Is it possible to Re-publish this article on LifeSiteNews.com. Respond to Jalsevac at LifeSite.net

Expand full comment

This is absolutely marvelous. My goodness. Would that there were a way to ensure that every single person read this with a serious intent to take it in. My husband and I have been trying to articulate these very ideas for what feels like eons, because we have been so confused by our own families. Your articulation of this mechanism was a pleasure to read. Thank you for making the effort to write this and thanks to OffGuardian for posting it (that is where I found it).

Expand full comment

Great description and explanation of an all too common occurrence in the world today.

Expand full comment

A brilliant paper indeed. Do you mind if I add one or two observations? They are ment to be constructive. I do believe that the essential problem lies with the caregiving archetype. Yes, people deliberately avoid unsettling truth because of their social instinct and the trust they place into the caregiving archetype. A form of "secure attachment" build in childhood. But let us not forget also that a majority of people will have had some kind of negative experience in their childhood, an experience which has not allowed them to build a fully secure attachement. Hence, their trust in the caregiver is often going to remain immature, blindly "clinging". Or maybe they will all the more easily trust an abusive caregiver because they know nothing else. And we know that for a majority of people attachment instinct to the primary caregiver tends to trump pretty much everything.... On the other hand, I believe many people (including me) who are aware of the corruption of the Powers that Be, have themselves been through various adverse childhood experiences. Their own attachment structure is compromised. They have insight precisely because they don't trust authority figures that easily anymore. Sometimes they became a bit of an outcast (let's think of Orwell). They can struggle with life as consequence. They sure know that social instincts can be very misleading. But they payed a dear price for this, and still do actually.

Expand full comment

Totally agree with this brilliant paper, although I could be considered a bit bias and not quite so eloquent.

Fell free to peruse my mind on this, here is a sample, enjoy - https://syllamo.blogspot.com/2020/05/its-because-were-stupid.html

Moron children of the world - grow up.

Expand full comment

Fantatsic! Back in 2010, I wrote a satirical article with similar themes: https://www.checktheevidence.com/wordpress/2010/11/03/compliance-and-acquiescence-disorder-cad/

Expand full comment

This is allied with an excessive tolerance for evil, which I discuss in my book, Tolerism: The Ideology Revealed - https://www.amazon.com/TOLERism-Ideology-Revealed-Rotberg-2013-12-16/dp/B01FEOFYWU

Expand full comment

Hi Mr Foyle,

Have you had a conspiracy denier read this article? How did it go?

I am not suggesting it isn't true but it will not convert many (If it was constantly presented by the mainstream that would be a different story).

I have had some success with conspiracy deniers and it is only through showing many admitted (by the mainstream) 'conspiracy' events (48 fake bombings in Iraq are a good start) and eventually showing the corruption in the other political party and the other religions and older corporations and nations. Then moving on to undeniable visual evidence of fakery (like London Bridge attacks etc) that I have had that success. Even then you will loose many to the fske Q and Trump movements (basically back to blind trust in authority and zero logic)

Your article (and it's moking of conspiracy deniers) most will refuse to read and if they do they will double down on their submission to authority which enhances the divide.

Anyway I enjoyed the read and it made me feel better. I do agree with most of what you have written.

Ps I always told my kids Father Christmas was not real. Yet they still believed (my youngest until she was 8) and thought I was wrong. I showed my older girls two fake terror attacks (Iraq bombing very obvious followed by Ply board man on the Bridge in London) at the age of about 10 and 11 (without telling them they were fake) after showing them the dancing bear video they were concentrating hard looking properly. The 10 year old could pick multiple discrepancies in the Bridge incident the older one couldn't until they were pointed out exitedly by her sister. At that age they both had no problems understanding terrorism was faked because they had no attachment to it or the larger system. Now they are 3-4 years older and attached to the system it is much harder for them. It is now like Santa they just want to believe like their friends and try to deny the evidence in front of their faces.

Expand full comment

So well written. Thank you. Have have struggled with frustration of why many more people didn't see what is happening and why they cling to the status quo. Thank you for articulating the physiological reasons.

Expand full comment

Most conspiracy theories involve a certain mindset that engages with questions that it is not qualified to analyze. This results in the misapplication of techniques and methods which in turn leads to inaccurate conclusions. If you want an example of this, I recommend the book "Denying the Holocaust" by Deborah Lipstadt. The psychology of a conspiracy denier is a healthy one that does not ague for conclusions beyond what the evidence confirms and does not fabricate or misuse evidence in opposition to the established methodologies of the various disciplines.

Expand full comment

As often encountered in real life and among friends, you can see them in the wild: the 'normies' (those who adhere to the norm without questioning it), the bullies, the 'defenders of the crown' (which they do not carry themselves). Rarely do they realize that the crown is not there to protect them against harm, but to exploit and rule them. It is a blind belief in the childish practice of feeding the crocodile, hoping it will eat them last (or preferably, never). The typical conspiracy denier is indeed a 'big kid' who usually was raised in a protected environment and got a bit too dependent on its parents for too long. Men tend to cling to their mother and revere their father, women do the opposite. One of their biggest fears is the death of the parents. The aggression you meet when you confront them with facts that point out their own suppression - which they are inherently actively promoting - is sometimes baffling. For these grown kids, the mental security of not having to check their world view is proportionally much more important than possible resolution of wrongdoing and so they persist in defending their own suppressors. The most clear demonstrations of this can be seen when those who suppress everyone - including the conspiracy denier, the eternal child - point their power at them. Without faltering, the conspiracy denier will rationalize away the wrongdoing, and readily find some unrelated or side-tracked excuse of why this is just an exception or an unhappy coincidence, but never intentional or systematic. Even when the facts point out the opposite. Psychologically, this stems from the biased weighing of the balance between internal conflict to accept a more realistic world view versus the easier-way-out: a one-time justification of why this is just a coincidence. In this way, the conspiracy denier becomes a true 'coincidence theorist', on par with the degree with which he or she blames the 'conspiracy theorist' to be unrealistic. The perpetual taboo in these immature minds is in essence the linking of cause and effect into absurdity, the rejection of common sense, the Pareto Principle and general - though never exact - truths as found in the principle of Occam's Razor. For the coincidence theorist, only absolute proof can serve as justification for changing one's mind and view of reality, although one will find they never do, when absolute proof is given. When confronted with absolute proof, the coincidence theorist will isolate the case and not draw longer term conclusions or essentially change the world view, perpetuating and self-re-enforcing the taboo. Contrary to their own beliefs, these people are usually very easy to fool and manipulate, given their one-sided and unrealistic way of thinking. When approached in the right way - emotionally soothing, flattering, justifying and encouraging their overly optimistic world view - anyone who realizes this mechanism can steer them like a child's cart, equipped with a handle out of sight (which the parent is holding) while providing them the illusion their thoughts are their own, they are steering their lives themselves. An obvious example is the wearing of masks by people alone in their car. It has become a habit of them, or they find it convenient and 'extra safe', even when there is no rational reason to keep wearing the mask. They actually like to conform to rules, because it offers them an emotional stability which they cannot generate themselves or have never learned to live without. They are by consequence the ideal prey for the psychopath, living in a detrimental symbiosis, as we can now aptly observe all around us each day. The effort it takes to wake them up, is tremendous, even at the speed of proof with which the current events are evolving in front of everyone's eyes. It is an 'encapsulated psychosis': whereas people function rather normally in most respects of their life, in certain subjects they abandon all logic and regular mechanisms of scrutiny of facts in their world, and become astoundingly illogical and gullible. That's also why they generate such tremendous anger towards the 'conspiracy theorists', their perceived counterpart but in reality their equally stumped equal, because deep down they realize their own weakness. They simply cannot bring change in themselves, resulting in reflected projection and disproportionate anger at the other who they estimate to suffer from what is wrong inside themselves. As always, the prizes are distributed at the finish line, which is coming closer day by day. Today it is manipulated vaccinations, which are taken without a second thought, 'just to go on holiday once more' - but deep down to strengthen the mental deformation and the group who feels they are right because they are scared in the same way, so it must be true - tomorrow it is something else. The conspiracy denier will always move the goal post, in accordance with the nefarious habit of the psychopath who rules them:, to move the goal post in manipulation, accordingly. It is the symbiosis of the nefarious and the gullible. The conspiracy denier alias 'coincidence theorist' will faithfully follow the psychopath to the depths of hell, simply to not have to give up the childish illusion of certainty, mentally still inhabiting a protected world. Looking back and making long-term comparisons to how the world functioned some longer arbitrary time ago, is something the conspiracy denier will explicitly avoid or reason away in the typical coincidental way, stating you cannot compare these things. They do this, because they actually cannot, it is a taboo in their mind to compare and draw conclusions. It is also a mental construct which is blind for its own existence. You can compare it to the driver who hears on the radio 'A ghost-driver is reported on the motorway...', to which the conspiracy denier will faithfully respond 'One ghost-driver? You mean a thousand ghost-drivers!'

Expand full comment

There's a reason I was skeptical that Donald Trump would be inaugurated on March 4 and Joe Biden jailed. The trouble with generic conspiracy theories is that when you go to check the facts it's stuff you can't verify or some anonymous source. The chem-trails theory is the one that is most laughable. I have pictures of B-17s in WWII streaming white contrails behind them at altitude. Contrails are caused by hot engine exhaust (piston or jet) passing through cold moist air. The idea that we're being sprayed by some humanicide is absurd. Why would the evil cabal spray themselves along with everyone else and give me just one logical reason why they would.

Somebody looked up, saw the same contrails I've seen behind aircraft since I was a kid 60 years ago, and decide to run the snowflakes and unbalanced souls around the rosy bush for a good laugh. Are groups of people plotting against us? Yup. These are people with a natural shared belief system and desired outcomes who, because they share similar things, appear to be working together.

If you've ever seen large groups, especially government bureaucracies, they (1) are notoriously inefficient. (2) Can't keep a secret to save their lives. Truth is their inability to keep secrets increases exponentially the more people are in on the secret. (3) Would require that evil geniuses be able to attract minions who will be loyal in sufficient numbers to carry out the evil plot without too many developing a conscience and ratting them all out. (4) Human beings are far too self-absorbed to remain loyal to an evil cause when it starts to lose. It takes a religion to accomplish that, so unless I can find the religion, emperor worship or some other cult-like belief system behind it, I tend to doubt the conspiracy theory. Follow the money. That's one motivation. The belief in a religion with the rewards of an afterlife or a fanatical belief in some political system that promises an earthly reward.

I've been watching and tracking conspiracy theories for a long time. I am well aware of the number of utter failures, EVENTS that didn't pan out, missed dates for "bombshells" and promises of BIG SURPRISES that weren't surprising at all. According to the conspiracy theory crowd, virtually every Democrat on Earth should be in prison right now, given the number of sure things, supposed perp walks of major Democrat officials and military revolts against some conspiracy cabal. And the ludicrous chem-trails conspiracy theory. There's plenty of stuff arrogant power-hungry leaders are trying to do under the table, but they are not nearly as organized or smart as their publicity. The reality is that the real brains behind things like the Third Reich, Progressive Socialism, the rise of communism in both Russia and China, Atilla the Hun, Tojo and the Mafia.

Expand full comment

So, I read your article and I might be one of the people you'd call conspiracy deniers. I must say that I can't find myself in any of your wordings or explanations. It is rather more complex than you think it is.

It's not that I am denying that evil might exist in a big complex system.

It's just that I think that most people who believe the narrative of a big evil conglomerat aren't really interested in the real truth, whatever that might be. They just want you to follow their narrative without real interest in solving the underlying problem.

They don't question their opinion hard enough. They just follow their guts, which in many cases really isn't the best way to solve such complex problems like oppressing systems.

I don't deny conspiracies, it's more about the people who deeply believe in them which I despite, because they follow the same rules in their argumentation as those who they accuse to be a part of the 'big evil'. It seems more like they are mirroring their true inside onto others and that concept is not really hard to see through.

Most people who I witnessed believing in those conspiracies are emotion driven, undermine others opinions and defame them just because they don't want to believe in the big evil theory. They are arrogant and ignorant.

Also they try to simplify a rather complex system in a rather complex world, which was never a good idea in history. Black and white thinking won't get you anywhere and they try to put on a good and evil system just like religion. And just btw, even buddhists aren't safe from falling into toxic beliefs imposed by toxic leaders.

It's easy to just follow one side with completely losing sight for the grey scales.

Have you maybe tried understanding what makes an individuum believe in conspiracy theories? Maybe you find some interesting input there.

I just can't take conspiracy theorists seriously, because everyone who happens to be one just thinks they are on the higher ground which automatically sparks reactance in the person they try to convince to their side. They think they are more intelligent and infact they don't know about the easiest mechanisms how the human brain works.

Oh and maybe to give you some extra fuel for thinking: who says that those who try to fight the big evil in the world aren't the real big evil, just failed, and now trying to take advantage of those who are likely to believe such theories? Why should I believe what they say and not think that it's just another system of psychopaths who try to trick people into believing this, to fulfill their own agenda? Or maybe those conspiracy theorists are infact just henchman of the big players trying to destabilize the system even more, so warlords and such get even more power? They might be part of the system and they are not even knowing it. What makes them so sure they aren't?

Expand full comment

Most common logical fallacies committed by conspiracy deniers mostly based off the past year:

1. Appeal to authority - "If you don't have Dr. or Prof. in front of your name, you better shut up." Which leads to censorship, which in turn leads to technocracy (medical technocracy in the current case with WHO, Fauci, Gates etc.)

2. Appeal to majority - This is probably the most psychologically motivating fallacy. It's very challenging to stand-up for the truth when everybody is against it. It can be a very lonely feeling. This I believe is what holds most people back from moving camp. Fear of being made to look like an absolute nutter, fear of being canceled, fear of being ostracized and losing relationships. (Search Asch Conformity Experiment)

3. Appeal to ridicule/Ad hom/ Poisoning the well - Crazy conspiracy theorist, tin-foil hat wearer, you're probably a Trump supporter, Q-anon follower, anti-vaxxer, far-right fringe conspiracy theorist, science denier. "Because you sound like a crazy conspiracy theorist to me, your position is wrong.

4. Appeal to emotion - "How dare you be so selfish protesting on the streets, don't you know millions have died!! It's people like you who are killing granny and grandpa because of your selfish privileged mindset. God forbid your grandparents get the virus. Shameful."

5. Reification fallacy - "Science says", "I trust science" You're just reifying what science is as if science is this personal being that just blurts out a bunch of brute facts. Science doesn't say anything. SCIENTISTS say things and scientists often come to different conclusions when looking at the same thing. Why? Because it depends on the paradigm the individual is working within. Scientists are humans. Humans are bias, fallible beings. The scientists conclusions on something are going to be determined by their ultimate presuppositions found in their web of beliefs/worldview. You know, certain presupps that the scientific method itself is predicated upon (principle of induction, belief in the uniformity of nature and the universal law like qualities of the world, belief in the reliability of the senses, belief in the external world, laws of logic, math.

Expand full comment

As a skeptic, I believe we should use evidence to reach conclusions. Most conspiracy theories start with conclusions and then find evidence to support them. Humans have particularly pernicious mind bugs, like confirmation bias and apophenia, which lead to conclusions that aren't supported by the evidence or data.

Most conspiracies are constructed to avoid falsifiability. The most important question you can as is "How would I know if I was wrong?"

If you don't have a simple and direct answer to that question, you aren't being skeptical, you are engaging in magical thinking and wish fulfillment.

We all do that to some degree, but it is not a bad idea to figure out where and try to minimize as much as possible.

I don't deny any conspiracy theories. I just find that there is usually not enough falsifiable evidence for me to warrant belief in them. Should that evidence become available, I am willing to accept the theory.

Expand full comment

A great piece and my introduction to your writting. Enlightening and at the same time reassuring that I am not the only person with these same observations. One observation I commonly write in posts or blogs, that gets no response is this. Why does our government of yesteryear and today accept and encourage people to settle in the UK who follow an ideology who's followers pray 5 times a day to a mass murdering, slave trading, rapist, paedophile, war lord and see nothing wrong with this but mention you belong to a nazzi organisation and you are instantly vilified and condemned.

Expand full comment