The Skeptinazi Credo: "Conspiracies Don't Exist"

This is one of what I call a "Skeptinazi / skeptifascist" fallacy. This is a sort of get out of jail free card that the fascist demeanored self-described "Skeptics" (note the capitol S) typically pull out when it's time to actually think (about the unthinkable). Usually they'll resort to pulling this card out after all else fails, but sometimes they even go the extra mile to actually pull this out from the onset of the debate or discussion to frame you as being a 'nutjob' pick-your-word to go for total victory by destroying you.

Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

This argument destroys that claim / mindset, and can effectively make them wish they never tried framing you as being the "fantasy world" (this is Popular Mechanics terminology for anyone who's skeptical of the official 911 narrative) tinfoil hat wearing pick your word.

This 'fallacy' is a particular favorite of those who actually want to debate things of this nature yet surely go for the 'accepted' belief of the case, and in the context of (them not) doubting the 9/11 event narrative (despite vast flaws and contradictory evidence) violates the definition of skepticism. To 'weigh' evidence in the goal of making it suit preconceptions and ideal realities isn't skepticism. 9/11 isn't the only example, but it's surely the choicest besides irrational political bias.

For those who actually try to talk to people about an issue like 911 you'll surely deal with the wishfully ignoramus mindset that avoids the discussion at all costs. In most cases, it seems that those who are new to the concepts in general won't always go for this approach either. Now when you get to those who are already experienced with the prospect that "the government" could have "done it" the odds of encountering the "conspiracies don't (or CANT) exist" arguments multiply. When you get to the Skeptinazi you're almost certain to encounter this, in fact, if you don't it may be safe to assume that the potential Skeptinazi isn't actually "sophisticated" enough to qualify as a 'member' of the 'sophisticated' Skeptinazi social group.

"Sophistication" in this regard actually means the scale of bias that affects the person. In abstract terms this mostly applies to the strength of the mindset and the time under which the delusional and irrational individual has been self-enslaved to the mindset. In all fairness, this can also apply to true "conspiracy theorists" who irrationally believe in all conspiracy 'theories', even those without merit and even evidence to the contrary. True "conspiracy theorists" are the ideological polar opposite of the Skeptinazi. A good reference is the politically biased delusionalists from the left / right paradigm mentality.

For clarification: The 'conspiracies don't exist' theory is actually more than a card to pull, it's actually deep mindset that is used when analyzing anything (ideal contradicting) from daily news and actual direct research by those who follow the ideology.

The "Skeptinazi" title is the term I coined, about a year ago, in response to observing the Social-imposters that present themselves as being the rational higher sort of cognitive class than the "kooky tinfoil hat wearing nut-bags" that dare to doubt the 911 official version or have gripes with the ever increasing totalitarian political / technological enslavement that we're all witnessing. More directly, they present a reality where skepticism is to doubt anything that ultimately challenges the norm, and that anyone who doesn't doubt isn't skeptical (and therefore insane deserving ideological bashing). So, to be a "Skeptic", you must patently doubt the existence of any "conspiracy", even though everytime you turn on the news they're conspiracy theorizing about virtually everything (in between celebrity gossip).

They present themselves as being the true "skeptics", but in truth they're only skeptical of basically any and all claims against the official version (of whatever). They'll persistently present themselves as being fancy status members like "Logicians", but bias social-psycho-neuroscience still dictates they're entire mindset and methods of interpreting information to suit ones psychological needs / wants.

They naively think that by memorizing the most-common-logical-fallacy lists they can overcome irrational human behavior / thinking patterns. This mindset is a fallacy in of itself: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Don't get me wrong, knowing at least some of fallacies on the list can not only help you in better interpreting the information you're pouring over but can also help you maintain a higher degree of being "right". However, knowing these fallacies alone cannot save you from being biased, which is important, because fMRI brain scans have proved that politically biased people self-deceive themselves to maintain their ideal constructs of reality.

Logical fallacies are like philosophical extensions of "cognitive biases", yet cognitive biases are the neurological underpinnings of logical fallacies and more. Don't forget that philosophy was the precursor to neuroscience/psychology/sociology/etc. In fact, worthy philosophy goes back to times when most cultures still believed we think with our hearts.
www.google.com...






[edit on 27-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

It's quite plausible that some of the most common fallacies might even deserve their own cognitive bias classifications, but it's certain that virtually all of them are the result of said cognitive biases. In many cases they're the result of complexes of cognitive biases. These complexes actually stem from the overall belief system of the brain in question, or rather the mindset.

So far in my studies, I've gathered about 100 known cognitive biases, and researching them in the contexts of the critical mindset complexes -that I consider to be Political Bias, Nationalism Bias and the omnipotent Skeptinazi Bias- I've identified an average of 23 cognitive biases involved in the normal mindset behavior / thinking patterns of those social groups. Said cognitive biases, in the mindset of any involved, or even in deeper in cases of the unwitting (masses) proves to be a cognitive determinant that supercedes the mere logical fallacy in the chain of cognitive hierarchy.

Also worth noting, yet somewhat out of context, is that this same large set of cognitive biases have the potential to affect literally every "normal" or "healthy" human being alive. These are a critical set of cognitive flaws of the brain that can be exploited (but this issue deserves it's own story…).
There have been cognitive bias studies where an extra control group was given full explanations of the cognitive bias that was under the spotlight of the study. In virtually all cases it's been found that the educated control group still fell for the same cognitive bias snare. This may seem daunting, but that doesn't mean that virtually all people can't overcome them because a great deal of the physical structuring of the brain that occurs during long term memory storage happens during naps and sleep. It seems very plausible, based on my full spectrum brain / mind research, that the same control group wouldn't fall for the bias test so easily after learning about it, being stumped by it (trial and error; learn the hard way) and then have one or more nights for the brain to do its reconfiguring work during sleep.

The mind is resistant to change (but practice does makes perfect), and then there's Motivated Reasoning. Motivated Reasoning is ultimately the overall model for these biased decision making mindsets that I further into sociological categorizations (Skeptinazi, Deep Nationalist, Political Party, etc Complexes).
www.google.com...

What's important to note here are these various cognitive dynamics and the fact that Skeptinazi's and the like are virtual slaves to maintaining their mindset. One fundamental reason is because memories and thought patterns are physical structures inside the brain. The longer they've "hardwired" themselves to the mindset(s) the more resistant and therefore more irrational they become in maintaining the ideal reality that they've chosen or more than likely have been indoctrinated with. Luckily for avoiding pessimism, said physical thought pattern structures in the brain can change thanks to neural "plasticity", however, one must understand these combined dynamics to have good hopes of truly overcoming them to achieve powers of actual free thought.

In any case the Skeptinazi social group does typically have the upper hand in debates because the true Skeptinazi practically worships the logical fallacy list, and it is an important framework in understanding human thought and decision making like the other examples above.
Now for the sake of the truth warriors I must lay out some choice historical examples that in their own right destroy the conspiracies don't exist ideal:

-The DARPA / NASA / Google joint artificial intelligence system that is nothing of any sort of theory, but rather an absolute fact that involves 'public' websites.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

-American Imperialism, or "The First Truth": I can list dozen of examples of this and not even just where we were bamboozled into false beliefs of the event but events we never even knew about, many of which of become "true" thanks to mostly recent declassifications yet still few actually know about them (typically unless you directly search for info). We're not just talking the false reasons given for virtually every war or skirmish since the end of WW2, but actual overthrows of democratic governments to install military dictatorships. Countless tens of thousands, both military and corporate, involved with millions of innocent people dead. Perhaps hundreds of millions denied "freedom" or democracy. But the big story here isn't the empire itself, it's the fact that very few Americans have ever even heard or considered the term.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

-The North American Union; that without Lou Dobbs there would be hardly any mainstream coverage of. Destruction of American sovereignty and nobody notices? Could this be a sort of statistic to represent this 'conspiracies don't exist' mentality? Probably mostly a representation of where the "interests" of our 'media' masters are focused, and how virtually the masses really know are shaped and prescribed by the elite.

-Echelon: the worldwide spy system that has been in operation for roughly 3 decades and wasn't accepted as real until the White House itself finally leaked to the public roughly a year ago. This is a system that has involved tens of thousands of people including not just moles or other loyalists but people from every level from construction worker to US Presidents.

-The Manhattan Project: not exactly a "conspiracy", yet a good example. This involved more than 130,000 people, yet according to Skeptinazi's "if more than 2 or 3 people know then everyone knows". There is nearly 300 million people in this country, all divided into over-competitive irrational fractions.

-Nuremburg: The Nazi trials were unprecedented. The challenge was how to even approach building the case. The primary strategy and directive was to treat the entire thing as a conspiracy, and tying the defendants to said conspiracy was ultimately the primary means of convicting anyone.
en.wikipedia.org...

[edit on 27-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

You could just as easil;y look at it from the other side a take a shot at the super conspiracy theororist who insists near everything is a conspiracy. Who believe the most backwards things instead of what is proven and known to be true and most likely, and if their conspiracy ever starts to fall apart they misinterpret more information to create more conpiracies to back up their original one.

In all fairness, this can also apply to true "conspiracy theorists" who irrationally believe in all conspiracy 'theories', even those without merit and even evidence to the contrary. True "conspiracy theorists" are the ideological polar opposite of the Skeptinazi. A good reference is the politically biased delusionalists from the left / right paradigm mentality.

The difference here is the reality that you just presented is shouted loud and wide by Skeptics, all the time, but here I've defined the other side of the coin (the biased Skeptics social group).

What's also important to point out is that Skeptics label anyone who doubt's their view as Conspiracy Theorists. In effect, to be skeptical of say the governments position brings upon you a CT label in virtually all online debate that I've ever witnessed. Maybe it's not as brutal here at ATS, but 'out there' it can be total madness.

When it's all said and done the Skeptics are just as irrational as the most hardlined and delusional CT'ers out there, while the people in the middle also get called CT'ers. Then said people in the middle are faced with do they want to look like paranoid nutters, or do they want to consider themselves "skeptical". It's fallacies across the board, propagated by none other than those who technically worship the common logical fallacy list.

I propose that in the search for truth all sides take this knowedge and do some introspecting.


And a side note: The definition of theory doesnt even make sense for how its applied. Add that to the list of fallacious Skeptic Theory.


[edit on 27-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 27-3-2007 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

*some* skeptics just aren't ready for the truth

and i think there subconscious minds don't allow them to debate certain things that they are not ready to handle the truth in (with there sheeple beleifs) in a sort of protection mechanism

follow this logic

talking about the psychology behind people wanting to put there heads in the sand... if so u need only understand the saying ignorance is bliss and the truth behind it and the pschology of people's behaviors, opinion's, and how the subconscious will try to preserve your ignorance when it knows that critical thought on the matter may not be able to be handle by your one's own beleif systems without feeling very unsafe.... again losing much pleasure by losing ignorance.. and gaining pain thru feeling less safe thru gaining awareness that the people protecting you (gov't) are sicko's...not exactly all that intriguing to most people (with sheeple beleifs) and the subconscious understands this

i.e "when the student is ready the teacher will appear"

the subconsious understand the implications of thinking critically on a manner that (people with sheeple beleifs) are not ready to understand, and as a protection mechanism the subconsicous finds ways to avoid debating in critical thought about things that will bring more pain and take away pleasure.

Many people just can't handle finding out they are wrong. That's why some people are so keen on believing whatever they hear first.

Absolutely amazing flow chart.


[edit on 28-3-2007 by Charles Lee]

Only the most backwards, inane and psychologically troubled people could possible believe that conspiracies exist. Except for the US attorneys that enforce our conspiracy laws of course!

What we really need are more sceptics.

A sceptic has not yet been persuaded. He seeks more data. He questions, thereby enabling the promoters of a theory to strengthen their case.

Sceptics are a rare commodity.

what we need are people who WAIT longer to form an opinion

not more "skeptics", and not people who beleive everything conspiracy related

we need people who don't mind answering question in the following manner

person 1: hey what's your take on this (insert topic)?

person 2: well i'm not sure yet i'm researching it.

the majority form an opinion about something because they would like to have something to say. people seem to think that saying i don't know makes them sound dumb well if were talking about 5x5 then yes they may be dumb, but those are ABSOLUTES.

current events are a lot more complex by forming an opinion based on a whim or based on being a skeptic or being a beleive anything conspiracy related you then become BIASED when you actually DO RESEARCH. and you start looking at evidence that confirms your opinion/beleifs so it can be strengthened.

Scepticism originated from Greek world skeptesthai which means "to examine". It is paying attention to Evidence, not playing the game of Sophisms.

What about fallacies? After all - it is an error in reasoning and NOT TO BE CONFUSED with error in facts.

Examples of Fallacies

Inductive Argument
Premise 1: Most American cats are domestic house cats.
Premise 2: Bill is an American cat.
Conclusion: Bill is domestic house cat.

Factual Error
Columbus is the capital of the United States.

Deductive Fallacy
Premise 1: If Portland is the capital of Maine, then it is in Maine.
Premise 2: Portland is in Maine.
Conclusion: Portland is the capital of Maine.
(Portland is in Maine, but Augusta is the capital. Portland is the largest city in Maine, though.)

Inductive Fallacy
Premise 1: Having just arrived in Ohio, I saw a white squirrel.
Conclusion: All Ohio Squirrels are white.
(While there are many, many squirrels in Ohio, the white ones are very rare).






[edit on 30-3-2007 by blue bird]