i'm abandoning the ...
Clear all

i'm abandoning the label 'conspiracy theorist'

3 Posts
2 Users
Posts: 67
Topic starter
Estimable Member
Joined: 2 years ago

i'm currently writing a book for Trine Day Press (they did W. Webb's latest book)... and i will explore this in a section of the book. but i wanted to vent here to the community. 


i came to the conclusion to not call my self a 'consp. theorist' after an experience i had with a normie this week, where a friend 'normie-splained' (like man-splaning) about robert anton wilson. 

this normie said that all consp. (especially the illumanti) were made up by robert anton wilson in his fiction book 'illumantis trilogy'... 

I pointed out that RAW wrote non-fiction books about consp. stuff and he assured me he did not.  he only believed me when he looked it up. i was like 'dude, i'm writing a book about this stuff'...  


he had an opinion that consp. were just made up from RAW's fiction books and had no idea he wrote non-fiction books. this blew my mind. 


his opinion on conspiracies was very telling of what we are up against. but his opinions simply have no connection to the subjects presented on THC, which i view as the leader in presenting the best and 'most trusted' thinkers in this field. 


his opinion against "conspiracy theories" are.


1. they are racist against jewish people (ive never heard anything even remotely racist on THC).

2. the notion of a world wide cabal (the illumanti) was created in a fiction book by robert anton wilson who never wrote any non-fiction (this is completely false)

3. they say the free masons rule the world (cant recall a guest on THC ever saying this, they speculate its much more complex and most probably varying groups vying for control).

4. they are right wing. (never mind the fact that what we know as consp. theory research came out of the radical left wing in the 60s, see the fact that paul krassner's the realist was the first to publish mae brussell's theories). 

5. its just q and flat earthers (i pointed out most believe this be a way to discredit consp. theorists)


it just struck me that he is referring to something completely divorced from what goes on at THC. ie- the real consp. theorist community. 


my normie friend is a good example of a person who has ingested the mainstream narrative about consp. theories.  he has done no research, just listens to the mainstream articles and videos about the topic. 


but it has occurred to me... that the mainstream meme about consp. has become so divorced from referring to what we are talking about on shows like THC, then we can literally just call ourselves a different name. 


so, i'm thinking 'alternative history'... or para-politics is one i'm seeing alot ....


anybody got any ideas?


but long story short, i'm not a conspiracy theorist. this is my story and i'm sticking to it yall.  



my normie friend also hit me with the argument 'if this was true then somebody would talk about it, nobody can keep a secret'... this is the most infuriating argument against 'alternative history researchers'... because i'm like, what do you think all of these books are about. also, i've had mil. folks tell me secrets and i've been told secret shit by members of the finical elite ... just first hand account that proves stuff like in confessions of an economic hitman... but it is so shocking i can't give the details in the book.  


but my point being, nobody is keeping secrets. people have been spilling the beans for the last 100 years....



one argument is that folks like us, just want this stuff to be true.   not me, i wish the normies were correct. but their arguments are based on a comic book perception of conspiracies and what is said about them and their arguments against them are like on a 5th grade level. i mean, the argument that if it were true then somebody would have talked about it. totally ignoring the hundreds of whistle blowers. and totally ignoring the secret shit ive been told... and i'm just an ordinary citizen that has had synchros bring this stuff to my life. 


so, the more arguments i hear from the normies the more i'm just like 'fuck, this shit is 100% true'... i really wish it wasn't. the only high strangeness thing i'm invested in being true is the cryptozology stuff. i love bigfoot stuff and legit saw gnomes with my own two eyes in elementary school.  so, yeah i really want bigfoot to be true.


but, do i really want it to be true that their are an insane global elite that control the money supply and are up to nefarious shit that is beyond belief... ?  no, i could do without that being true.  and the argument that 'nah, youre just crazy, if that were true somebody involved would have said something'... never mind the fact ,  that hundreds of people have come out exposing it... 

2 Replies
Posts: 23
Eminent Member
Joined: 2 years ago

Epic rant. Love it. As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'em drink. I no longer try to engage in debate with normies. I will have a dialogue with someone who is open minded and willing to consider my point of view even if they disagree.

The way I see it is most people simply lack curiosity. That can't be taught. 

1 Reply
Joined: 2 years ago

Estimable Member
Posts: 67


glad you liked it man! yeah, not debating with normies is a good idea! everytime i do it i tell my self, 'i'm never doing that again'... and then i sometimes get drug in, lol


regarding people lacking curiosity and not being able to be taught...the truth is a tricky tricky thing. i say that as psychotherapist that has been practicing for 15 years...you see on an individual level that humans are not designed to be open to 'the truth'... one can say the whole enterprise of psychotherapy is to bypass people's resistance to the truth. i mean, this is what the freudian defense mechanisms are... they are defending people from the truth. 

say for example someone is in denial that they are an alcoholic, or in denial that their spouse no longer loves them or in denial to the fact that they are in perhaps gay.


and a rookie mistake psychotherapists make is that they will rush in too quickly in first sessions to the 'truth' and this can overwhelm the client and they may not come back for a second session.  you have to ease people in to accepting the truth...

humans are built to accept lies... its in our psychology. so we have a uphill battle viz a viz educating the public about all this stuff...


i also think its kind of dangerous to debate normies about this stuff... in this regard i'm thinking of the agent smith effect. my friend really got triggered when i told him robert anton wilson wrote non-fiction books.  


with my book i'm writing... which is not about consp. theories because i am not a consp. theorist....i'm somewhat concerned one of my normie friends is going to read the book and rat me out to various organizations. i can take ridicule and laughter... but as i told one of my normie friends 'you're gonna hate my book...but if you don't snitch on me i'll consider it a win.'


i mean, as i write this out...i can see how it is clear...the anger of the normies when presented with this stuff is just like the client lashing out at their therapist for pointing out a 'hard truth'...  and i think we 'alternative history and para-political researchers' need to keep in mind this dynamic and we can take some tools from the therapy room...  meaning, you have to kind of trick people into the truth. 


also, regarding telling people i'm not a consp. theorist i think may work. because, normies will pretty much just believe anything. we can use that to our advantage. my triggered normie friend seemed to calm down when i pointed out the stuff i research is more alternative history and not consp. theory...