Conspiracists Vs True Believers - What We Have Here Is A Failure To Communicate

It seems like there is a natural division going on among humanity.

People are starting to divide into two basic camps; those who believe a great many major events are part of orchestrated conspiracies (the conspiracists), and those who don't believe those kinds of conspiracies exist, (the true believers.)

The conspiracists are skeptics of the official story put out by government and media. The true believers are, well, the true believers of the official story.

Obviously, this is an over-simplification. This is referring to many events of epic proportion, from 911 to the JFK assassination to the Apollo moon missions, to school and other mass shootings as well as to various other other terror related events. Not everyone who believes the official story of one believes in all of them, and not everyone who rejects the official story of one, rejects them all, but more or less, with plenty of noted exceptions, that is the way most people seem to be lining up.

There are a number of phenomena occurring when members of the two factions attempt to communicate with each other. Perhaps first and foremost, there seems to be a lack of basic respect for other people who believe differently. Much of this stems from a feeling a superiority.

Everyone is so sure that they are right, and the belief is so real, and it is so hard to fathom that anybody can possibly disagree with them, that they feel contempt and disgust for anybody who can't see what is obvious to them. The irony is both sides do this.

I'm on the side of the conspiracists, which may or may not explain why it seems to me, that the group that is most guilty, most rude, most overbearing and most obnoxious is the true believers. I'm guessing most of them feel quite the opposite. Whichever it is, it can not be denied that it cuts both ways and it really doesn't help anyone.

Of course, on the Internet, the rudeness is exaggerated. For some reason, behind the anonymity of the keyboard, people have no problem calling people they don't even know, the most horrendous names, designed to throw toxic energy in their emotional and mental realms.

They don't even need to build up to that level of disrespect. Right out of the gate, they'll respond to a statement that someone posted online that had no disrespect in it in the least, with the most vile, vitriolic statement you can imagine.

These are grown adults acting with the emotional maturity of grade-schoolers. If somebody were in a town hall meeting and spoke the way these people write online, they would be ostracized, even by those who agree with their stances on the issues.

Ironically, many times the very same people who conduct themselves with respect in town hall meetings, are the very culprits who take it to the gutter level as soon as they get behind a computer and people don't know their name.

Here's the thing: Most of us on both sides of the great divide are seeking the same things. We want things to get better. We want people to not get attacked. We want crime to stop, or at least, realistically speaking, be reduced drastically. We want our loved ones to remain safe and healthy. We want for ourselves and our tribes, a roof over our heads and decent clothes on our backs, and to not go hungry. We want to enjoy life and have some time to really enjoy the company of friends and family.

We realize nobody gets out of here alive (at least as we know life, here), and we've lost friends and family and will continue to lose more, until the day comes when they lose us. We want the time spent here to be meaningful and not nightmarish. We want our children to have it better than us.

A lot of times we disagree about how to go about accomplishing those goals, but we do share them, in general. So, as long as we are going to be having discussions about such large, often crazy events, both past and present, it would work out better for everyone involved to keep our shared goals and our shared humanity in mind.

To do that we need to show respect. Nothing good comes from calling people, morons, idiots, fucktards, libtards, conservatards, shit-for-brains, or any other of the myriad names that are bantered back and forth. It certainly doesn't help people who are trying to figure out what is going on, to have any sort of clarity.

So that is the first area with which the two camps could strengthen their communication. It would behoove us to not segregate, as tempting as that is, into groups where we only spend time with those who agree with us.

These conspiracy/no conspiracy conversations don't have to totally dominate all conversation. In fact, people who disagree can make pacts to spend some time together without having such a discussion at all. It's important to reach out and relate to each other in the areas that we share common ground. You may have been close with someone in college but have grown apart precisely in these areas, but try getting together once in a while and sharing in an area you still have in common. For instance, go bowling for old time's sake.

Yeah, I said it. Go bowling with someone on the other side of the conspiracy aisle…even if you don't live in Buffalo.


Because it's important to relate to others with respect and not define everyone by how they differ from you. It's part of the human experience. No doubt, it's easier said than done. You may be reading this and appreciating the platitude, but unless you make a conscious move to reach out to someone on the other side, nothing will change.

Segregation seems to be the natural order of things in society. With few exceptions, most Americans hang out in groups of their own “kind.” For the most part, when people are not working at jobs for money, you see white people in groups of almost all white people, and the same for black people, Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, and so on.

I suppose one exception to that is when groups comprised of skeptics (as well as groups comprised of true believers) of varying sub divisions of the human race, join forces to discuss and disseminate their world views – although, most of that, I believe, happens online. If we are going to mostly hangout with people who think like us, it would probably be healthy to try not to always be in groups of people of whom every member looks like us. Voluntary diversity can be a wonderful thing.

Besides recognizing our shared humanity and showing respect for one another regardless of how much we believe the other side is hopelessly blind, there is another area that comes to mind in terms of the two sides failing to communicate. The things that we hold true are so self evident for us, we tend to forget they are not self evident for members of the other side. Therefore, we offer up as evidence data that basically means nothing to them, which to us is virtually proof of our being right.

The perfect example to illustrate this point isn't among the official story skeptics vs true believers groups, but among the religious skeptics vs true believers. When debates regarding the existence of God occur, the true believers, regardless of which religion they know is the one and only true religion, almost always, endlessly quote their Holy scriptures as evidence.

As far as they are concerned, it's a slam dunk. It's an open shut debate: Winner winner, chicken dinner. The skeptics, on the other hand, look at each other and roll their eyes. In their world, God (or Allah or Shiva or fill in the blank) does not exist, so there is no such thing as God's word. Quoting scripture scores no points as far as they are concerned.

In the case of official story skeptics vs true believers, the true believers of the official story are constantly quoting government reports and mainstream media reports. That is like quoting the Bible to atheists. No points are scored.

As an official story skeptic, I can tell you we never get over how members of the other side can do that time and time again and think they are making a single point to us. Our world view, is that the federal government has been infiltrated with globalist criminals masquerading as American leaders.

They are mass murderers as evidenced by their foreign policy where millions of innocent people are killed, and now, increasingly by domestic policy, as the encroaching police state is upon us, and more and more citizens on the street are being killed and subject to unspeakable atrocities. These people pay for reports to say what they want to be said. The conclusions of those reports mean absolutely nothing.

For instance, in 911 debates, the true believers say things like, “FEMA, the NIST report, the Department of Defense, the FAA and the White House are all in agreement on this matter.” We, on the other side are of the mind; “Thank you. We rest our case.”

The point is, we believe it's obvious that members of the Bush administration helped bring about 911, and they used members in most of those departments to help them do so, and/or cover it up. All the people who researched and wrote those reports were beholden to the people who were responsible for 911. They got paid to come up with pre written conclusions.

The conclusions are totally inauthentic. The researchers didn't even try to find the truth. They didn't even look of whole avenues of possibilities. They ignored areas they had no answer for. They lied in areas they thought they could get away with lying.

The only research and reports the skeptic community is interested in is from researchers who have independence from the government and are able and willing to look at the areas and possibilities the government won't look at.

For instance, the NIST report said they found no evidence of explosives being the reason the towers came down. In the press conference, a member of the skeptic community asked, “Did you look for evidence that explosives brought down the towers?” The answer was, “No.”

Or, check out this one: The 911 commission report was years in the making and there was no mention of the demolition of tower 7 (or, the “collapse,” as the official story tellers call what happened that day.) Yes, tower 7 was totally ignored in the report, as if it never happened. So, it should be obvious why skeptics are not impressed with the holy scripture of government reports.

I recently ran across a website that is trying to discredit Wofgang Halbig, the former Florida state trooper and school safety adviser who is a leading voice, searching for answers to Sandy Hook oddities. The website owner, besides trying to get people to think less of him because he has a business address that is not a physical office, as he works from home, thought she had the coup de grace to Halbig, but telling him to look at a certain official report.

I just had to laugh. The whole point is any official data regarding Sandy Hook has been shown to be a quagmire of inconsistencies, oddities and incompleteness. We aren't impressed with those governmental holy scriptures, in and of themselves.. We seek transparency, answers, not evasions, and independent corroboration.

That is why I say, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

To be fair, I'm giving my perspective. I have no doubt members of the other side would say I'm not dong them justice. We all have our biases, but I try not to be ruled by them. From my perspective, trying to be as fair as possible, it seems to me there is way more close mindedness and more rudeness from the true believers.

I know that the manner in which I go about this, is trying to find the truth. And believe me, I'd love to be wrong. I'd love for my conspiracist world view to be wrong, and for the world to be a much better place than it is.

When I find things that I was wrong about, I admit it. I thought the wheelchair legless guy from the Boston marathon was replaced with another actor afterwards. His hair was downright nappy, but 19 days later it was straight.

I kept looking for photos, and found a video that showed his ear at a good angle, and the cartilage seemed to match up with his image from the marathon, so I no longer am thinking it's two different guys.

Here's another example. There was a sign at Sandy Hook saying, Everyone must check in. I thought that must have been for drill participants and that it was a drill that went live, the way 911 had drills of hijackers flying planes into buildings at the same time, or like the London tube bombs had drills of bombs on the trains at the same time. Then I saw a true believer website that showed how that sign was from a few days later, and there seems to be no evidence of the sign being there on the day of. So I no longer use that in my list of oddities.

I'm really looking for the truth. I don't have to win arguments. That's not what I see from the other side. I really find them to be almost all about trying to win; trying to be right; trying to prop up their world view, regardless of the evidence. I'm appalled at the way they, out of hand, dismiss evidence that, in my opinion should make anyone stop and scratch their head.

For instance, they seem to have no problem with the fact that within a few minutes of the lasts shots being fired at Sandy Hook, some unknown person or persons decided that all the victims were dead and did not allow any medical vehicles onto school grounds, and no medical personnel into the school.

The true believers can just rationalize that with, “Well, someone knew what they were doing, so who are we to question it? Those poor people must have been so shot up, with up to 11 bullets each, it was obvious they were D-E-A-D. No need clogging things up with paramedics trying to revive obviously dead people.”

NOTE: Actually, medical personnel often work on people they think are already dead, and sometimes those “dead” people aren't really dead after all.)

Then when we (the skeptics) say, “But it turns out, days later, we find out that two of the victims lived. They were evidently taken to the hospital by some mystery ambulances, arriving over an hour after they were shot. We know one of the two teachers names, Natalie Hammond, but not the other. How can this be? We were told everyone was dead and no medical personnel was allowed in, yet now we have this contrary information, but with big gaps. Something is terribly wrong.”

Their reaction? “Well, we don't know all the details. It's not for us. There is an FBI report that explains everything.”

We say, “But it's top secret. The only school shooting report the FBI ever classified top secret. We don't know what it says.”

They say, “Well, they know what they are doing. They are the FBI. They're trustworthy. If we aren't supposed to know certain things, there must be a reason.”

We say, Seriously? The FBI is trustworthy? You do realize they admitted to supplying the explosives in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, right?”

They say, “Don't you DARE go there! That was clearly a mix up. They meant to supply fake explosives, but there was a memo that didn't get through. Everyone makes mistakes. What? Are you perfect? Does your business have a physical address or do you work from home, you big phony?”

We say, “Sorry. Not good enough. None of this make sense, Bro! Parents who smile instead of cry. Ambulances not allowed at the school. Parents can't identify their kids in person. They have to see photos instead. Caskets are sealed shut. Parents have to bury kids without even seeing their bodies, even once. Parents all supposedly chose to have cops live with them to protect them from reporters. Everyone died, but two actually lived. State police threaten anyone with arrest who posts “misinformation” on social media. The coroner gives a whacked out press conference filled with one bizarre statement after another, including the admission that he has, “no idea,” how many of the children are girls and how many boy. This is the same coroner, who, ten months previously, was able to get a state law passed that allows him to literally be the only person on earth to view child victims of homicide. No trauma helicopters were called, but they called for porta-potties, and when you call the porta potty company to ask who ordered them, they say the police told them they aren't allowed to answer. The TV networks, inexplicably, are all vying for interviews with that weirdo Gene Rosen who repeats (with variations) the most ridiculous story ever told. A SWAT team that couldn't find the nurse in a closet until four hours later. Stories that keep changing. What in the WORLD is going on here?”

They will give us an answer to every question that makes absolutely no sense to us, so we keep asking.

Then they say, “Lookit… We have already answered your questions over and over and over. Stop asking. We won. You lost. Everything happened exactly as the TEE-v told us, even though the TEE-v told us different stories, but that's to be expected in a situation this fluid. Now quit being stupid, you morons! And do the right thing and give up your guns, or at least register them so this never happens again. Enough is enough. Sheesh.

Like I said; What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Political Philosophy

QR Code
QR Code conspiracists_vs_true_believers_-_what_we_have_here_is_a_failure_to_communicate (generated for current page)

Advertise with Anonymous Ads