Why Can't Skeptics Discuss a Theory?
It's one thing to not believe in a conspiracy theory.
It's quite another to be unwilling to discuss the theory in the first place.
People who use the phrase "conspiracy theory" to avoid discussing a theory don't actually listen to the theory they purport to ridicule, and don't actually know what its supporting arguments are made of. They don't know what's in it.
It's not that they listen, and allow all of the evidence and arguments to be presented, and then make sure that they fully comprehend the theory and its reasoning - and then, once they're knowledgeable about it, pass it all through the lens of rational scrutiny, and THEN, finally, conclude that the theory is unsupported.
No, that's not what they do.
They simply refuse to listen to it at all. They don't hear the evidence or the arguments - they just reject it out of hand as "crazy", and label it a "conspiracy theory", and then exploit that label to avoid processing and understanding the actual theory they've just purported to reject.
What are they afraid of?
The most common answer is, "I'm not afraid of anything - it's just a waste of time to discuss it. It's too wacky, and I have better things to do with my time."
But this is clearly a bunk excuse, because the person who calls it a waste of time will still sit there and argue for an hour about why it's a waste of time - when they could have spent a fraction of that time simply listening to the theory.
They'll devote countless hours to reading about "how crazy" the conspiracy theories and theorists are, and "how they got like that", and "how dangerous they are", and "how to deprogram them" - like a minor hobby.
But they'll adamantly refuse to sit still for 5 minutes of Socratic dialogue about the contents of those very theories - and then go on to spend many multiples of that 5 minutes arguing back and forth about why it would have been a waste of time to have done so.
So that's not their reason. It's not "just a waste of time." They got plenty of time.
Why are they afraid to listen?
Why are they afraid to discuss?
What harm could possibly come from a conversation?
There's only one explanation: They know, deep down, that it might be true. And they're afraid of their own realization of it.
It would mean they'd have to question a lot of what they're doing. They'd have to make a lot of changes to how they're living. They'd have to admit to having been fooled. To being duped and led along.
"It's easier to fool a man than to convince him he has been fooled."
Such an admission would clash with the ego. They'd have to explain to themselves how they were sucker enough to get so duped. It's embarrassing. It's humbling.
And they will not allow themselves to be humbled. They'll avoid any conversation that they can sense heading in that direction. And then they'll project their own aversion to humility onto others, by accusing the "conspiracy theorist" of arrogance.
"You think you know it all!"
Meanwhile, their very refusal to listen to the theory and its arguments is a literal admission of their own belief that they, themselves, already "know it all."
And finally, they'll attempt to refute this argument by accusing the "conspiracy theorist" of thinking that we know it all, and that we're afraid of finding out that we've been duped, by the conspiracy theories - and that the Mark Twain quote applies to us.
But this can be easily disproved by the simple fact that we - the "conspiracy theorists" - are always willing to talk. Any time, anywhere.
It's the skeptics who aren't. It's the skeptics who shut down communication.
Any time there's a discussion about a conspiracy theory, in which one person is trying to have a discussion while the other tries to avoid a discussion, it's always in one direction.
The conspiracy theorist is always the one trying to talk, and the skeptic is always the one saying "I know it all and you can't convince me - now get out of my face! I'm busy!"
It's always the skeptic who hangs up the phone.
It's always the skeptic who hits the "block" or "ban" button.
It's always the skeptic who launches a litany of personal attacks and insults, and then storms off and threatens retaliation if the conversation continues.
It's clear what's going on here. They're afraid. Of learning the truth. Of learning that the world is different from how they thought it was.
If you're ready to buck the trend and open your mind... If you're ready to stop being afraid... and be brave...
...then keep reading!
Who Is Behind the Agenda?
By now, many people are aware that the political and economic systems of the world are controlled by a small, shadowy group.
But we don't necessarily agree on who they are and what they want. There are many different theories.
If you're a Lefty, you might call them "the oligarchy" or the "military industrial complex."
If you're a Righty, you might call them "the elites", or "the globalists."
Some of us know them as "the Illuminati", or the "cabal."
For clarity, we'll need to settle on some terminology, in order to talk about the subject. So we'll use the term "the cabal."
"So who is the cabal? What are they seeking?"
There are multiple layers of the story. It's like an onion - the more you keep peeling, the deeper you get. And the deeper you're willing to go, the more awakened (or "woke") it means you are.
We'll explain what the levels are:
Someone at Level 0 might think:
"The people in power care about me. The Government tells the truth. The mainstream media is an unbiased reporter of facts. Corporations are in business to make the world a better place. The worldview that's presented to me by the major newspapers and media networks is an accurate summation of the way the world operates."
Not much to say about this level. Believe it or not, there are still people who actually believe this.
But at some point, even the densest mind has to start the awakening process. Everyone reaches Level 1 eventually.
"Corporations are greedy and selfish. All they care about is money, and they're willing to lie to the public, and cause damage and destruction to society and the world, in order to make more money."
Thus begins our journey to awakening. Most conventional "liberals" are at this level.
People at this level still think their elected government stands independent of corporations, as the Champion of the People, protecting us. Don't laugh - baby steps can be very important, in the beginning of someone's journey.
"The government is not independent. Not anymore. (If it ever was). The government has been captured by corporations, and corporations control it."
This is where most "progressives" are at, generally.
This level treats corporations as the pinnacle of power, and remains ignorant of the higher levels of control, above corporations.
"Corporations are controlled by the banks."
Going up another level, we're progressing along our journey. This is as high as most "progressives" are willing to go. Here, we start to see a bit of crossover with conservative "Sound Money" and "End the Fed" types.
In case you're not yet at this level, and need it explained, here's a fairly simple primer:
The current banking system does not exist to facilitate economic prosperity. It exists to control people.
It's a tool by which a tiny clique of mega-wealthy elites get to determine the values of society, and control the direction in which society develops.
Its structure is similar to that of an army. It has an absolute commander at the top, giving orders to generals and colonels, who control the hierarchy, all the way down to the individual - you. This control is exerted through the supply of money.
Here's how it works.
If you work at a job, you have a boss. Your boss has control over you, because he or she controls your paycheck. His/her wishes are your commands.
In fact, you might even find yourself re-aligning your beliefs and values to match your boss's, in order to increase his/her fondness of you, to help keep your position secure. This is subconscious, of course. You're not thinking, "Let's change who I am, to make my boss like me." It's not deliberate - but it happens, over time, and it illustrates the power that money (and the supply of money) has over people.
And your boss has a boss too. And he is doing the exact same thing you are - subconsciously aligning himself with his boss's beliefs and values, to keep his position.
And that boss is doing the same thing. On and on, up the ladder it goes, all the way to the CEO of the corporation.
But it doesn't end there. Corporations are not the top of the pyramid. Above them are the banks.
This is the part where a lot of people on the Left lose track. Lefties know that corporations are running the government, but they fail to see that there are levels of power above the corporations. It has a lot to do with the Left's sensitivity to anti-semitism, and the common (but incorrect) belief that the banking conspiracy is about "Jews." It's not. In fact, this stereotype was deliberately crafted to disguise the real controllers of the system, by using Jewish people as scapegoats to cover up the controllers' real identity. More on this topic shortly.
Anyway, the corporatocracy is under the control of the banking system. This is because corporations - especially the big ones that exert major influence over culture - are dependent on constant inflows of cash in order to remain dominant in the market. If a bank funds one major company, that company gets an advantage over its competitors, and can begin edging them out of the market. To stay in the race, the other company must obtain a similar cash flow.
Let's use an example: Coke and Pepsi. They're basically the same thing. People have their preferences, but there's no reason why one should dominate the other on the global scale. They fight their war in the mass-consciousness of the population, through advertising. And advertising costs a lot of money.
Suppose a bank offers Coca-Cola a big loan to finance a major advertising blitz, and Coca-Cola accepts the offer. The company can now increase its dominance. And to stay on even footing, Pepsi must now do the same thing - take a big loan from a bank.
Pepsi will take loans to finance its competition with Coke... and Coke will take loans to finance its competition with Pepsi. It's all about game-theory. Each has to do it to fight the other.
And thus, both companies find themselves dependent on banks, needing to stay in the banks' good graces. Just like you and your boss. The bank is now the boss of Coke and Pepsi. Thus, the hierarchy of control-through-money extends from you, all the way up to the bank - even if you yourself don't even use the bank.
And it works like this for every industry - not just the soda industry. Obviously.
But wait. It doesn't stop there, because the bank has a boss too. It's called the Central Bank. It has different names in different countries. In the UK, it's called the Bank of England. In Canada, it's the Bank of Canada. In the USA, it's called the Federal Reserve.
The Central Bank supplies a money-flow to all of the banks, acting as their boss. Just like you and your boss, and your boss's boss.
Who controls the banks?
"The entire power structure - government, corporations, and banks - is all controlled by a tiny elite group of people who operate outside the public view. A cabal."
This is the level where "standard liberals" won't go, because it's where it starts evoking reminders of the persecution of a specific religious minority group: Jewish people. Since it sounds so similar to the old anti-semitic trope of "the world being run by Jews", many people reflexively assume that the Jewish community is the ONLY community to which the idea could be referring.
A false narrative - but one woven by design.
The cabal is not "The Jews." The cabal EXPLOITS the Jews as scapegoats, to deflect public anger onto Jews, and thus, away FROM ITSELF.
The cabal exploits Jewish people in this way because it works. Many people on the Right, who have vowed to defeat the cabal, have instead wandered down a fruitless and violent path of attacking Jewish people, instead of attacking the cabal.
And meanwhile, it serves another purpose: it deters people on the Left from even investigating the cabal's existence in the first place, because they assume that any theory they encounter, having to do with a "shadowy elite" running society, is really just the outer layer of an onion which will eventually lead them to anti-semitism as they peel it. They assume "shadowy elites" automatically means "Jewish people." They are unable to distinguish between these two different groups.
These two different groups are somehow synonymous in the minds of standard liberals. Which really, when you think about it, makes standard liberals anti-semites too; because they're always the ones shouting "It's the Jews!" whenever a discussion of the cabal is happening.
So the cabal's false-flag scapegoating of Jews serves to deter both the Left AND the Right from earnestly opposing the cabal.
If you're on that path - and you identify the cabal as "The Jews" - please stop. You're only helping the cabal if you continue to conflate them.
And if you're someone who won't even investigate the existence of the cabal at all, because you think the whole thing is just a code-word for secret anti-semitism beneath the surface, please stop doing that. It's something you have in common with true anti-semites: both of you are stubbornly refusing to stop associating the Jewish community with the cabal.
Stop it. Do some research. The cabal is not the Jews. But there is a cabal.
So who is it?