Democracy and Conspiracy Theories

To the best of my knowledge, conspiracy theories as a social phenomenon occur only in democratic societies. I take it that this is a very telling fact, and that at bottom conspiracy theories are a symptom of the perverse psychology found among democrats (note the small ‘d’). In general, all conspiracy theories take the following form:

P1: X is identified as a problem that concerns a large group of people.
P2: A world without X would be a much better world.
P3: All previous solutions proposed to solve X have failed.

Conclusion: Some one person or group is causing X to continue for their own benefit.

David Icke proposed a theory that an alien life form called Reptoids are in charge of all the worlds governments and banking institutions. Reptoids choose presidents, start wars, and cause natural disasters—all of which are bad things, on the whole. According to this theory, these aliens have a stake in all of these wars and presidents, so they make sure that nothing gets in their way or alters the predetermined course of action.

As in every argument, within this one there are hidden premises (called enthymemes). If we can discover what these are, we can see first hand the faulty reasoning that leads to all conspiracy theories—not just this especially crazy one. The most important enthymeme in this case is that all of our previous attempts have been good and noble, and ultimately would have succeeded, if it weren’t for those meddling kids! Er, Reptoids.

But this is a pretty rash assumption, is it not? Why should we actually believe that we can solve all of life’s problems or that people have solved life’s problems, only to be foiled by an invisible despot like the Reptoids or the Illuminati or the all powerful Jew? Well for starters, we believe these things because ever since the enlightenment philosophers and scientists have been telling us that as history moves forward it progresses.

Things get better, and life gets better. To paraphrase Kant, a people become enlightened when they stop being lazy and start thinking for themselves. This, my friends, is the culprit behind conspiracy theories. “Surely, the fact that I work a dead-end job can’t be my fault. It must be [insert group here].” A more honest appraisal would claim that life is always fairly tough, and that you will have to work hard just to get by.

Of course, not all democrats think this way. The ancient Greeks toyed with democracy, and they were old fashioned pessimists. (Who but a pessimist could formulate the Wisdom of Silenus: “The best thing in life is to never have been born; the second best is to die as young as possible.”) Really, it is only liberal democrats that think this way. When a collective group of people starts to honestly believe in progress, they become arrogant and complacent. They no longer hope that the future will bring good tidings, they actively expect it.

Ultimately, the democrat is addicted to the belief in his own power, yet not in a way that promotes action or striving. He fails to conceive that the forces of nature and providence are stronger than him, and that in the end, it is completely natural that he is not in charge of a lot of other people. What the democratic mind is absolutely prohibited from is moderation when it comes to self-worth.

The democratic mentality, unless tempered with a strong cultural framework or education, will almost always lead to arrogance, hubris, and a victim’s mentality. When these three traits combine into a single human, we find the prototypical liberal, who is unhappy with life and the lives of others, but continuously demands more and more from life in an attempt to redeem it.

This is not to say that there aren’t cases in which people are actively being suppressed by malevolent forces, like in North Korea. The problem is when people take this explanatory model and try to explain all sorts of things with it. “I’m in debt; the Jews did it.” “I can’t get elected to a local office; the Masons are plotting against me.” The weather has been bad this year; The government must be using chem trails.” Sometimes, things are just bad, and sometimes people just fail. It happens, and in 85% of the cases it is not the fault of someone else.

58 Comments

  1. Mihai says:

    You are treating the problem of “conspiracy theories” in a much too simplistic manner.

    First, we should note that the term itself- “conspiracy theory”- is entirely derogatory and is promoted by the ones who have a wholly bi-dimensional, positivist view of history.

    In truth, it is a matter of searching for hidden agendas and ulterior motives behind extremely influential world events which are presented as harmless, “natural” phenomena.

    Of course, no one denies that this search leads, in a great majority of cases, to unrestricted fantasy and delusional imagination, like the David Icke case, however, this is a typical tactic of the positivists who always insist on the most insane cases, while completely ignoring other more rational, informed and balanced theories.

    Another fallacy of this article is to insist that such theories are, in all cases, born from the desire to blame others for one’s own shortcomings. Once again, this might be true in many examples, but no more than that- they are just SOME examples. An in-depth, three dimensional view of history and world events is a matter of far greater complexity than some pop-magazine conspiracies make it look.

    Also you’re arguments about “conspiracy theories” being essentially a liberal thing is highly questionable. Liberals are usually the ones who promote a world-view based solely on appearances and this positivist view is certainly extended towards history. They’re the ones who would like us to believe that history has been an uninterrupted line of “natural evolution” and that certain revolutions and subversive events are no more than the text books tell us- the will of the masses in a spontaneous desire for “freedom”.

    1. 1349 says:

      It’s because you’re commenting on just another pop-magazine article.

      Still, the author gives us some air to breathe: 15% of cases when it’s not our fault, hoho. Wonder what those cases are…

    2. The point — it seems to me — is that the origin of all of our problems is obvious: degeneracy within.

      Anything else is deflection.

      1. Mihai says:

        Deflection ? Maybe if you live on a mountain with no human contact whatsoever.

        In our time of internet, technology and large metropolises, it is easier than ever to be manipulated and become dedicated towards a subversive purpose, all the while believing that you are doing “the right thing”.

        Degeneracy within is a fact, but there are certain groups who exploit it, causing more and more disorder. While it is far too late to repair disorder through conventional means, it is very important, on the individual level at least, to discover and understand certain tactics and means through which destructive and subversive ideas can get a foothold in one’s mentality and world-view.

        This article is one-dimensional and reduces to its lowest manifestation an issue that deserves more serious attention.

        1. ferret says:

          “In our time of internet, technology and large metropolises, it is easier than ever to be manipulated and become dedicated towards a subversive purpose, all the while believing that you are doing “the right thing”.”

          I have been thinking about it quite a bit. I have a similar feeling, except, maybe, the Internet: it is two way communication, as opposed to papers or tv. That means, if we have enough rationally thinking people active on the Internet, the Internet may become different from the other brainwashing tools. Though I may be too optimistic.

          1. That means, if we have enough rationally thinking people active on the Internet, the Internet may become different from the other brainwashing tools.

            Not a chance.

            The people are brainwashing themselves.

            That’s the point. People want easily-chewed truths, so they pay the person who lies, and thus they brainwash themselves and as a bonus they get to blame it on others.

            That’s the essence of a realistic worldview about the problems of democracy, equality, utilitarianism and pluralism.

            1. ferret says:

              “Not a chance.”

              Do you mean, this site, your posts, and the comments of the others have the format that makes the message lost for the rest of the population?

              Then what is the purpose, to entertain the alike-thinking and complain about 1789, equality, etc., with no outcome?

              “People want easily-chewed truths, so they pay the person who lies”

              Doesn’t make much sense. If I want the truths, I don’t pay for the lies.
              The easily-chewed truths are truths; they may and must be conveyed for getting more people supporting your ideas.

          2. Mihai says:

            The internet is like a jungle- it is very easy to lose yourself in its indefinite number of ramifications.

            No one is really excluded from such dangers- you’re one click away from anything and it is very easy to become passive and waste time surfing irrelevant or low quality entertainment.

            While it is true that the internet also offers some possibilities for knowledge, the truth is that the grand majority is not interested in that. Most people don’t even think about these possibilities- all they want is pop videos on youtube, free porn and “socialising” on facebook. Thus the internet is crowded by such opportunities, while the worthy bits are buried beneath a large pile of garbage and it can be quite tiring to sort it all out.

            Plus, just because it is a sort of two-way communication, it can easily fool intelligent people that they are active towards what they are receiving. A while ago, someone told me that he is not letting himself manipulated by on-line newspapers and big agencies- he is collecting information from “independent blogs and news sites”. This without even asking himself if those are really as independent as they claim or, even if they are, that they could be influenced by a set of ideas and currents without realizing it.

            1. ferret says:

              “The internet is like a jungle- it is very easy to lose yourself”

              Then let’s stay home, close the shutters, and turn the computer and the light off – to avoid reading a wrong book.

              “While it is true that the internet also offers some possibilities for knowledge, the truth is that the grand majority is not interested in that.”

              There is a reason why the majority is not interested. Knowing this reason can help.
              Also the majority is ready to receive the message in the form of a video. Recently, there was a post inviting to video production (Video Star).
              And the goal is to make a certain part of the minority believing in a new values, and it might be even more important.

              Now about the “independent blogs and news sites” problem.
              Let this blog to be controlled by FBI, or Illuminati, or whatever in power (even the crow’s Snebuloids, see his comment below). You post something they don’t know whether to approve it or not, and have to analyze it.

              The possible results are:
              1. They can benefit from the idea;
              2. There is a threat for them;
              3. Inbetween, not important.

              If you are looking at the society as a whole, you probably are proposing something that everyone would benefit from. As long as there is no call for a violent revolution to satisfy the self-interest of a single group of the society, there is no danger of being suppressed, but you have a good chance to get support from the controlling institutions. That would include a right education of the majority.

              If you are looking to fulfill the self-interest of a group, there is no need in changing anything: it’s already done and works. Though not as well as it would be in case of the whole system optimization.

              1. Mihai says:

                “Then let’s stay home, close the shutters, and turn the computer and the light off – to avoid reading a wrong book.”

                I was referring to an entanglement in irrelevance and useless time consumption, not to some kind of fear of the dark as you seem to make my sentence say. And the internet is by far the number one source of irrelevance.

                “There is a reason why the majority is not interested. Knowing this reason can help.”

                The reason is that the majority doesn’t have a will of its own, but rather goes this or that way according to the latest tendencies. The easiest way to lead the majority is by presenting it with easy digestable stuff. The masses don’t want difficult tasks, they don’t want to strive for long-term goals or to be lucid. Sometimes, the circumstances are so, that they have no choice and they must do all these things.
                However, in our day and age, where the number one objective is to make everything as easy and vulgar as possible, no change can occur without a violent shock.

                For this society the ideals of comfort and short-term satisfactions are religion. Try to convince them to lead a life that is not limited to petty concerns and they will literally not understand what you are saying.

                1. ferret says:

                  “The easiest way to lead the majority is by presenting it with easy digestable stuff.”

                  “However, in our day and age, where the number one objective is to make everything as easy and vulgar as possible, no change can occur without a violent shock.”

                  If there is a way to lead the majority, there is no need in a violent shock.

                  “For this society the ideals of comfort and short-term satisfactions are religion.”

                  All depends on what this “comfort” means. In case of the high living standards – that’s what we have right now – there is no hope.

                  If the quality of life is taken as a criterion, it’s already a completely different story. I would be happy to be in.

                  1. Mihai says:

                    What do you understand by “quality of life” ?

                    1. ferret says:

                      The concept of the QOL is explained in wiki, Quality Of Life.
                      The QOL index in different countries is here:
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

                      I see here a strong connection with the values of this site, e.g., traditionalism, deep ecology, and conservatism.

                      For me, the high QOL means to be respected and awarded for the contribution to the society, have no fears for the future, to have a goal in the life, to live in a clean safe environment, to travel and to meet people I would be happy to talk to.

      2. 1349 says:

        In order to come down with an infective disease, one needs both

        a) to be worn out or old (“degeneracy within”);

        AND

        b) bacteria or viruses.

        1. Esotericist says:

          What about cancers? Some of those are just mutations, comparable to bad ideas that people have that end up becoming popular.

          1. 1349 says:

            The disease of the West is infective. =)

    3. Esotericist says:

      There are no hidden agendas if you’re a Machiavellian. For every group, there is one mandate: conquer.

    4. Esotericist says:

      It’s not a conspiracy theory to say that a wealthy group is going to manipulate the rest of us to achieve it’s goals.

      Pentacostals, Jews, corporations, Freemasons, blue-bloods and race hucksters all do it to us every day.

      1. ferret says:

        Also banksters and their ATMs. And some of vegeterians.

  2. Don Oznoto Ignoto says:

    Your posting shows a dumbing down of Amerika.org.

    So sorry.

    There are conspiracies, and always have been.

    Some of them even succeed undetected.

    Your generalities are too broad.

    1. Esotericist says:

      You’re probably right, but then the ueber-conspiracy would be start stories about false conspiracies.

    2. Sun says:

      Agreed.

  3. 1349 says:

    As i observe the political and metapolitical (ideological, cultural) struggle in my region, i find many of the methods of clandestine war, as described by traditionalists, extensively used.
    A man who has never heard about those methods will not analyze and understand what’s going on and will most likely be affected by them.
    Conspiracies? Use any word you like but one needs resources, personnel, a high level of management / coordination and thorough planning to implement those methods.

    I’m but a peasant. In the sense that it’s not my “mission” to be a leader / politician, to think and work on a state scale and organize societies, nor do i have abilities for that. Living in constant readiness for deceiving and cheating and for being deceived and cheated (so that “conspiracies” could have no effect) is madness to me. Maybe it requires that “special mentality” that ferret once mentioned. But i guess about 80% indo-europeans don’t have it. And that special mentality is only effective against us trustful people.

    So can it be OUR fault that, for example, there is aggressive SYSTEMATIC liberal propaganda in my country? SYSTEMATIC propaganda of “LGBT rights”, “sex without obligations” etc. etc.? Certain people are paid for these jobs – which they don’t deny. Am i allowed to put things like these into the “15% of cases”? <8)
    Or how can i redress my "fault"? Become a media magnate and organize crushing counter-propaganda? Seize power and establish a militarist dictatorship? =)

    1. Mihai says:

      The author does have a point in the fact that it is all to easy to use this information in a completely “negative” way- for example to blame modernity for one’s spiritual failures and do nothing about it, instead of using all one’s resources to find a way around this mess.

      However, such attitudes are wrong attitudes and not every person who looks past appearances and school book history is about blaming others.

    2. ferret says:

      “Use any word you like but one needs resources, personnel, a high level of management / coordination and thorough planning to implement those methods.”

      Our world, including societies, is a dynamical system that is highly sensitive to initial conditions. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory)

      There is a point where a small impact can turn everything over. For example, you put this above comment. I read it and remember about the butterfly effect and the Internet that can help. In order to test the idea, I compose a chain letter with a statement supported by everyone and changing people’s psychology in radical way. Now we have a new society, and you did it with this stimulating comment! Low budget conspiracy.

      1. 1349 says:

        Our world, including societies, is a dynamical system that is highly sensitive to initial conditions.

        So? Should we all think that any aim is unachievable? =)
        Shorter-term results are more predictable, longer-term – less predictable.

        Come on, if you’ve recruited a group of designers and started developing a submarine, how likely is it that, in the end, you’ll develop an active phased array radar instead?

        Do you believe nature is completely chaotic? To me it’s like believing that black is white…

        In order to test the idea, I compose a chain letter with a statement supported by everyone and changing people’s psychology in radical way. Now we have a new society, and you did it with this stimulating comment! Low budget conspiracy.

        How likely is that?

        1. ferret says:

          “Should we all think that any aim is unachievable?”

          No, the opposite: any aim is achievable. I remember a fly was trying to get out through a glass pane; there was an opened window nearby, but it kept trying, until it accidentally took right way. Or maybe, I helped it.

          We can achieve any aim by a right movement at a right time and a right place.

          “Do you believe nature is completely chaotic?”

          This “completely” makes me unsure you are talking in terms of the chaos theory. What is chaotic for you?

          “How likely is that?”

          When you win, it doesn’t matter the chance was tiny. And I’m pretty sure there will be no prize without buying a lottery ticket.

          1. 1349 says:

            We can achieve any aim by a right movement at a right time and a right place.

            ..which isn’t really in conflict with

            “Use any word you like but one needs resources, personnel, a high level of management / coordination and thorough planning to implement those methods”.

            1. ferret says:

              Of course. My point was, if one has no extensive resources, he still has a chance, e.g., Hitler, Lenin, Obama,…

              1. 1349 says:

                if one has no extensive resources, he still has a chance

                …to be recruited. =)

    3. Esotericist says:

      Liberals aren’t a conspiracy because they’re out in the open. They don’t tell you “Hey, we’re parasites” but you’re supposed to be able to infer that yourself.

      1. 1349 says:

        Should a real conspiracy tell me it is a parasite?

        Also, liberal propaganda isn’t necessarily organized by liberals.

        1. ferret says:

          A real conspiracy doesn’t leave you a chance even to infer they are parasites.

          Liberal and any opposite propaganda are organized, most likely, by those who is benefiting from their fight.

          If I were a king, I would organize couple of competing parties, or even revolutionary circuits (with my people in them) to have everything under control. Then I would observe how they fight, blaming each other for anything going wrong.

          1. 1349 says:

            I would organize couple of competing parties, or even revolutionary circuits (with my people in them)

            It’s common practice…

            1. ferret says:

              If so, what about the democrats and the republicans, were they recruited?

              1. 1349 says:

                Well, i guess.
                Still, you live there, while i don’t, so who of us knows better? =)

                Here in Belarus, Lukashenka has for years been “recruiting” liberals just by not cutting off their financing from the EU (which he could easily do). Thus he has a) scapegoats; b) a fake enemy, a pole which attracts those discontented but will never organize them into a tangible force.
                He also likes to reform and create new national security departments from time to time, and no wonder there are conflicts among them.
                In the USSA =), are there tension and mutual arrests between normal police and FBI, FBI and NSA etc.?

                1. ferret says:

                  “who of us knows better?”

                  Sometimes it’s better seen from outside. I’m not in politics, don’t read newspapers, don’t watch tv.

                  Sometimes, I suspect there is still capitalism in the US, but I can’t be sure: nobody here knows what it is, and, therefore, cannot confirm.

                  I haven’t heard about a tension between these government authorities, FBI and others, but I might be unaware.

                  1. 1349 says:

                    Sometimes it’s better seen from outside.

                    Well, yes.
                    In the USSA, with your large population (can i use the word “large” in this combination?) and an atomized society, it is easier to make a deceitful circus of all politics.

                    In Belarus, which is like a large village (less than 10 million and small territory) where everyone knows everyone, it is quite hard to weave large scale secret plots.

  4. EvilBuzzard says:

    Obsessing over Jews is patently ridiculous. Here’s a list of the major world religions by Number of adherants. (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html)

    1.Christianity: 2.1 billion

    2.Islam: 1.5 billion

    3.Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion

    4.Hinduism: 900 million

    5.Chinese traditional religion: 394 million

    6.Buddhism: 376 million

    7.primal-indigenous: 300 million

    8.African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million

    9.Sikhism: 23 million

    10.Juche: 19 million

    11.Spiritism: 15 million

    12.Judaism: 14 million

    13.Baha’i: 7 million

    14.Jainism: 4.2 million

    15.Shinto: 4 million

    16.Cao Dai: 4 million

    17.Zoroastrianism: 2.6 million

    18.Tenrikyo: 2 million

    19.Neo-Paganism: 1 million

    20.Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand

    21.Rastafarianism: 600 thousand

    22.Scientology: 500 thousand

    The key takeaway here is that for Christianity, Islam or even Secular Humanism to produce theories about “The Bankers” is as stupid as it is evil.
    All three of the major “faiths” I’ve listed above have two OM more followers than the jews.

    I tend to think this is why anti-semitism is as popular as it is. YOu actually *can* get away with beating jews. Try that crap on A Moslim and it will look like a scene from the Godfather. Except it won’t be a horse’s head in your bed; it will be your head in the toilet.

    1. Sun says:

      Unfortunately, there is truth to these theories. They become over inflated with garbage to become conspiracy theories. If there was no truth to them they wouldn’t have any following at all. The truth gets expounded with lies for certain political ends.

      For example, there is Jewish organizations that have strictly Zionist and Jewish interest that influence American government. AIPAC is one of them. This is undisputed.

      It is understandably and it is fact. However, this turns into “The Jews (like a collective hive mind)” are all running America for strictly Zionist ends. Many people find it absurd because it sounds like there is some conspiracy (i.e. the Jews have a uniform conscious and goal).

      What is surprising though (that adds to the conspiracy theory) is many liberal Jews are Pro Zionist. They believe in a Jewish nationalism. The irony of politics. This is why like I said many times before, I hate the binary political spectrum, that even the author on here advocates.

      If one was to say we have conflict of interest within the political class due to certain lobby groups that have interest in totally different state. It looses is conspiracy nature but really goes to towards the same goal. If it was said in such a way would be “at the level” of pro Israel propaganda.

      Note: It really depends on which side your own. Each side has their rhetoric.

      Those who advocate AIPAC say they’re isn’t really any conflict of interest. The organization builds stronger bonds between both Israel and America as they both have the similar system of government (democracy) and value democracy. Israel is the only government to have such a system, surrounded by enemies, thus it is essential to have a powerful ally. Often times it is followed by an offensive, with “If you’re not for this you are Anti-Semitic and wish for the destruction of Israel and the Jews.”

      The point here is that EVERY side has propaganda to sway the masses. Propaganda doesn’t reject reality but rather distorts it.

      “History is the version of past events that people have decided to agree upon.”–Napoleon Bonaparte

      1. Sun says:

        Or for simplicity sake (for those who hate my ramblings), as my daddy used to say:

        “There are three sides to every story. Your side. My side. And the Truth.”

    2. crow says:

      You forgot one:
      Taoism: 9.

  5. Elijah Bernbaum says:

    I see white nationalists use the term “Zionist Conspiracy” out of total jealously. They whine, “well, why wont white people unite and organize our selves, why don’t we control money, power and influence?”

    Yes, Jews tend to have ethnic solidarity and often look fondly upon another Jewish individual. Yes, they may help each other out. Yes, they may want to live near each other. Yes, they may support a state of ethnic solidarity.

    The funny thing is that a “nationalist” would oppose those traits in another ethnic group, while proclaiming loudly how upset they are that their own group doesn’t have it. Sounds like a whiny child. How can one “oppose liberalism” and yet openly oppose what is fundamentally anti-liberalism?

    Personally, I think “white nationalism” is a big liberal anti-Jewish conspiracy. They want to tear down a diverse array of different ethnic and culture groups and give birth to a big homogenized white mass. No wonder they fail so badly – fundamentally, they are what they claim to hate!

    1. Yes, Jews tend to have ethnic solidarity and often look fondly upon another Jewish individual. Yes, they may help each other out. Yes, they may want to live near each other. Yes, they may support a state of ethnic solidarity.

      If European-descended peoples spent half the time on emulating this behavior that they do on criticizing/genociding it, we’d be a lot farther along the path to truth.

      Also, as I’m fond of saying, blaming The Jew(tm) lets the real culprit off the hook: white liberals. I’m not saying we should feed them to the dogs, but if they were too tired to do much after work and couldn’t vote, it might be a better world.

      1. EvilBuzzard says:

        Considering who The Pale Pink-Weiners voted for here in the US of A, I’d be happy if didn’t feed the dogs to them!

  6. ferret says:

    “David Icke proposed a theory that an alien life form called Reptoids”
    This theory, in its turn, was proposed by Mushrooms that control the Earth. In order to distract attention from the real authority.
    http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_ideas/Zoo_p060.shtml

    Just google “mushrooms intelligence” and you’ll know the truth. Some scientists assert Lenin was (and still is) a mushroom :)

    1. crow says:

      Reptoids don’t actually exist.
      It’s the Snebuloids that are controlling everything.

      1. ferret says:

        Be careful with disclosing the real masters name.

      2. ferret says:

        There is an old joke from the cows folklore:

        Two cows are talking:

        “Sometimes, I have a feeling, men raise us only to drink our milk, and eventually to kill us for meat.”

        “Don’t tell this stupid conspiracy theory, or you’ll be ridiculed by others.”

  7. Brian Jefferson says:

    The point is not that everything in history is a “natural” event, or that ulterior motives don’t exist. The point, which perhaps I did not make sufficiently clear, is that the psychology promoted by a democratic society is intimately connected with conspiracy theories on the side of people who believe them, but also in the cases where they happen, on the side of the perpetrators. When there is a defined power structure the people in charge don’t have to lie to get what they want. They don’t have to use ulterior motives, just their honest motives. Did Alexander The Great have to lie to his people, or sneak around and use sabotage to become powerful? Did the Assyrians have to tell their own citizens that they were out on peace-keeping missions when they decapitated and gouged out the eyes of entire villages? No, because they didn’t have to keep up the pretense of obeying the whims of farmers and merchants.

    Some one is always in charge. Most of the time this is explicit. In modern times, it is covered up under the pretense of “working for the people.” In a society where the individual needs of individual people are not being pandered to, there are virtually no “conspiracies” being propagated, and the people aren’t on a constant witch hunt to find out who is causing their misery (which isn’t to say that they have never happened). The people have already accepted that in most cases, life is not a joy ride.

    One final thought: In a society where the material standard of living is not the sole focus of how “good” a society is, people aren’t as unhappy. In a society where people are not being force-fed advertisements all day, they don’t feel nearly as inadequate. In a society when people aren’t being lied to on a daily basis by their politicians, they won’t be looking to always find a reason why they are not as happy or as successful as they have been told they ought to be.

    1. ferret says:

      “One final thought: In a society …”

      Have you tried to articulate this paragraph in a positive way?
      For example:

      In a society where the quality of life is the main criterion how “good” a society is, people are happy. In a society where people are fulfilling their real needs, they feel adequate. In a society where people get the truthful information, they are happy everything is fine, or they are glad to help resolving problems.

      Just curious.

  8. Esotericist says:

    White people: a small group that through racist preference for each other, has maintained a life of relative wealth and comfort and tends to exclude outsiders, and conspire for its own power.

    That’s the media narrative. You’d call that a conspiracy, wouldn’t you? But almost all of our politicians and fellow citizens accept it. It is a socially acceptable “truth” you can say anywhere.

    Now replace “white people” with “Jews.”

    What’s really different?

  9. crow says:

    I found the essay excellent, BJ.
    Don’t take these nay-sayers seriously.
    Nobody else does.
    That’s why most of them hang out here :)
    I hope to see more of you.

  10. Sun says:

    Um…side quote, but how do you quote? I’ve tried [quote] [/quote] and it didn’t work (as well as bold or italics too). Any help would be faaaaantastic!

    The person will win the reward of being in my memory for the day–a true honor!

    Thanks. Now please resume to bashing each other :)

      1. Esotericist says:

        How Did I miss this?

  11. Esotericist says:

    This article is much better than the average on this site, I hope there are more of them, it can’t be easy to come up with something like this just on the spot but they are good reading,

  12. Freelancer says:

    Well, conspiracy theories like this are popular because people don’t won’t to accept their responsibilities. I’m sad that people still do believe in this kind of things.

Leave a Reply

43 queries. 1.162 seconds