News Ticker

Tools for Rebuting the Conspiracy-Theorist, Mental-Illness Gaslighting Slur

The growth of alternative media has required the development of a whole cottage industry to mentally diagnosis and counterattack the burgeoning population of truthers, who are often labeled “conspiracy theorists” (a CIA term and invention).

Of course, conspiracy theories are not all created equal. In fact, some are deliberately created as a straw-man tactic to make truthers seem mental. You will see the dishonest tactic of bunching different “wild” or weak theories on the same page as legitimate theories.


Read “The Strange Case and ‘Death’ of ‘Flat Earther’ Mad Mike Hughes: Psycho or Psyop?”

Or they will cherry pick weak parts of a conspiracy argument and overplay that hand. I have friends who are on the same page with me on many conspiracies and truths but who seem out there on others. That goes with the territory. Do I dismiss them in general?  Absolutely not.

Here is a discussion at Reddit on how to deal with “paranoid conspiracy theorists.” You will see advice on how to set boundaries. You will see advice on “seeking mental health treatment.” Frankly, if I was treated in this manner, I would burn bridges.

Still, this might be in part be understandable given that those of us who are passionate truthers find we can get into other’s spaces and faces. In part, this is because we are not dark-hearted or indifferent people. We have underlying decency and hold veritas in high esteem. My advice is not to hound or get too personal with pajama people. Only lead them to water.

One of the wags at Reddit commented:

“Our pattern loving brain has gotten so good at recognizing them that it is now able to see patterns that aren’t there, to imagine connections.”

I find it curious that those who call conspiracy theorists “mental cases” rarely, if ever, bother to look through our lenses. Do they think this just all comes out of a vacuum? In fact, it’s my belief that conspiracy inquirists, or truthers, excel at introspection, a trait strangely lacking in their doubters.

You would think they are some type of “experts” on the “theories.” In almost all instances that I have observed, not even remotely. In fact, in one presentation by one of these so called theorist “experts,” a trait of the conspiracy theorist is stated to be their attention to details. This is supposed to be a deficiency? Mostly this is gaslighting. Lately, I’ve seen more of the appeal-to-authority scam, whereby some “expert” from “Yale” is hauled out to pontificate in front of a cadre of cheerleaders.

Another common tactic is the straw man fallacy, or shooting down or even inventing a weak theory or anomaly and then victory dancing a soft-toss debunking. The is common at sites like Metabunk.

Calling anomalies “superficial” is another common tactic. Therefore, it’s necessary to focus on large and quick-hitting anomalies.

A common sling at conspiracy realists is to allude to their “doubting” nature and then insert the plastic word “radical” doubters. What does radical even mean? Is that like “deniers”? Personally for me, radical doubter is a label I’m willing to wear. Non-doubters will also use the appeal-to-authority, or “experts” fallacy, quite frequently.


Read “Plastic Words: The Language of Tyranny”

Therefore, truthers need to have our own set of boundaries to deal with this. If you are the one who is casting dispersion on a truther about “patterns that aren’t there,” then it’s an essential exercise to objectively view visually to the end the sample short videos below. There are many, many, many more on these pages (Winter Watch is a good archival resource), but start small with your short attention span, pajama people. The young men in water cases discussed here might be a good exercise.

And what’s with the constant surreal use of shoes in staged deceptions?

For further reading:

Then, the skeptic needs to make a pronouncement or call about what they see to the truther. Can they objectively watch this without tuning out? Is an emotional response all they can muster? Do they have more than a 10-second attention span when viewing videos? I really wonder, and in fact doubt it.

The difference is that so-called “conspiracy theorists,” or inquirists, actually alertly and critically examine evidence. They are wired differently. If you actually did critically view the sample video below in its entirety, would you — with straight face — dismiss as “crazy” somebody who saw a pattern of lies and extreme deception or something seriously out of kilter? Or would you be curious enough to examine other short-duration exercises or even longer, more time-consuming examples?

Forget the “conspiracy theorist” and “mental health” diagnosis for a moment and ask yourself what you are seeing here. Does it take “great imagination” or “pattern loving” or “a lot of attention to details” to call a spade a spade? If you see nothing here and move along after a 10-second viewing, you might want to reconsider who it is seeing unicorns and rainbows. If you still don’t give a damn (black pilled), then, at minimum, immediately cease the gaslighting and labeling of truthers as “mental.”

The top example may be viewed in the post “The Use of Magical Bullets in Staged Deception Shooting Events.” The videos are only three or four minutes each and some of your gaslighters or critics might be able to watch them all the way through. For more advanced analysis to use with your critics who exhibit more than a five-minute attention span and who pay attention to detail, “The Boston Bombing as a Staged Deception” post is a good reference.

11 Comments on Tools for Rebuting the Conspiracy-Theorist, Mental-Illness Gaslighting Slur

  1. Would you believe I’ve been called a “conspiracy theorist” by exposing (using fiction no less) the evils in the entertainment industry when the whole world has heard of Weinstein, Savile, Epstein, Kevin Spacey, Robert deZero, etc. and has seen videos of satanic crapola out of Beyonce, Gaga, J-SatanHova, Crowleyism, Laurel Canyon, etc.? https://omegabooksnet.com

  2. At parties, I treat it like a badge of honor. When people ask what I do, I say I’m a conspiracy theorist. Then they have the choice to engage or change the subject. So far, I get a lot of “do you think we have been to the moon.?” questions. I think my real pajama friends are about to give up on me. Or perhaps it’s the other way around?

  3. For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, we notice a good chunk of the alternative media itself is now infiltrated and fake news. That or they try to steer you right back to the direction of the mainstream fake news.

    • Here is another linked article verifying your statement. I have a very short list of what I consider truthful sites, and WinterWatch is one of them. Here is the link:
      http://itnt.news/1430/

      If it isn’t the MSM it’s AJ and Company…and even TruNews made the list! (BTW, true Christians will not lie, period. Repent preacher Wiles!)

      • Thanks for the link. I would add “Russia Today” to the list as it is a Russian propaganda rag where even people like Ron Paul go to push the “Russia Good, America bad” agenda 24/7.

        • I doubt it’s even Russian. I remember reading about how Al Jazeera was cointelpro, a Western funded and created network. Then everyone and their dog treating them with credibility…RT has that familiar new world order third Reich odor to me.

  4. I usually say “well, yes. For example, I believe Julius Caesar was murdered by a conspiracy. Prove me wrong and get famous.”

  5. Here is the only response you’ll ever need, from Prof. of Chemistry (Cornell Univ.) Dave Collum:
    ” I am a ‘conspiracy theorist. I believe men and women of wealth conspire. If you don’t think so, then you are what is called ‘an idiot’. If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called ‘a coward’. ”

    I’m not endorsing Collum himself, in part because I cannot believe that anyone truly threatening the system could remain in such a prestigious position, but I do love that quote. Particularly since logical rebuttals tend only to make the illogical (the ‘idiots’) embrace their beliefs all the more fervently.

    • @grip- thanks for that reminder–I was trying to find that the other day. IMO-his response there is perfect!!! great quote-and perfect way to deal with the brainwashed moron.

      I also agree w/your take on Collum–if he were a true threat (like James Tracy in calling out Sandy Hook as a HOAX), then they would find a way to get rid of him.

  6. Conspiracy denialists!. There is a title we just created to get them to think like anti Zionists. I kid you not I met one who said that Russia was actually funding AIPAC in subverting US politics. What a schmuck.No?

  7. Hmmm

    I think it is quite clear that people who make grand generalizations such as your, to be at best intellectually challenged. And at worst, how did you put it? “are that stupid”

    For the record: I am an American.

Post a Comment

%d bloggers like this: