It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Psychology of a Denialist

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 18 2010 @ 11:44 PM
Hello, everyone! I just stumbled upon this very interesting article in the New Scientist Magazine. and thought I'd share it with you. This article is about the age of denial, in which a large number of people are making up conspiracy theories, why they do it, and even how to be a "denialist". Here is a quote from the article, and I think there are many members on this forum that relate directly to this article.

Whatever they are denying, denial movements have much in common with one another, not least the use of similar tactics (see "How to be a denialist"). All set themselves up as courageous underdogs fighting a corrupt elite engaged in a conspiracy to suppress the truth or foist a malicious lie on ordinary people. This conspiracy is usually claimed to be promoting a sinister agenda: the nanny state, takeover of the world economy, government power over individuals, financial gain, atheism.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:22 AM
sorry I dont mean to offend but

why do we always have to be a denialist?

can a conspiracy ever be considered fact
if it's proven? And if so, we are truth seekers
instead of denialist

whether we are denying or seeking
is all a matter of perspective and timing.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 12:44 AM
The word denial should be used for the opposite type of person to how they have used it in this article. The truth seeker is an open minded explorer, I wouldn't have mined if they used "crackpot" as much as using denial. The people in denial are the ones denying any conspiracy theory or conspiracy facts validity purely because it cant be true according to their pardigm

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:07 AM
oh dont get me wrong, I didnt mean to call anyone that believes in any conspiracy theory in denial. I'm more on the lines of the people who disbelieve in complete and utter fact.

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 01:07 AM
Whether or not some conspiracies are true or not,
the fact that one holds conventional wisdom in abeyance i think is a good thing.

It is the balance between the pull left & pull right action that keeps a line running straight.

If everyone believed the same ['conventional'] thinking i think everything would kind of fold up on itself.
It can become sort of patronizing with conviction.
All it takes is a tiny little flaw [or deception] to completely derail or block progress if everyone is on mono-thought.

Whether the paradigm is 'science' or religion mass mono-thought is both frightening & depressing to think about.

The one thing i do wonder about is if there is/are [a] joker(s) about, who likes to dislodge us from a coherent thought process.
Or a fulcrum of partial truths that when taken together make some larger thing appear real, but in fact it may not be.

Or maybe there are a lot of conspiracies about, but you only know about them once you enjoin with them? Like in understanding them one can not help but sympathize/empathize & enjoin.

Like there is some heartbreaking tragedy at its core that if you are alive at all, you really, simply can not resist.

Maybe the reason we don't know the how & why of conspiracies is because in some deep unspoken way, we know/firmly-sense we don't want to know.

Anything that serious is deadly, poisonous.

[edit on 19-5-2010 by slank]

posted on May, 19 2010 @ 02:47 AM
Sort of off topic, but this snippet caught my attention...

...declaring a pandemic didn't provide huge scope for profiteering.

Did the owner of the right to produce the swine flu vaccine not see any profits? Or perhaps the article is stating that they would have profited just as much had the swine flu not been declared a pandemic?

Back on topic...

The "How to be a denialist" list on the 3rd page could double as a "How to be mainstream news journalist"

top topics

log in