Summary
➡ This text discusses the views of philosophers Popper and Keeley on conspiracy theories. Popper argues that history isn’t controlled by a small group of people, and that society should be open and value individual freedoms. Keeley, on the other hand, tries to define “unwarranted conspiracy theories” and how to tell them apart from valid ones. The text also explores the public perception of conspiracy theorists, comparing their journey to that of religious seekers, and discusses how some conspiracy theories have turned out to be true.
➡ This text discusses how media and entertainment often portray conspiracy theorists negatively, which might discourage people from questioning authority. It suggests that this could be a deliberate effort to maintain control and keep secrets hidden. The text also mentions that while some conspiracy theorists might spread misinformation, others have contributed valuable insights. Lastly, it emphasizes that not all conspiracy theories are irrational, and some have led to important discoveries.
➡ The idea of questioning and thinking deeply is important in our world, especially when it seems like powerful groups might be doing wrong things. People will always rise up to question the stories we’re told and try to uncover the truth. Whether they succeed or not, only time will tell. Remember to engage with content you enjoy by liking, sharing, and subscribing – it’s all free!
Transcript
Yo, what’s good, everybody? It’s your boy. See through the script here. Back with another video. And today we’re gonna be talking about a pretty interesting topic. And from the title, you know that I want to touch on why conspiracy theorists get, or rather have, such a bad rep and where this notion might have come from. From extraterrestrials, flat earthers, deniers of the moon landing, right up to the recent events of 19 and everything in between.
It’s clear that society has always had a sect of people that have adamantly denied the mainstream narratives that were fed to them. However, amongst the world of so called conspiracy theorists, or what I like to refer to as the curious minded, there seems to be levels, if you will, regarding one’s journey to finding answers to their many questions. However, it’s important to acknowledge where this curiosity stems from and how it might hit one when it sparks.
If you’re someone who’s fascinated by conspiracy theories, like myself, you’re likely naturally curious, always pondering the various experiences that have shaped your life. This curiosity probably led you to stumble upon a particular topic, serving as a catalyst that opened your mind to a bunch of interconnected ideas. On the flip side, others may have experienced a single impactful event, be it tragic or bizarre, that triggered their awakening, making them question the complexities of the world around them.
While I suppose the impact and the way you perceive it, coupled with your personality, shape your journey, making it somewhat of a unique experience compared to others, I do believe it’s fair to say that there are some commonalities in terms of how most of us likely navigate this journey. Many individuals may discover themselves taking a deep dive into the rabbit holes of conspiracy theories, often involving watching numerous online videos, exploring books and documentaries, essentially trying to discern whether the information encountered for the first time holds any merit, this phase can often feel quite overwhelming because you’ve likely just consumed tons of content with information that was either entirely new to you or faintly familiar from the past.
Now you find yourself second guessing many of the things you were taught by your parents, older siblings, teachers, and religious figures in your community. The desire to share this newfound knowledge becomes irresistible, and you may even end up being that one friend in your group who constantly poses deeper questions in every conversation with them, because, trust me, most of us have probably been there. On the flip side, there are those who are kind of in between, with 1ft in and 1ft out.
These individuals might have a friend who’s into this stuff or simply harbor doubts about the narratives that are being told, yet they might be too busy, less concerned, or not as curious as others to truly invest their time into delving into these theories. Then you have those individuals on the other side who have already immersed themselves in numerous theories. At this point, they have surpassed the various phases typically encountered along the path of seeking answers, regardless of whether they found the answers they were expecting or not.
These individuals usually don’t feel the need to constantly share their findings. Having attempted to do so numerous times in the past, they may have grown somewhat wary of the constant rejection and pushback towards their comments, leading them to keep their thoughts to themselves. With that said, when one is in that first phase of intense deep dives, they’re likely to become quite vulnerable, mentally speaking, considering they enter this phase where they essentially shatter the reality of the world around them and begin this intense hunt for others who harbor similar feelings as them.
Now, like any group of people, there are extremists, you could say, that are hell bent on their beliefs being right regardless of the topic, and are quite good at convincing the vulnerable minded to mindlessly follow them and hang on their each and every word. These are the types of individuals that, in my opinion, contribute to the negative rep that conspiracy theorists get. But we’ll talk more about that later on because I think it’s time we dive into the history of where the term conspiracy theorist originates from and the purpose it serves in our society.
The word conspiracy is derived from the verb conspire. The root word of conspire comes from Latin, where con means together. Inspire means to breathe. So conspire originally meant to breathe together, indicating a shared purpose or plan. Over time the term evolved, being linked to a secret plan or agreement by a group of people to commit an unlawful or harmful act. The legal definition of conspiracy is as follows.
In criminal law, a combination or confederacy between two or more persons formed for the purpose of committing by their joint efforts some unlawful or criminal act or some act which is now theorist derives from theory or theria from the ancient greek and late Latin, which meant contemplation, speculation, a looking at, viewing, a sight show, spectacle, things looked at. However, over time in most people’s minds, especially as the world experiences more and more strange events, raising a lot of suspicion from the general public.
I find when people generally think of the word theory, they usually think about someone speaking on something through mainly speculation without any basis or concrete evidence. But that might not always be the case. The legal definition is as follows, a set of propositions, assumptions or facts attempting to provide a rational explanation of cause and effect of observed phenomenon so now that we have our basic foundation of these words out of the way, where does the phrase conspiracy theory come from? Well, I think it’s only right I start by briefly exploring the classic conspiracy itself that the CIA popularized the term conspiracy theory.
This gained traction after the assassination of President Kennedy, as a growing number of Americans had doubts surrounding the official accounts of the event. It probably didn’t help that JFK had speeches where he would talk about the idea of being aware of secret societies and those under secret oaths, specifically those in positions of power. Many pointed to the Warren Commission, which concluded that President Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald and that Oswald acted entirely alone.
But this just didn’t sit right with the vast majority of the american public, even till this day. But when the CIA put out a follow up document in September of 1976 titled Countering Criticism of the Warren Report, in the second paragraph, it reads, quote, conspiracy theories have frequently thrown suspicion on our organization, for example, by falsely alleging that Lee Harvey Oswald worked for us. The aim of this dispatch is to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries.
End quote. Now, this document is often cited as the smoking gun for the theory that the CIA popularized the phrase, implying that those who believe in such theories lack merit. However, rather than reducing these conspiracies, the document likely unintentionally increased them. Certainly, this is a subject open to debate, as the concept of conspiracy theories and the use of the term itself were not novel during that time. From my understanding, those who adhere to this theory do not claim that the CIA originated the phrase.
Instead, they suggest that the CIA strategically utilized it to influence the american perception, implying that individuals labeled as conspiracy theorists may not be approaching matters from a rational perspective. So, with that aside, the term conspiracy theory not only has a conflicting history regarding its initial usage, but also garners mixed interpretations from those who use the phrase. From etymology. com, it states that the term conspiracy theory goes as far back as the early 19th century.
The concept of conspiracy theories has long existed before being formally labeled as such. Throughout history, figures such as warriors, kings, queens, generals, popes, politicians, and many others have been the subjects of conspiracies. Of course, it wasn’t called a conspiracy theory. Rather, it’s similar to the role of the term heresy in medieval Europe, as it consistently serves to label individuals with beliefs contrary to officially sanctioned views. Conspiracies unfold across different tiers, spanning from minor criminal activities to intricate political trickery at the highest levels.
The 2019 Smithsonian magazine article conspiracy theories abound in 19th century american politics effectively examines the crucial role played by conspiracy theories in shaping the opinions of american voters. By using examples such as Freemasonry’s influence and the events surrounding the Bank War of 1832, the article illustrates how these topics were instrumental in exploring the persuasive use of conspiracy theories during that historical period. Yet going as far back as the 16th century with the writings of Nicolo Machiavelli and the first ten books of Titus Livius, where he dedicated the whole 6th chapter on conspiracies and how rulers during that time could handle them, it shows that it’s long been a topic of discussion, but if you were to dig into who might have helped to bring the discussion of conspiracy theories to the table, mainly in the sphere of philosophy, many would look to the works of the notable philosopher Carl R.
Popper. In his work the Open Society and its enemies, Popper criticizes what he calls historicism and holism, arguing against deterministic views that seek to predict and control the course of historical events. The general thrust of Popper’s argument is that explanations based on the actions of a small conspiratorial elite, planning and directing historical events are not only simplistic but also dangerous. He advocates for a more open and dynamic understanding of society where individual freedoms and democratic institutions are valued.
While Popper thinks that conspiracies do occur, he thinks that few conspiracies are ultimately successful. Since few things turn out exactly as intended. It is precisely the unforeseen consequences of intentional human action that social science should explain, according to Popper. Popper’s work eventually fueled other philosophers to expand on the topic of conspiracies and explore the nature of them. While Popper aimed to separate science from pseudoscience within the realm of conspiracy theories, another philosopher by the name of Brian Keeley took a different approach by attempting to define what he called unwarranted conspiracy theories, or ucts for short, and ultimately how to distinguish warranted from unwarranted conspiracy theories.
Here are some of the characteristics associated with UCTs. Firstly, UCT is an explanation which runs counter to some received official or quote unquote obvious account. Secondly, the true intentions behind the conspiracy are invariably nefarious, meaning they are usually conspiring to do evil and not good. Thirdly, unwarranted conspiracy theories typically seek to tie together seemingly unrelated events. Throughout Keeley’s paper, he uses the example of the Oklahoma City bombing to explore the nature of how conspiracy was spread and interpreted.
He explored the various conspiracies surrounding the event and how they had the ability to sway one’s opinion from the official narrative. One of the key points he emphasizes in his paper is that UCTs aren’t inherently problematic because they possess a degree of unfalsifiability. It’s more so that there’s an increasing degree of skepticism that is required in these cases. Or, in simpler terms, it becomes harder to agree with the validity of a conspiracy when it starts to include too many parties.
Now, this is a common point many who are skeptical of conspiracy theories will raise when debating a conspiracist, putting into question how it’s possible for such events to be kept under wraps by so many individuals. But I personally challenged the notion, introducing an additional layer of conspiracy, that multiple parties can collaboratively work towards a shared goal without any leaks. Nevertheless, if leaks do occur, the conspirators likely possess the capability to either suppress the information, divert the public’s attention from it, or, in more extreme cases, enlist influential figures such as entertainers to shape public opinion in a direction favorable to the conspirators.
Certainly you can argue that the statement I just made possesses a degree of unfaulsibility, being it’s challenging to disprove, and with that, it’s fair to say understanding or accepting that notion may necessitate a significant amount of skepticism. To avoid diving too deep into his paper, which I suggest you read after watching this video, I’ll link it below. Here’s how he concluded it. Instead, I suggest that there is nothing straightforwardly analytical that allows us to distinguish between good and bad conspiracy theories.
We seem to be confronted with a spectrum of cases ranging from the believable to the highly implausible. The best we can do is track the evaluation of given theories over time and come to some consensus as to when belief in the theory entails more skepticism than we could stomach. To paraphrase the last bit of his conclusion, he argues that the concern may not necessarily lie with theories themselves, but rather with the theorist advocating them.
Furthermore, it can be concluded that theories, regardless of how unconventional they may seem, aren’t inherently negative. In fact, they play a crucial role in compelling us to carefully distinguish between sound and flawed explanations, which I think is a perfect transition into our next chapter. When it comes to the thought of conspiracy theorists, for the average person, they often think of something like this, or how about this guy and shit.
There are definitely times, even as a quote unquote conspiracy theorist myself, where I’m like, something is wrong here, or in other cases one might have some interesting information, but does a poor job at communicating it. But the notion of a tinfoil hat is synonymous with conspiracy theorists and originated from a 1927 short story by Julian Huxley. In the story, the main character wears a metal hat to ward off mind control by a villain scientist.
Over time, this term became widely used to describe individuals believed to be heavily immersed in conspiracy thinking and paranoia. Regardless, the prevailing perception of conspiracy theorists has long been characterized by stigmatizing labels, such as someone who doesn’t get out much, paranoid, schizophrenic, uneducated, or mentally ill. I mean, the list goes on. And here’s where I wondered about the origin of this widespread perception of the unhinged and eccentric conspiracy theorists while reading David Aronovich’s book Voodoo histories the role of conspiracy theories in shaping modern society.
He alluded to this notion that conspiracy theories have an almost religious function, stating, quote, I think the desire for a casual narrative in which we get to understand history is powerful, especially the belief that there is a clear, voluntary intention behind everything that happens. He says it’s very much akin to the desire to know why we are on the planet and who put us there. And fundamentally, that is what religion is about.
Now, this is something I can agree with myself. I think one goes through interesting phases during their journey into the many rabbit holes out there, like one might when diving into religion. It’s like as if you start all excited, hoping to get answers to your burning questions and find some sort of reason behind the chaos that surrounds you. However, that initial excitement dwindles away as you’re faced with the reality that you’re left with even more questions than you had going into it in the first place.
At this. 1 typically finds themselves going through two stages, in my opinion. First is what I refer to as the optimistic stage. This is when individuals are aware of the overwhelming amount of information in history, but understand that it takes time to comprehend the complexities of the theories they explore. Similar to seeking guidance through religion, they may not have the exact answers, but find contentment in the belief that there are underlying forces at play, even if not entirely provable or disprovable.
Just as someone relies on scripture and faith, conspiracy theorists use information to make sense of events, finding comfort in the idea that there is more than meets the eye. In the second stage, known as the paranoid stage, individuals allow the flood of information to overpower them. This often results in an irrational state of mind where the ability to reason becomes compromised. They harbor a belief that things are significantly worse than one could ever imagine.
This stage is troubling as it leaves the individual mentally vulnerable, struggling to differentiate between warranted and unwarranted conspiracy theories, as highlighted in the preceding chapter of this video. In this phase, individuals may find themselves labeled as the stereotypical conspiracy theorists exhibiting irrational behavior, a parallel to extremist and religious contexts who adopt an irrational perspective based on the information they assimilate. Examining these two stages enables us to contemplate the likelihood that a substantial number of individuals worldwide succumb to the second stage.
This scenario appears to be more prevalent among the general public compared to the more discerning conspiracy theorists in the initial stage. While there are plenty of sensible individuals who hold regular jobs, have completed their education, and are functional members of society believing in conspiracy theories such as extraterrestrial life, political assassinations being a part of a deep state plot, or NASA’s moon landing being a hoax, they tend to be less vocal about their views.
On the other side of the coin, those who are more skeptical are often eager to share their viewpoints, but their communication style may not effectively convey their message, leaving non conspiracists with a perception that these individuals lack rational thinking. Now, when researching the topic of conspiracy theories, many writers point to the assassinations of JFK, MLK, and Malcolm X as pivotal moments in the popularization of the phrase itself, as it wasn’t commonly used together before, these events raised many eyebrows and led to speculations and rumors of government involvement.
Of course, no nation’s government would want to operate a country where its people lack any faith whatsoever in the morality within these institutions. It’s likely that these agencies would do all that they can to sway their citizens from believing in such theories of nefarious things happening within these institutions. Now, whether their efforts are successful is another thing. However, there are many times where the people’s speculations and theories have proved to be true, despite attempts from governmental institutions at steering the narrative one way in such cases of the 1970s Watergate scandal under the Nixon administration or the infamous Iran contra affairs of 1985 Eightyan administration exposing the COVID actions of the United States to sell arms to Iran, only to use said funds for nefarious purposes.
Despite the quote unquote trusted sources of media stating otherwise, it’s crucial to remember that the government has played a significant role in providing financial aid to the establishment of news media. For the longest time before the Internet era, the vast majority obtained their information from these sources. This is mentioned to highlight the possibility that media outlets might be strongly influenced to align with the beliefs and agendas of their funders, potentially compromising their role and serving the audience they are meant to inform.
Now, I think this is a perfect way to transition into the next chapter of this video, which theorizes on whether or not there is an agenda to downplay those who partake in conspiracy theories as a whole. So the other day I was watching this movie by the name of Gully when about ten minutes in appears, Terrence Howard playing the role of a homeless man rambling on about what appears to be nonsense.
As the film unfolds. He appears just a few more times, going on about a conspiracy of some shadowy cabal, only to be dismissed by whoever’s around. In the opening scene of the Netflix series Inside Job, an animated comedy set in a world where conspiracies are real, there’s a familiar portrayal of your stereotypical conspiracy theorists. The scene begins with a drunken man ranting about the shadowy elites in front of the White House, asserting they control everything behind the scenes, aiming to awaken the so called sheeple around him.
Beyond delving into the many conspiracies shown in the series, one thing struck me in the initial minutes, whoever watches, whether they make it past the first five minutes or the full episode, is exposed to what appears to be the archetype of a conspiracist, someone with no job, considered crazy, overly paranoid, and so on. With numerous examples like these, it had me pondering if there might be a conspiracy within big media to stigmatize conspiracists, as they’re often portrayed as a net negative to society.
Which, if we’re being honest, is another likely contributor to this notion that all people who believe in conspiracies of any kind are wackos. And this ties back to what I was saying earlier, that there are those two stages through which a person diving into conspiracy theories is likely to experience either the optimistic or the paranoid stage. And although one might balance between the two at times, there are certainly people who remain in one stage.
I would contend that for most people, their initial encounter with a conspiracy theorist involves someone in the paranoid stage. And I got two reasons for this claim. Firstly, popular media intentionally presents this archetype to further stigmatize those who believe in conspiracies. Secondly, the stigmatization deters individuals in the optimistic, more rational minded stage from openly sharing their belief in a conspiracy. It’s the fear of ridicule from peers and family that fuels an inherent bias against socalled conspiracies.
I believe instead of providing numerous examples of this phenomenon, it is more beneficial to conduct your own empirical research. Ask friends and family what comes to mind when they hear about a conspiracy theory or a conspiracist. Also, pay attention to tv shows and films, and observe how characters discussing conspiracies are frequently portrayed in the paranoid stage. Now, I got to ask, is it far fetched to suggest that individuals in positions of power prefer a docile society, a society where the common person is essentially subservient to the capitalistic nature of the world, with little inclination or thought to question what unfolds around them? Furthermore, wouldn’t it be more advantageous for those in power to operate in a world where anyone questioning peculiar occurrences was swiftly dismissed or ridiculed by others who can’t conceive anything beyond the accepted narrative? Consider the late 80s film they live, which is a perfect example of the very scenario where professional wrestler Roddy Piper plays the role of nada.
In the film, Nada stumbles upon a pair of special sunglasses that reveal the grim reality that those in power are actually aliens on earth, aiming to destroy the population through oppression and manipulation using subliminal messages and advertisements, propaganda, and more. Once again, the conspiracist in the film is portrayed as the stereotypical archetype, being that Nada was a drifter living in LA without a permanent job, just trying to get by before he stumbled upon the glasses.
In my opinion, there must be a reason for this consistent portrayal of a conspiracy theorist. As we discussed earlier, many philosophers who have explored the topic of conspiracy theories in the past weren’t inherently critical of them, albeit they weren’t advocates for them either. Yet they would often agree that there isn’t a straightforward way to determine between sound or highly implausible conspiracy theories, as even the most outlandish could appear to be true in some forms.
So does this mean that the general notion of a conspiracy theorist, by and large, wasn’t an organic perception developed by the public, but rather a concerted effort by media and entertainment to push this stereotype and further dissuade people from even bothering to question higher authorities? I think that’s a question for you, the viewer, to decide. For those new to the realm of conspiracy, there’s actual lingo that comes along with it, such as controlled opposition, or psyop, short for psychological operation.
Controlled opposition, in a nutshell, is any person or organization which appears to be on one side, but is secretly working against the interest of that movement. Why do I bring this up, you might ask? Well, it’s often believed that if there is a shadow cabal ruling the world. Whether it’s the illuminati, zionist bankers, the Jesuits, the Catholic Church, Freemasons, the black nobility, the 13 bloodlines, reptilians, and whatever else one calls it, they would certainly want to ensure that their secrets remain in the dark.
One of the ways some would argue this is done is through the usage of controlled opposition. I mean, it would make sense, right? Instead of letting independent media steer the narrative, it’s important for the cabal to establish their own ground with creators that seem to be on the side of truth, only to spread misinformation and further deter one off their track. One common criterion conspiracists use to identify controlled opposition is assessing the network or status of an individual within the community.
It seems that those operating at a high level, whether in terms of production, follower count, or overall platform, are more likely to be considered controlled opposition. This belief stems from the notion that the powers that be wouldn’t allow someone genuinely willing to speak honestly about conspiracy theories to amass such a following without intervention. Some individuals speculate that notable conspiracists like Alex Jones or David Icke could potentially be controlled opposition, strategically placed in positions of influence to lead their followers astray.
However, the aim of this video isn’t to debate the validity of this claim, but to acknowledge that despite presenting conspiracy theories that might sound implausible, these individuals have played a crucial role in introducing many to the realm of conspiracy theories in the first place. Whether their intent is to divert people from the actual quote unquote truth is for you to decide, but it’s clear they serve a multifaceted purpose in our society.
During the rise of the Internet era, a new avenue for information dissemination emerged. This facilitated the growth of conspiracy theories and provided theorists with the means to expand their knowledge and connect with likeminded individuals. While this has proven to be a valuable tool, it’s important to acknowledge that the information era has also given rise to some undesirable elements, contributing to a negative reputation for conspiracy theorists. Regardless of your standpoint on the conspiracy, whether it be the new world order, the 911 truth movements to present day QAnon, there are bound to be individuals that take their stance a little too far and end up letting their own biases get in their way.
I mean, naturally, individuals must possess the capacity to assess the character of some so called truth guru’s actions and words, as doing so will enable you to distinguish whether they are expressing genuine perspectives or if they harbor hidden agendas. But aside from the ones who give the community a bad rep, there are also some that gave the community tons of great work to learn from. And I’m referring to guys like Jordan Maxwell, William Cooper, or Frederick Tupper Saucy II, to name a few.
And although I’m sure one could always find something in their work to disagree on, as that’s inevitable, there’s no doubt in my mind that these men put a large majority of people onto things in the past 2030 years that they weren’t hip to before, myself included. Plus all the hardworking creators out there now doing their best to get some information now. But if you’ve reached this point of the video, feel free to share some names of other noteworthy authors or creators in the realm of conspiracy in the comments down below.
So considering all that we’ve explored today, from understanding the meaning of conspiracy theory, its historical roots and popularization, to delving into its context throughout history and examining how society perceives both conspiracy theories and theorists, what I hope you, the viewer, take away from this video is the notion that conspiracy theories are not inherently irrational, nor are all the people who engage in them. Without the ability to reason with conspiracy theories, some of the most crucial events in our modern day, such as the Watergate scandal or the Iran Contra affairs as referenced earlier, wouldn’t have been uncovered.
The concept of theorizing and speculative thinking is vital for our society and should not be dismissed or ridiculed without due consideration. Yet regardless of one’s opinions about conspiracies or conspiracy theorists, whether positive or negative, as long as the earth remains under the influence of seemingly immoral organizations, governments and corporations, we are likely to continue witnessing world altering events. And from these times, individuals will emerge seeking to challenge the narrative being presented and will be determined to prove otherwise.
Whether they achieve their goal, well, only time tells. But ladies and gentlemen, that’s all I got for you today. I hope you learned something and enjoyed the video. If you did and are familiar with my channel, you know the drill by now. Be sure to drop your boy a comment and tell me about your conspiracy journeys or share what I might have missed in the comments. Also, make sure to smash the hell out of that like button, share the video and most importantly, subscribe may remember all of those things are free to do it’s been your boy script and I’m out of here.
Peace. .
