Is there a conspiracy to promote conspiracy theories?

page: 1
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
If you don't want people to get involved in politics, feed them info about conspiracy theories, a new study says ...


In the study, 214 British university students were given information supporting and refuting a range of conspiracy theories concerning government involvement in major news events such as the death of Princess Diana. According to results from the study, exposure to information supportive of conspiracy theories reduced the intent of the subjects to engage in political activities when compared to those who were given information refuting conspiracy theories.


www.parapolitical.com...




posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:05 PM
link   
When the internet was first developed and released, the PTB had no idea it would eventually become the largest tool to be used against them in the fight for freedom.

So, as a response to this ever growing idea, that they are now incapable of stopping, they decided then to do what they do best.

Lie.

Lie through your teeth. Fill the internet with wrong information, in the hopes that leads the folks seeking answers down the wrong path.

That's always been the intend. Numerous government reports dating back the early 1900's show a willingness and almost a sense of duty by our governments to censor the truth and keep people in the dark.

The only difference is that now they actively engage in creating stories and content, that serve only to distract and anger the people seeking the information.

~Tenth



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by AtticusRye
 


Personally I think the "new study" is wrong; at least regarding many ATS members.

There are plenty of people on ATS that are conspiracy theorists and they are very active in politics too.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:11 PM
link   
I could easily see Governments pumping out their own dis-info on the net for the sole purpose of drowning out the truth in a sea of lies.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by caladonea
 


I don't think the study claims that 100% of people exposed to conspiracy information will become disinterested in politics 100% of the time. I believe it appears to say most people expose to conspiracy information will become disinterested in politics, in general.

ATS, as large as it is, is still a very tiny minority.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:20 PM
link   
of course this is true. The government love it that nuts are screaming about 9/11 and man-bear-pig, because it means there's less people paying attention to real politics. You're all of on wild goose chases trying to find proof of fake nasa moon landings and jfk assasinations, while they're over there conjuring up plans to commit real atrocities - like dropping bombs on children

the more people paying attention to these nonsense ideas that cannot be proven, the better for them. you keep on dedicating your time to sandy hook massacres or 9/11s, you're really showing them!

and then when there are real political conspiracies, you're dismissed out of hand because the government do this thing where they associate genuine conspiracies with the type of conspiracies that lunatics believe in

the government love conspiracy theories. they like to promote them and muddle them up with the actual conspiracies they commit.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Actually conspiracy theories are nothing new. The internet is now just the newest tool for people to discuss them.

Here are a few clips from an article published in 1964 and you should easily see the similarities to this article and what we do now on ATS.

harpers.org...

Here is Senator McCarthy, speaking in June 1951 about the parlous situation of the United States:


How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man. A conspiracy of infamy so black that, which it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men. . . . What can be made of this unbroken series of decisions and acts contributing to the strategy of defeat? They cannot be attributed to incompetence. . . . The laws of probability would dictate that part of . . . [the] decisions would serve the country’s interest.


Now turn back fifty years to a manifesto signed in 1895 by a number of leaders of the Populist party:


As early as 1865–66 a conspiracy was entered into between the gold gamblers of Europe and America. . . . For nearly thirty years these conspirators have kept the people quarreling over less important matters while they have pursued with unrelenting zeal their one central purpose. . . . Every device of treachery, every resource of statecraft, and every artifice known to the secret cabals of the international gold ring are being used to deal a blow to the prosperity of the people and the financial and commercial independence of the country.


Next, a Texas newspaper article of 1855:


. . . It is a notorious fact that the Monarchs of Europe and the Pope of Rome are at this very moment plotting our destruction and threatening the extinction of our political, civil, and religious institutions. We have the best reasons for believing that corruption has found its way into our Executive Chamber, and that our Executive head is tainted with the infectious venom of Catholicism. . . . The Pope has recently sent his ambassador of state to this country on a secret commission, the effect of which is an extraordinary boldness of the Catholic church throughout the United States. . . . These minions of the Pope are boldly insulting our Senators; reprimanding our Statesmen; propagating the adulterous union of Church and State; abusing with foul calumny all governments but Catholic, and spewing out the bitterest execrations on all Protestantism. The Catholics in the United States receive from abroad more than $200,000 annually for the propagation of their creed. Add to this the vast revenues collected here. . . .


Its actually an amazing article that could easily be written by any of us today. I've actually researched conspiracy theorists back to pre-colonial days and I've come to the conclusion that since governments have existed, people have found conspiracies within them. They would still exist without the internet in my opinion.



posted on Feb, 5 2013 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrandStrategy
of course this is true. The government love it that nuts are screaming about 9/11 and man-bear-pig, because it means there's less people paying attention to real politics. You're all of on wild goose chases trying to find proof of fake nasa moon landings and jfk assasinations, while they're over there conjuring up plans to commit real atrocities - like dropping bombs on children.


correctamundo ... +S



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:02 AM
link   
Well,if you think about it,what percentage of the population have a clue about conspiracies and ufo's and such?
A very small amount.

Seems to me the chatter has died down abit after the biggy,12/21/2012.
There has been a money making push for info of the unknown.
That avenue has died out,in a sense.

So,what's around the corner for us.
The quiet before the storm?



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 


Yea I don't believe they are trying that hard to manipulate information on the internet. Most people don't even bother researching so its kind of a waste of time in that regard.

Conspiracy people will find something wrong whether its true or false information so doesn't matter there either really.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:10 AM
link   
reply to post by GrandStrategy
 

Even though I don't think what is being said here is true over the long term (as opposed to "short term" exposure which is all they tested) as evidenced by the *increase* in support for people like Ron Paul over the past decade:

Good... we should be taking "pop star" politics less seriously and seeking truth and local community strength more seriously. Even if we have to swirl around a few cesspools before realizing there is something deeper worth directly questioning about our current "flavor of the week" pop-star politicians and pop-star billionaires.

You don't have to become a politician to become involved in strengthening your community and above and the less we look to "politics" to solve our hard problems the more we can look to people actually *doing* something rather than always *talking* about something without having done anything BUT *talk*... but instead just getting us into more fighting and more debt.
edit on 6-2-2013 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by kdog1982
 

The chatter has shifted from outside savior to "what do WE do?"

You are indeed seeing the shift. It is a shift away from waiting for it to get better to "Well... gah... guess better start doing something myself". It's actually a much quieter phase of the collective shift in consciousness that is happening, but the one that when it finally shows its face will have a huge impact.

I used to be the "lone screwball" in my family. Now I don't really know any of them that aren't at least discussing all the same fundamental things we are here... just on a much more... simple... level. And most of them actually don't really know most of what I think other than "he was one of them Ron Paul guys".

I spend most of my days actually marveling at how fascinatingly fast things are shifting in this regard if you're willing to look carefully and listen carefully and really think back to what conversations in 2003 were like. I still remember vividly because it involved a decent amount of ridicule. Now it's hard to not get sucked into conversations relating to the money system, the fed, the "ranch like" nature of nations, with almost any random person on the street I strike up a conversation with and without any real prodding from me.

I actually want to avoid most of them these days because I'm exhausted and focused on the metaphysical side of things more often. I don't need to see more to know we're ultimately viewed by certain people as little more than livestock in Ranches called nations and all the implications that come with it. My parents run a ranch... I know exactly how ranchers think of (and do "care" for) their livestock. I'm focused on what's outside the ranch now.
edit on 6-2-2013 by ErgoTheConclusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:26 AM
link   
FACT: there IS a conspiracy.

This is why I ALWAYS ignore everything that comes out of the mainstream.

EXAMPLE: the source in the OP is the University of Kent & British Journal of Psychology.

Mainstream academia is just another mind control tool being used against the masses.

They have just as much credibility as the MSM.

This is why I check the source first before bothering to even read propaganda such as this.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:32 AM
link   
Sports
Church
Parades
Hobbies
Military
Music
Edit to add: Addiction

Talk about distraction...
edit on 6-2-2013 by intrptr because: additional...



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by ErgoTheConclusion
 


I am still faced with the ignorance.
There is more important "drama" I deal with day in and day out.

I am curious about the metaphysical aspect you speak of.

In the end,does it really matter other then something to occupy our time?
Has anyone here made a difference concerning these theories?
I have tried,but my voice was not strong enough and I threw in the towel .



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   
reply to post by AtticusRye
 


This really bothers me because if there actually is a conspiracy to promote conspiracy theories, and you have truthfully brought this theory to the light of day, then there must also exist a story to distract from and discredit your story, which would become yet another conspiracy linked to your theory of conspiracy to promote conspiracy theories.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 01:29 AM
link   
reply to post by AtticusRye
 


Hiya all.

I actually don't think this study is particularly informative.

* The participants were all university students
* The ages of the participants was not mentioned
* The death of Princess Diana was used as one of the papers which most people of a certain age wouldn't know much about, the 7/7 London Bombing was also used
* Global warning was used as the other paper; honestly how many under graduates have looked into the 'for and against' information on this topic in detail?
* How they defined being involved in the political system:


There were seven statements in total asking participants about their intended behaviours
over the next 12 months (e.g., ‘Will you vote in the next election’; ‘Do you intend to
contribute money to a candidate, a political party, or any organization that supports
Social consequences of conspiracy theories...
Source

Issues I have:

* Graduate students by their age and nature will obviously be influenced by new information. Age would be a major factor in this.
* Refusing to vote can be political action. As can not supporting particular political parties and refusing to contribute money. Feeling powerless against the system can be a political stance. Actively choosing not to be involved is not being 'not' involved.

Their conclusion:


People who were exposed to conspiracy theories about both shady and suspicious government
operations and that climate change is a hoax, reported less intention to engage in the
political system – an effect that occurred because conspiracy theories led to feelings of
political powerlessness. Furthermore, people who were exposed to conspiracy theories
about climate change reported less intention to reduce their carbon footprint – an effect
that occurred because conspiracy theories led to feelings of powerlessness and
uncertainty towards climate change, and also feelings of disappointment in climate
scientists.
Source

My conclusion:

People who are given new information about topics they have not researched and know very little about will be influenced immediately by that information and make logical conclusions and decisions from that new information.

We already knew this. Would be like writing a similar study entitled, 'people won't drink a liquid if you tell them it is bleach.'



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
reply to post by AtticusRye
 


Hiya all.

I actually don't think this study is particularly informative.

* The participants were all university students
* The ages of the participants was not mentioned
* The death of Princess Diana was used as one of the papers which most people of a certain age wouldn't know much about, the 7/7 London Bombing was also used
* Global warning was used as the other paper; honestly how many under graduates have looked into the 'for and against' information on this topic in detail?
* How they defined being involved in the political system:


There were seven statements in total asking participants about their intended behaviours
over the next 12 months (e.g., ‘Will you vote in the next election’; ‘Do you intend to
contribute money to a candidate, a political party, or any organization that supports
Social consequences of conspiracy theories...
Source

Issues I have:

* Graduate students by their age and nature will obviously be influenced by new information. Age would be a major factor in this.
* Refusing to vote can be political action. As can not supporting particular political parties and refusing to contribute money. Feeling powerless against the system can be a political stance. Actively choosing not to be involved is not being 'not' involved.

Their conclusion:


People who were exposed to conspiracy theories about both shady and suspicious government
operations and that climate change is a hoax, reported less intention to engage in the
political system – an effect that occurred because conspiracy theories led to feelings of
political powerlessness. Furthermore, people who were exposed to conspiracy theories
about climate change reported less intention to reduce their carbon footprint – an effect
that occurred because conspiracy theories led to feelings of powerlessness and
uncertainty towards climate change, and also feelings of disappointment in climate
scientists.
Source

My conclusion:

People who are given new information about topics they have not researched and know very little about will be influenced immediately by that information and make logical conclusions and decisions from that new information.

We already knew this. Would be like writing a similar study entitled, 'people won't drink a liquid if you tell them it is bleach.'



these are all good points; it would have been better if the study set were a less homogenous group



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   
From my personal experience I have seen it go two ways. Some people I know who have become interested in 'conspiracy theories' have become politically active, attend protests etc. Whilst others have become disillusioned with the political process and feel powerless to change their circumstances. It really is down to the individual.

Where I'm from, rural Ireland, access to the internet has been a slow process for many, one friend only being connected for the first time two weeks ago. Over the past 8/9 years I've seen many people become interested in alternative subjects. Many people I know who have delved into the conspiracy world have become cynical, but others have become proactive. The ratio, from my perspective, seems to be balanced more towards the negative.

What concerns me is misinformation. I see that people can be manipulated very easily, for me that is one of the biggest revelations I've had, it was not as evident to me in the past. That there are interest groups monitoring sites like ATS, promoting certain ideas, stirring dissent, directing attention to and from issues, fabricating theories whilst debunking others should be no surprise.



posted on Feb, 6 2013 @ 09:23 AM
link   
reply to post by AtticusRye
 


I have the theory that conspiracy theories only develop in response to an actual conspiracy, and they have a lot of things in common. When a 'normal' incident happens, the perpetrators are caught; everyone finds out what happened in detail, and things are tied up solidly, no question left unanswered. Conspiracy theories on the other hand develop when questions are left unanswered, witnesses disappear, and there are obvious cover-ups going on.

The main question that uncovers a genuine conspiracy is, 'Who stands to gain?' If the answer is a government with an agenda of going to war or controlling a certain area, the perpetuation of western interests, arms dealers, or BIG OIL, and it becomes clear that there are questions that remain unanswered, or in many cases remain even unasked, because nobody can get airtime to ask them, then corruption is more likely than not, IMHO. The bigger the lie, the more people believe it, (attributed to Goebbels). I remember reading somewhere also that Lenin said something like, 'If you are going to tell a lie that the people will believe absolutely, it has to be an unthinkable, outrageous, enormous lie, because only then will it be unthinkable for the people to believe it is a lie.'





new topics
top topics
 
6
<<   2 >>

log in

join