A couple of months ago, shortly after the Boston Bombings I got into an argument on Facebook about the bombings looking like a false flag and one guy disputing all such possibility. Then he mentioned something about the alleged killing of Osama Bin Laden a few years back. I said how it was obviously not true since there was no evidence of Bin Laden being called and then he was conveniently buried at sea according to a non-existent Muslim tradition. The guy I was arguing with accepted the official story simply because, according to him, for it to be a lie there would have to be countless people involved in the conspiracy to fake the death of Bin Laden (even though they didn’t even fake it, they just said he was killed). The guy accused me of being a conspiracy theorist, when in fact he was the one inventing baseless conspiracy theories. In my mind the case is simple: they claim they killed Bin Laden, yet they produce no evidence, so I have a hard time accepting they story as true, especially since the claim is made by the US government that I found to be one of the most untrustworthy entities on this planet. I don’t know all the participants, motivations and the variables that lead to the unbelievable claim of Bin Laden being killed in some raid in Pakistan, I just know they made a claim with no evidence to back it up. For all I know there is a vast conspiracy reaching all the way up to the moon simply to fake the killing of Bin Laden, or the story was invented by one guy who managed to convince countless others to believe it. I wouldn’t want to make assumptions about something like that. All I know there is an outrageous claim, no evidence; so why should I believe it? Yet the guy who is very anti-conspiracy theories makes his own baseless conspiracy theory consisting of countless people he’s invented, who must be in on the conspiracy if the Bin Laden killing event is a lie, and then he debunks it and concludes the official story must be true. He comes up with a ludicrous story only so he can say it’s ludicrous and therefore anyone who disputes the official story must be crazy and wrong. Does it make sense?
I remember soon after the Bin Laden killing I got into an argument with some other people, all smart university students (like me). I said the same thing that I don’t buy the story because no evidence was provided. The academics simply snapped at me that they couldn’t lie about something like that. They’re not even fans of the US military escapades, they just don’t want to question the status quo, I guess. People like that prove quite neatly that they can get away with all sorts of lies.
A few days ago I was googling info about Global Warming. One site said something like Global Warming cannot be fake, because if it was there would have to be so many different people lying about it, so it must be true. Once again create a conspiracy theory only to debunk it to maintain the status quo. The formula seems to be: someone questions official dogma, we cannot have that. Phase 1. Create conspiracy theory. Phase 2. Debunk the conspiracy theory. Phase 3. Status quo vindicated.
It’s not about facts, evidence or the truth with these people. It’s about the consensus. According to the consensus complex conspiracies cannot exist. Claim that for X to be true, there would have to be a massive conspiracy, therefore X cannot be true. Consensus maintained. One should not look at the evidence as they might shake the validity of the consensus. Despite their claims of caring about science, the majority of baseless conspiracy theories seems to come from academics and wannabe-intellectuals. Here I speak of conspiracy theories in the definition used in the main stream i.e. something along the lines of a ridiculous, baseless claim of a conspiracy with little evidence to back it up. Whereas most of us who are actually interested in conspiracy fact, are ridiculed as conspiracy theorists.
I propose a new term to compete with the aptly named “co-incidence theorist”. I add “consensus theorist” to the vocabulary (even though seems the term exists already, but I do not know whether the meaning is the same). The consensus theorist does not look at evidence, fact or even personal experience or intuition. Rather the consensus theorist believes that what is regarded true by the consensus is true by the virtue of the consensus saying it is true. Maybe their religion is Status Quotism.