Skip to content

1 Comment

  1. Fred Thornton
    December 31, 2021 @ 10:43 am

    I am a conspiracy theorist, hold grand master status in that mode of thought, and yes, I will comment on this article.

    The author says, and I’ll agree “This change in conspiratorial targets from veiled government and elite figures to everyday people marked a shift in the trajectory of American conspiracy theories.” I’d say it marked a great deal more than just that. When the subject in focus is a total tragedy it is not only possible it is very likely said event will enable any number of campaigns-of-opportunity to be launched into the emotional aftermath, campaigns that depend on such an emotional aftermath to be functional.

    Therefore, speaking as a Grand Master of Conspiracy Theory thought… to demonstrate the form to those who may have never seen the real thing… my first challenge point to the author is this: That Party_A did not orchestrate some specific event in no way negates the possibility that Party_A was fully prepared and waiting to take advantage of any similar event which generated a sufficient degree of emotional turmoil to enable some campaign of emotional and perceptual influence in the aftermath.

    I challenge the author to put forward a line of reasoning which negates the possibility that the “shift in targeting” seen after the tragedy at Sandy Hook was not a pincers attack by Party_A whose opportunistic objective was to 1) test the effectiveness of society wide emotional control mechanisms they or their allies were deploying via the social media outlets and 2) in the same attack launch a very well considered and coordinated campaign against any and all who might be resistant to such mechanisms, specifically those who practice the art of independent inductive reasoning which is part and parcel of what is commonly called “critical thinking.”

    Simple common sense gives that if your intent is to power your political ambitions by taking control of a population’s emotional response curves the first step in achieving that objective is to slander and discredit that population’s ability to defend itself using critical thinking to debunk manipulative lies.

    My second challenge point to the authors is this… white glove on the ground at her feet: put forward a line of reasoning that negates the possibility that the cruelty of the rumors launched in the aftermath of Sandy Hook were not initiated by, and to the benefit, of Party_A who needed something heinous with which to slander their real target… the critical thinkers of America they mockingly label “conspiracy theorists.”

    What a genuine conspiracy theorist knows, and Party_A hopes the general public never comes to understand: In a war being fought with psychological weapons the real false flags all fly in the dark where they can’t be seen anyway.