Root of All Conspiracy Theory?

[LightinDarkness]

I've spent some time watching woos on message boards - particularly the largest ones like abovetopsecret and David Icke's boards. At first, I thought that the source of every single conspiracy theory was fear mongering. Get people scared, and they'll believe anything.

However, in the wake of recent events in the economy I think it has become apparent that while fear is a cornerstone of conspiracy theory, populism is also necessary. All conspiracies have those two elements, chiefly (1) appeal to the common man, and (2) the fear that someone is out to get you. This allows the woos to place blame for their problems on the mysterious and shadowy "elite," who are evil by virtue of having more than them.

I can't think of one conspiracy that doesn't boil down to populism. All of the NWO, Illuminati, "lizard men", Zeitgeist, etc. - its all a way of convincing people that the circumstances in their life are not their fault, but the fault of an elite few hell bent on enslaving them (for a variety of reasons which never make any rational sense). Remove the populism against the "shadowy elite," and woos will no longer exist because their anger and hatred at non-existent groups who they are convinced are controlling them...will have no place.

Any thoughts on this?

[Jontg]

More or less, yes--though most also have a strong undercurrent of anti-intellectualism. The latter is more an adaptation, actually; when the best and the brightest go on record as stating that you're full of it, your only real defense is claiming that the best and the brightest are all in on it.

[Hans]

I've also heard it explained as an off shoot of man's need for someone to be in control. A left over of our parents directing our lives. The world and your life is not effected by random events - somebody is running everything, either an evil conspiracy, a cruel god or your parents.

[PhantomWolf]

I've spent some time watching woos on message boards - particularly the largest ones like abovetopsecret and David Icke's boards. At first, I thought that the source of every single conspiracy theory was fear mongering. Get people scared, and they'll believe anything.

However, in the wake of recent events in the economy I think it has become apparent that while fear is a cornerstone of conspiracy theory, populism is also necessary. All conspiracies have those two elements, chiefly (1) appeal to the common man, and (2) the fear that someone is out to get you. This allows the woos to place blame for their problems on the mysterious and shadowy "elite," who are evil by virtue of having more than them.

I can't think of one conspiracy that doesn't boil down to populism. All of the NWO, Illuminati, "lizard men", Zeitgeist, etc. - its all a way of convincing people that the circumstances in their life are not their fault, but the fault of an elite few hell bent on enslaving them (for a variety of reasons which never make any rational sense). Remove the populism against the "shadowy elite," and woos will no longer exist because their anger and hatred at non-existent groups who they are convinced are controlling them...will have no place.

Any thoughts on this?

I think that you have pretty much hit the nail on the head. People hate to acknowledge that generally things that happen to them are their own fault, they want to have someone else to blame for things. Racism comes from the same place (possibly why a lot of Racists are also CTs.) If you can blame the Government, or the rich list, or the Jews, or the Blacks, or the Whites, or the NWO, or Space Aliens for everything, then it's not your fault that you have problems. You don't have any money because "they" are keeping you down and poor, all while hording the wealth to themselves. If you can't get the job you want it's "their" fault because "they" are taking all the good jobs and keeping you down. If something huge and scary occures, it was "them" that did it to further their plans to take over the world and keep it to "themselves".

[JohnG]

I think another primal appeal of conspiracy theories is that they simply make for good yarns.

Have you ever related some strange, interesting story that you believed to be true only to have some killjoy tell you that it's just an urban legend? There's a tendency to argue feebly for at least a moment (even if you suspect that the killjoy is right), because:

A. The tale is so strange and so interesting, it makes life somehow more strange and exciting to believe it is true, and it is disappointing to be told otherwise.

B. It is generally embarrassing to be corrected.

I 'get' why some people think it is better to believe that JFK was killed by a squad of highly trained assassins, rather than a sad nobody. I also 'get' why some people think that it is better to believe that some evil version of the Impossible Missions Force carried out the 9/11 attacks rather than a small, dull group of fanatics. I'm not saying I agree with them or respect them or approve of them, but I do 'get' them. Heck, until about 20 years ago, I believed a lot of the same things.

The one conspiracy theory that doesn't quite fit my model however is the so called 'Moon Hoax'. What kind of perverse idiot finds the sordid little Capricorn One scenario somehow more satisfying than human beings actually going to the moon?

[PhantomWolf]

The one conspiracy theory that doesn't quite fit my model however is the so called 'Moon Hoax'. What kind of perverse idiot finds the sordid little Capricorn One scenario somehow more satisfying than human beings actually going to the moon?

Apollo vandals are generally separated in to several groups.

Group 1) The Ignorant: This group has never bother to study Apollo. They used to believe it because someone told them it happened, and they stopped believing because someone told them it didn't. Most will accept the truth that it occured after becoming informed about the situation. The others will progress to Group 2

Group 2) The Willfully Ignorant: This Group has heard the science but simply refuses to believe it. They tend to repeat the same arguments over again and again like a cracked record. Mostly they appear to have an issue with the US Government, Scientists, NASA, people in authority, people with educations, or all of the above. Many like to pretend that they know more about Apollo and science than anyone that has studied either, and to be fair they often do know more than the average person, but also only enough to be dangerous. Some are plain crazy, others move on into Group 3.

Group 3: The Wilfull Lairs: This group are generally in it for one or both of two reasons. Money and Fame. They often start out with a grudge against the US Government, or NASA. Examples are Bill Kaysing who was disgruntled about the treatment of Vietnam Vets and Bart Sibrel who got fired from his job after Neil Armstrong complained about him trespassing. They are now hooked on the fame and/or money it makes them. Others in this catagory are the likes of Jack White, David Percy, and Ralph Rene. They often seem to be hooked into the idea of other CTs as well (Jack White - JFK, 9/11; Jim Fetzer - PH, JFK, 9/11; Eric Hufschmid - Holocaust Denial, 9/11) which often links into their distrust and dislike of Authority and often the US Government.

Over all it's amazing that the line of though often goes:

1) The US Govt lies
2) NASA is part of the US Govt
3) Therefire NASA lies
4) NASA Claims to have gone to the Moon
5) NASA Lies
6) Therefor NASA cannot have gone to the Moon
7) Thus NASA must have hoaxed Apollo.

The second line of thought seems to be:

1) The US Govt is evil
2) Getting to the Moon would be Mankind's greatest achievement
3) NASA is part of the US Govt and thus evil
4) An evil NASA cannot have credit for Mankind's greatest achievement
5) Thus to prevent this occuring in my world, NASA must have faked it.

[JohnG]

Thanks, PhantomWolf, I suspect you are right. The more I learn about conspiracy theories, the more mind-numbingly banal they seem.

[Stout]

The mindsets of CTers might be banal, but the passion which with they defend there "beliefs" I find rather intruguing.

How anybody can take information form some dodgy website, or hear it from someone then take it to heart as being an "insightful" way of viewing how the world works is, to me at least, an interesting study in the human condition.

More often than not, I put this type of thinking down to the CTer wanting to be somehow "special" or possessing special knowledge that separates them from the rest of us sheeple and by spreading this nonsense they somehow get to feel like some sort of guru to the disaffected.

It's the tactics they use that keep me on my toes, from the outright lies to the varying levels of trust in the mainstream media ( trustworthy if they like the story, not trustworthy if they don't ) and it's that sort of selective ignorance that for some reason...I find wildly entertaining.

Or maybe I just don't really understand the whole *shoehorn whatever information you can to fit a preconceived world view* mindset when held up to the idea of trying to figure out how the world actually works.

[dudalb]

The mindsets of CTers might be banal, but the passion which with they defend there "beliefs" I find rather intruguing.

How anybody can take information form some dodgy website, or hear it from someone then take it to heart as being an "insightful" way of viewing how the world works is, to me at least, an interesting study in the human condition.

More often than not, I put this type of thinking down to the CTer wanting to be somehow "special" or possessing special knowledge that separates them from the rest of us sheeple and by spreading this nonsense they somehow get to feel like some sort of guru to the disaffected.

It's the tactics they use that keep me on my toes, from the outright lies to the varying levels of trust in the mainstream media ( trustworthy if they like the story, not trustworthy if they don't ) and it's that sort of selective ignorance that for some reason...I find wildly entertaining.

Or maybe I just don't really understand the whole *shoehorn whatever information you can to fit a preconceived world view* mindset when held up to the idea of trying to figure out how the world actually works.

And it is not only the Cters who do this.
Sadly, a lot of people who should really know better succumb to this syndrome where politics are involved.
Just visit the 2008 Election section here and see how people on both sides can ignore evidence which is not favorable to their side, but believe any stray rumor that comes around about the side they oppose.
And that a lot of these people are levelled headed and intelligent on other topics just makes it a little sadder.

[Stout]

Yes exactly..

I spend more time than I care to admit surfing a far left message board and I routinely see "normal" people go on there, with everyday attitudes...

And fail the purity test, miserably.

Given the absence of those people to be labelled as "trolls" they turn on each other in order to establish moral superiority....Really, it's too weird for words.

I'm beginning to suspect that both Cters and the politically active are more interested in finding ways of avoiding personal responsibility than anything else....in a we're all victims kind of way.

The fun part is that sometimes these far left harpies themselves act like normal people.

I've been trying to work out a similarity between Ctres and religious people, with belief being the central motivator. I can say it, but I figure I'd have a hard time defending it.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

All conspiracies have those two elements, chiefly (1) appeal to the common man, and (2) the fear that someone is out to get you.

.....

Any thoughts on this?

That sounds more like the techniques used by governments to sell themselves and their policies to the people than it does about conspiracies.

Fear is a common tool of all flavors of governments. Common examples are fear of communism, fear of Islamists ( Al-qaeda ), fear of walking the streets ( crime ), fear of sex offenders ( child abduction), etc, etc, etc.


And regarding your point 2], which is basically an accusation of paranoia, then I don't see much evidence in 'twoofers' that they feel someone is out to get them. I'm sure that there are some genuine tin foil hat wearers out there who do suffer from paranoia and can't walk down the street without looking over their shoulder for the men in black, but I would say they were a small minority

[Tin Foil Timothy]

The mindsets of CTers might be banal, but the passion which with they defend there "beliefs" I find rather intruguing.

How anybody can take information form some dodgy website, or hear it from someone then take it to heart as being an "insightful" way of viewing how the world works is, to me at least, an interesting study in the human condition.

Another common mistake I think. You might be surprised at the amount of people who are forming conclusions you would call 'twoofer' not by reading 'dodgy websites' but by their own observations of the world.




More often than not, I put this type of thinking down to the CTer wanting to be somehow "special" or possessing special knowledge that separates them from the rest of us sheeple and by spreading this nonsense they somehow get to feel like some sort of guru to the disaffected.

Ahh the old "us and them" scenario. A 'twoofer' can just as easily accuse a 'dewunker' as wanting to be someone special, someone who isn't taken in by all the CTs out there. It works both ways



It's the tactics they use that keep me on my toes, from the outright lies to the varying levels of trust in the mainstream media ( trustworthy if they like the story, not trustworthy if they don't ) and it's that sort of selective ignorance that for some reason...I find wildly entertaining.

But what makes the Mainstream media any more trustworthy than what you would call a 'dodgy website' ?

I wouldn't trust foxnews.com anymore than I would trust alexjones.com

[Stout]

Another common mistake I think. You might be surprised at the amount of people who are forming conclusions you would call 'twoofer' not by reading 'dodgy websites' but by their own observations of the world.

I suppose it's possible, but it sure is hard to imagine individuals living in unrelated geographical locations looking up at the sky and after seeing contrails, simultaneously come to the same conclusion....we're being poisoned.

I figure CTers are looking for things to fit into their world view, and most likely seize on common threads or ideas that might fit their world view . For example, remember the Virginia Tech shooting ? Did you see Prison Planet the next day where they described this as "having all the hallmarks of a government black op ? ) Now that one didn't stick, but it might have and from there further "evidence" to back up the theory would have been sought/manufactured.

Interestingly enough, I first heard that 9/11 was an "inside job" on 9/12. This was an IRL thing, and the guy spouting it had none of the info that "troofers" subsequently used to defend the idea.

The theory came first, the confirmation bias came second.


Ahh the old "us and them" scenario. A 'twoofer' can just as easily accuse a 'dewunker' as wanting to be someone special, someone who isn't taken in by all the CTs out there. It works both ways

Yes, that's entirely possible, it could work both ways, however I haven't seen many debunkers pull evidence from their imagination. Hey....steel melts at...., and jet furl burns at......therefore......

And let's face it, the debunking research is significantly bore boring/time consuming than getting your info from a well edited Youtube video.


But what makes the Mainstream media any more trustworthy than what you would call a 'dodgy website' ?

Accountability and reputation.

Man, I've got to see this FOX news, it's a subscription channel up here in Canada, and I'm too cheap to pay for something I'd probably only watch for one day.

If we discount editorial bias, which should be obvious anyway and focus on whether a MSM media outlet or an "alternative" one has more to loose if they were exposed as purveying LIES !!! ( sorry, had to do that:D )

If Alex Jones' site were to go bust tomorrow, what are the chances he'd be picked up by a reputable MSM media outlet as a journalist ?

[Brainache]

But what makes the Mainstream media any more trustworthy than what you would call a 'dodgy website' ?


Having worked in the MSM for nearly twenty years (not a journalist, I was sound/camera op.) I can tell you that most Journalists do stuff like cross checking their sources and they almost never throw out unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing against famous people.

Your favourite dodgy websites in CT land are constantly repeating easily disproven lies (they never ever check the source if it agrees with their world view) and they also spend a lot of time accusing public figures of enormous crimes.

There are lazy and/or incompetent Jounalists in the MSM, but they don't last very long.

That is a couple of differences, just off the top of my head.