So there's a lot of conspiracies that float around the internet, and conspiracy theory is a big part of the American pop culture landscape.
Right now, there's a propaganda war happening right here on Facebook, and the future of the world depends on the outcome. Because of that propaganda war, there's a huge amount of pressure on the American population to rebel, or at least look the other way while others rise up.
I used to be absolutely obsessed with a lot of conspiracy theory, even the ones not politically charged in any way. If it was a conspiracy theory, I probably believed it by nature of the fact that "The Man didn't want me to know". The thing about it is, a lot of things aren't called bulls^&% because "The Man" is trying to suppress them; A lot of things people call bulls^%& on get called bulls^%$ because they're total nonsense you'd have to be an idiot to believe.(Hi, C.I.A. microphones implanted into peoples fillings!)
The reason for me being so susceptible to bats%$^ insane conspiracies that made no logical sense is that I used to be all about "The Uprising" back when I was 18-19 up until I was 23~ish. I probably obsessed on revolution a little too much back then to be totally honest. For reference, I'm 31 now.
The play I'd make was I'd get okie doked by a BS propaganda film, it would drive my desire to revolt, and then it'd get disproven. I'd still want to believe in the uprising even after the propaganda I was using to justify that belief got proven false, so I'd let myself get okie doked by a different bs propaganda film as long as it led me to the conclusion I wanted to reach. I was romantically attached to the idea of revolution.
After a while, so much of what I had been using to drive my fantasies of rebellion was being proven logically unsound and/or factually inaccurate with so much consistency, that I couldn't keep letting myself get fooled and still pretend to be as intelligent and rational as I claimed I was.
I came to realize all these things that pushed revolution the most were also the things most frequently getting outed as verifiable lies, and couldn't. I looked around for one solid piece of factual evidence I could use to keep my fantasy going and couldn't find a single one.
I still love conspiracies, and love breaking them down logically even if I don't believe in them or base my life on them like I used to.
The way I stopped getting fooled into acting against my own best interest by propaganda is by being much more strict and disciplined about my critical thinking. Most people are not nearly as painstaking in adhering to raw logic as I am when they look at a conspiracy theory, and it definitely creates real differences in my interpretations of the events involved in any conspiracy.
Before I go any further, I want to explain what I mean by *disciplined* critical thinking. Everybody does some level of critical thinking because humans absolutely need to in order to survive. You're thinking critically whether you know it or not. What's different between *disciplined* critical thinking and the normal critical thinking all humans do subconsciously is that there's a strict set of rules that you need to follow to in order to make common logical errors impossible. These rules are there to stop made-up bullshit from guiding your thinking and prevent bias from forcing you into incorrect conclusions.
1. Make sure your facts are coming from sources that are reliable and unbiased. That means if you're preaching to people about Justin Bieber being a reptilian overlord based on information that came from a website called "We Make Up Verifiable Lies About Celebrities Being Aliens" or get your political opinion from biased news outlets like Fox News and MSNBC, you need hang your head in shame. Fact-checking is important groundwork to make sure your logic is based in reality and unbiased.
Most people fuck up this one up right out of the gate even when they're not discussing conspiracy. MSM indoctrination depends on people falling into this logical trap and never fact-checking.
2. Always remember that your current knowledge pool has errors and you could be really f&^&ing wrong about something. This means if something conflicts with what you already know, you need to double check what you know via a credible and unbiased source. You need to be criticizing yourself more than you do others in order to weed out these errors.
3. Be ready to accept any outcomes without bias. You can never settle on a conclusion beforehand and work with the goal of reaching the conclusion you predetermined. Not following this rule is what made me make the logical error I used to make when I'd get fooled by bulls%^$ conspiracies.
4. Remember that you're most likely missing information and be prepared to account for all the different possibilities. Again, an open mind is the name of the game here.
5. Stick strictly to facts, don't make assertions unless absolutely necessary. This is to stop you from basing your outcome on made up bullshit that makes no sense. (Hi, Reptilian overlords!)
6. If you need to make an assertion to reach a logical conclusion, everything past the point where you make an unproven assertion becomes speculation no matter how likely the assertion is.
7. If you make an assertion like that, you need to think of any possible alternatives and consider every line of thought equally plausible until there's solid factual evidence proving one of the alternatives true. This stops you from acting on incorrect speculation. (Hi, everyone who gave away their life-savings on 12/20/2012!)
Unless your critical thinking is sticking to this set of rules religiously, it's not *disciplined* critical thinking, it's just shitty regular critical thinking that sucks and makes you look dumb.
Now that I've got the rules laid out, let's go through some lines of thought just so we can learn by doing and see firsthand examples of what I mean:
So, I told you I used to get a boner for propaganda that pushed for revolution in America, and that a very large percentage of that propaganda got proven factually inaccurate or was logically retarded.
That much misinformation being circulated to force a revolution meant there was a person, a group of people, or multiple groups of people trying to create a civil war here in America.
That raises two questions: Who's making it and why?
Prior to adopting my current system of disciplined critical thinking, the place my mind had been trained to jump at first for the who was "the freedom fighting rebellion. That meant the answer to "why" was "Because the rebellion is justified."
Once too much of it had been proven factually inaccurate or logically retarded, that forced me to come to the conclusion that mean the rebels were using lies to justify the rebellion? That means the rebellion isn't justified.
My entire thinking from before no longer worked. Back to square one and this time with logic to stop me from believing propaganda.
Who? An unknown source
Why? To create a false rebellion.
Why create a false rebellion? That depends on the source. There's two possible sources other than a legitimate rebellion, which we've already excluded via the fact that they're using misinformation instead of the truth. That means there's two possible answers here:
A) A foreign power so they could destroy the American empire.
B) The American government for reasons I'll explore in a second.
C) An internal power attempting to overthrow the government for purposes of personal gain and power, not moral justice.
Lines A and C stop right here, and if I ever get solid evidence that a foreign government is working to overthrow the American government we can finally put this whole "Should I rebel?" question to rest.
Oh... wait... what's that?
There's a foreign superpower named "Russia" who's hellbent on destroying America? Well that's news to me...
And you said one of their most commonly used techniques is overthrowing governments with divide and conquer propaganda campaigns?
HOLY SHIT THAT MEANS I WAS BEING DUPED BY A FOREIGN POWER TRYING TO GET ME TO ACT AGAINST MY OWN BEST INTEREST ALL ALONG!!!!!!!!
But wait... I still don't have concrete factual evidence that the propaganda I was watching came from Russia. That's just a very plausible conclusion I can reach via speculation. Remember that rule about exploring all possible lines of thought when speculating? Mothef^&!er. That means we need to keep going and explore line B, doesn't it?
First up, line A accounts for any foreign power attempting to defeat America via espionage, so we don't need to consider any more foreign sources. The only other source not excluded that way is the U.S. government.
Why would the government want to create a rebellion? They obviously don't want to create a rebellion that defeats them and puts them out of power; That means "So they can squash it" is the only logical answer to this question.
What could the government gain from squashing a made up rebellion?
Justification for declaring martial law, deploying the US military into combat positions on US soil and exerting true military control over the US population, and freeing themselves from the restraints of the constitution.
For a long time, I actually did go around pushing for peace and trying to dissuade people from the idea of rebellion with the assumption that line B was the case, and to this day I consider it a very likely possibility.
The reason I was so devoted to line B thinking is that I was still very much under the influence of propaganda that demonized our government. I immediately assumed my enemy was the U.S. Shadow Government. People these days call the Shadow Government "The Deep State" but I was hip to that s%^$ before people started using that term, and "Shadow Government" sounds way f%^&ing cooler so I'm not changing now.
Make no mistake, the shadow government is very real and very influential on our politics. It's essentially a 4th branch of our government made up of military, intelligence, federal law enforcement, and well connected political insiders like the Bush's and the Clintons. It's obvious this thing exists, if you want evidence it's all right there in plain sight if you take a look at how things within the government operate. Hillary didn't get her nomination over the much more popular Sander's by accident. That primary election was just one obvious example of the shadow government working its magic to do a buttsexing to the American general population. They don't have total control just yet because the constitution prevents that form of rule. The American population rebelling against the constitutional government would give them the justification they need to declare martial law indefinitely and never go back to respecting things like "your rights" or "the fact that you're human" ever again.
This is how I originally came to the conclusion that the shadow government was attempting to subvert the Constitution, and I started pushing for unity.
However, the events of the last three years has led to me to considering Russia an equal possibility. They laid the groundwork of dissent as pregame for when they could get a puppet in. The Don came along and something about him made him the guy. Now they're triggering the false rebellion and are trying to dismantle the republic in order to install an authoritarian dictatorship under Putin's control.
No matter which one of these lines of thinking you follow, a violent revolution is not the answer if you're someone who wants to rebel.
I'm someone who wants to rebel...
S&^! is totally f$%^ed right now...
The government is locking up more people than any other nation on Earth and we're using drone strikes that kill more civilians than enemy soldiers...
But I need to go about it peacefully somehow...
Maybe I'll write an essay called "The Call to Cultural Revolution" and then make a Facebook page dedicated to it...
I could include stuff about Mental Health and Addiction awareness on the page too, along with Spirituality too since those are so important to me...
Oh and I'll include some memoirs too cause my life is completely wild on account of how bats$%^crazy I am and all the drugs I used to do...
Holy s%$^ guys I just had an idea for an awesome Facebook page!!!!
As bad as things are right now, we're actually blessed here in America. I'm straight dirt poor, but I still have a smart phone and gaming PC. I'm never hungry. My life is filled with awesome friends in similar situations. I want for nothing, and my life is peaceful.
The fact that I can publicly publish this essay without fear of direct legal retribution puts us ahead of Russia and China. The Constitution gets my man parts hard. Its not a lie when people say its one of the most important documents in history.
If you're really a rebel these days, you support the government and the U.S. constitution.
There's actually an easter egg that was built into the page from the start with hints about a third possible conclusion to the Russia/Shadow Government thing if you're really looking to get your conspiracy gears turning. See if you can find it and figure out the bats%^$ crazy thinking that goes into all the bats^&%crazy stuff I do!
Don't revolt, muh dudes.
REDUNDANT SUPER BONUS JFK CONSPIRACY ROUND THAT'S EXTRA SPECIAL AND ANALYZES JFK CONSPIRACY SO I CAN DO THE SAME THING TWICE FOR PEOPLE WHO LIKE READING LOTS OF REDUNDANT THINGS ABOUT CONSPIRACIES A LOT.
Howdy! Did you enjoy the essay?
Don't worry nobody ever does.
Anywho, here's the JFK assassination...
This is one of the most plausible places for some f&*!ery in all of the American conspiracy landscape. The thing is, most people include things a secret U.S. intelligence agency with a handler for Oswald that had second shooters in the grassy knoll etc.
All that stupid bullshit likely distracts from the actual events.
I'm not gonna do a step by step breakdown of my logic this time, and instead just do a breakdown of my interpretation of the potential conspiracy versus the batshit stupid versions of it. All of this conspiracy breakdown I'm about to go through started as a rebuttal to someone who was talking about the footage of Oswald being taken from the jail and interviewed on camera just before being shot to death. They thought Oswald saying "I needed legal representation" then staring into the camera was actually some code where Oswald was calling out to a handler.
Their interpretation of him calling out to a handler would not have survived my thinking. The first reason is they didn't have factual evidence for their assertion beyond subjective interpretations of Oswald's tone and demeanor.
It's also raises a few different questions logically that then need to be answered via more assertions based on even more conjecture, and allowing your thinking to go that route is how you end up believing in all manner of dumpster-humping crazy bulls^%&. (Hi, Illuminati demonmancers!)
Why would they recruit someone to use as a patsy when they could use an unsuspecting citizen who knew nothing about them?
What did they say to Oswald to get him where he was? They couldn't have told him he was going to be caught and charged.
If he really was part of a secret organization and he was their shooter for an assassination, why would that organization need to use a second shooter and him as a patsy? If they were as all powerful as people claim, couldn't they just make him not get caught instead?
The most important question it raises lacks a logical answer altogether... "Why would Oswald be reaching out to a handler he knew set him up to take the fall?" The closest answer can I provide for this is desperation, but that doesn't truly satisfy my standards logically for various reasons. Spilling the beans about his secret government job makes more sense as a desperation tactic.
One of the rules to disciplined critical thinking is a strict factual requirement. That rule pretty much eliminates the inclusion of a handler in this case. It isn't necessary for some a conspiracy to occur, and using one in my interpretation would require inserting too many other elements that aren't factually verifiable. It also wouldn't add much in terms of plausibility. The same goes for a second shooter from the grassy knoll.
My scenario for a potential JFK conspiracy is like this:
The shots fired did originate at the location stated in the official narrative or very near there. They just weren't fired by Oswald. Oswald was also somewhere in that vicinity.
The people guiding it all knew a scapegoat had to be produced quickly to prevent too much scrutiny and that scapegoat had to come from the same general direction as the gunfire to make sense logically. Oswald was just in an extremely unfortunate place with uniquely bad timing, and happened to be the first acceptable patsy to cross paths with the element of the conspiracy tasked with producing an adult male in that general area to satisfy the crowd. Oswald had no knowledge or affiliation with the conspiracy at all.
The lack of evidence confirming Oswald's movements throughout the narrative in general and specifically proving he was in firing position at the time the shots were fired is somewhat strange given the crowds surrounding the event. The first time he's ever undeniably in the location the narrative places him is when he enters custody.
Oswald, before his death, claims the photos of him with the weapon he carried out the assassination with are fake. This claim that the photo was fake seems conceptually plausible for a few reasons:
The photo is extremely convenient for anyone trying to prove his guilt, and there''s an inherent logical inconsistency in the idea that Oswald was a master assassin who accomplished the impossible and offed the leader of the free world while simultaneously being incompetent enough to get photographed in the act by a random passerby with no real reason to be in that location. All of it adds up to cast enough doubt on the photo that I can't logically treat it as concrete evidence.
That's it for the photos, but there's also a few other things that make me doubt the official narrative.
There's many independent accounts from various elements of the presidential security detail noting abnormal deviations from standard procedure present from the start of the operation and continuing until the shots were fired. They're generally consistent and overlapping. They center around abnormal positioning of personnel and strangely timed movements given via direct order. All of it indicates an intentional departure from standard thinking in the leadership that leaves a large unanswered question about the leaderships reasoning and motivations for this deviation.
All of these question marks all through the narrative make the official story hard to accept as truly fact-based for me.
All of that doubt created by the official narrative can be explained by circumstance if that were the core issue and my analysis stopped there.
There's one thing that sets this particular incident over the top and makes me go "Hey there's probably something there." First, here's the logical conclusions supporting the narrative thus far:
Oswald's movements are hard to place because he was up to no good and avoiding being seen. At that moment, he held no significance to most people that woulda made home noticeable, so nobody noticed him.
The lady taking the photo was trying to get a better shot of the motorcade, and just lucked onto the scene. The photo was real and a product of someone being in the right place at the right time.
The strange movements in the security detail were testing a new strategy or compensating for a situational factor
All the question marks do have viable logical answers and I would normally just apply those answers and accept the narrative due to the skepticism I use in order to avoid getting fooled by silly propaganda films the way I used to.
However, Oswalds almost immediate assassination without ever getting to provide a statement, and particularly the fact that it occured in police custody, casts all of it into doubt. This would be necessary for a conspiracy that was framing him to occur, and the fact that it happened in police custody makes it very suspicious. This makes a realistic form of conspiracy that avoids assumptions about the motives and methods of conspirators seem equally plausible to the official narrative.
Most conspiracies easily unravel when I scrutinize them using the rules I laid out for disciplined critical thinking, and the fact that this one survives it and gets stamped plausible but unprovable is actually a real strong performance in comparison.
It's important in these days of propaganda wars to put all things you hear pushing for revolution or calling for war up to a similar logical microscope, because there really are foreign and/or domestic elements trying to rob you of your freedom out there, and you need to be able to discern misinformation from the truth.
Good luck party people, this one was fun for me. I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did.