Today is the day. Today is the day that so many people thought the world was going to end, and guess what? Nothing happened.
No massive world wide earthquakes.
No super volcanic eruptions.
No massive solar flares destroying the power grid.
No rapture.
No second coming.
No start of World War 3.
No nuclear bombs going off.
No start of a second great depression.
No heavenly bodies crashing into the Earth.
No polar shift.
No Earth crust displacement.
No alien invasion.
No alien ships coming out of a mountain.
No sudden human evolution.
No takeover by the Illuminati/NWO.
No demon invasion.
No world wide pandemic.
And perhaps the most disappointing of all, no zombie Apocalypse.
In other words not a damn thing happened at except for the beginning of winter, and of course there being a few disappointed New Agers and Doomers around the world.
And so I can gladly say that the only negative things that came out of this is that some people made some money out of selling some books about what was suppose to happen on this day, people being scared out of their wits for no reason, dumb people asking the dumbest damn questions about this, and Roland Emmerich making a horrible movie about this (and I'm not ready to forgive the Doomers and New Agers for that last one).
Now some of you are probably thinking "aren't you being a little harsh for shoving this in these peoples' faces" and I say no because they have been shoving this stuff down our throats for about a decade now and they need to be aware of the harsh reality: They are not as smart as they think they are and they know nothing about science, or the Mayans, and that everything that they do know is based upon the hacked together "research" by a few wannabe scientists and historians...
If one good thing comes out of this it is hopefully that some of these Doomers and New Agers will finally wake up and realize just what a waste of time and money all this believing that the world is going to end stuff has been, and hopefully wise up and get on with their lives.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
Embarrassing Conspiracy Theories: Shape-shifting Aliens control the Earth
While there are a lot of strange conspiracy theories out there, perhaps one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories out there is one that the primary promoter of is David Icke: that the leaders of the world (and just about anyone who is famous) are actually shape-shifting aliens.
The aliens are often times described as being humanoid reptilians that are from either another planet or universe (although some claim that they are actually the offspring of alien-human hybrids from thousands of years ago) and have actually been in control for thousands of years, and are using their technology to take on a human form and secretly control the human race.
There are several videos on the internet that claim to show some famous person or politician showing some type of reptilian features for a split second, and the reality is that they do not. Many of these videos allegedly shows a person "revealing" some kind of reptilian features are actually the result of camera angle and light reflection, or even or even natural human bodily actions, such as pupil dilation, and just licking lips with one's tongue. Some of these video are even the result of some special effects put in to the video by someone who wants to prove that shape-shifting aliens are real.
Taking into account the wide scope that many conspiracy theorists believe this to be, many people have been accused of being a shape-shifting alien (this includes David Icke as well, and possible even myself). There are even people who actually claim to be one of these aliens. Of course they never actually turn into an alien, they just act very strange when they are in what they claim to be in their transformation. These "transformations" seem more like acting, or psychosis.
Besides considering the scope of such an alleged conspiracy (in both time and number of people involved) and the sheer lack of any evidence what so ever that any of this is true, it makes no logical sense that any technologically advanced conquerors would even bother to do something like this.
Many skeptics believe that the shape-shifting alien conspiracy theory is actually a modernization and rehashing of the many Jewish conspiracy theories (both of which just so happen to be very similar in their accusations), and have actually accused David Icke of being anti-Semitic and that he uses the reference to shape-shifting reptilians as being a code word for "Jews". While Icke does deny this, he does believe that the book The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (which was proven to be a hoax as far back as 1921) is true, and has apparently been flirting with Holocaust denial.
Regardless of the reasons behind David Icke's allegations (whatever those true reasons may be), many people (both conspiracy theorists and skeptics alike) consider this to be complete nonsense, and have accused Icke of being everything from a scam artist to being outright insane (although some conspiracy theorists have also accused him of being a disinformation agent as well).
The aliens are often times described as being humanoid reptilians that are from either another planet or universe (although some claim that they are actually the offspring of alien-human hybrids from thousands of years ago) and have actually been in control for thousands of years, and are using their technology to take on a human form and secretly control the human race.
There are several videos on the internet that claim to show some famous person or politician showing some type of reptilian features for a split second, and the reality is that they do not. Many of these videos allegedly shows a person "revealing" some kind of reptilian features are actually the result of camera angle and light reflection, or even or even natural human bodily actions, such as pupil dilation, and just licking lips with one's tongue. Some of these video are even the result of some special effects put in to the video by someone who wants to prove that shape-shifting aliens are real.
Taking into account the wide scope that many conspiracy theorists believe this to be, many people have been accused of being a shape-shifting alien (this includes David Icke as well, and possible even myself). There are even people who actually claim to be one of these aliens. Of course they never actually turn into an alien, they just act very strange when they are in what they claim to be in their transformation. These "transformations" seem more like acting, or psychosis.
Besides considering the scope of such an alleged conspiracy (in both time and number of people involved) and the sheer lack of any evidence what so ever that any of this is true, it makes no logical sense that any technologically advanced conquerors would even bother to do something like this.
Many skeptics believe that the shape-shifting alien conspiracy theory is actually a modernization and rehashing of the many Jewish conspiracy theories (both of which just so happen to be very similar in their accusations), and have actually accused David Icke of being anti-Semitic and that he uses the reference to shape-shifting reptilians as being a code word for "Jews". While Icke does deny this, he does believe that the book The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (which was proven to be a hoax as far back as 1921) is true, and has apparently been flirting with Holocaust denial.
Regardless of the reasons behind David Icke's allegations (whatever those true reasons may be), many people (both conspiracy theorists and skeptics alike) consider this to be complete nonsense, and have accused Icke of being everything from a scam artist to being outright insane (although some conspiracy theorists have also accused him of being a disinformation agent as well).
Friday, December 14, 2012
Franklin and Sequoyah: Two states that never were
In either a few weeks, or perhaps several years from now, Puerto Rico is set to become the 51st state, but if history (and the heart of congress) had gone differently, Puerto Rico would not be on it's way to becoming the 51st state. It would actually be on it's way to becoming either the 52nd or 53rd state of the Union.
Now there have been multiple proposals for new states over the years that never came to be. There have been several proposals for a state of Jefferson and a state of Lincoln (both in various sites). There have been proposals for the Upper Michigan peninsula to become it's own state, and even Long Island (along with New York City) to become it's own state. There was even a proposal for a state of Absaroka (which would have taken land from Northern Wyoming, South Eastern Montana, and Western South Dakota to form), but the two places that almost became their own states were called the states of Franklin and Sequoyah.
Now Franklin (if you could not tell was to be named after Benjamin Franklin) is part of what is now North Eastern Tennessee, but back when it attempted to become it's own individual state in 1785, it was actually apart of the state of North Carolina, because until 1796 Tennessee was apart of North Carolina.
Back in April 1784 North Carolina ceded what is today Tennessee to the Federal Government in order to pay off debts the state had gained as a result of the War of Independence. The government was reluctant to accept this, and also many frontiersmen in that region were pretty upset about this to, and also feared that the territory might even be sold to a foreign power, so in August of 1784 several counties in what is to North Eastern Tennessee seceded from North Carolina, which resulted in the state of North Carolina to rescind it's offer of cession, and even ordered judges to hold court in those counties, and send soldiers to the counties that wanted to secede. This of course did nothing to stop the growing secession movement, and on May 16, 1785 a delegation from the region submitted a petition to Congress for approval of statehood.
The State failed to receive the two-thirds majority of approval from the other states that is necessary in order to be admitted to the Union (only seven of the thirteen states at the time voted to admit Franklin to the Union) and couldn't even get the support of Benjamin Franklin himself.
In 1788 the region was finally disbanded and readmitted to North Carolina, and would later become part of Tennessee, but this would not be the last time the area would attempt to become it's own state, the most notable during the Civil War as a result of Eastern Tennessee disapproval of the rest of the state seceding from the union. While the region never did secede from the rest of Tennessee, there were many people there who proposed seceding from Tennessee and rejoining the Union (much like what West Virginia actually did when it seceded from Virginia and rejoined the Union in 1863).
Now as for the State of Sequoyah, which was to be named in honor of Sequoyah, a Cherokee silversmith who invented the Cherokee syllabary (or alphabet), the area which would have become it's own state was part of what is today Eastern Oklahoma, and was from 1890 until 1907 when it was merged with the Oklahoma Territory and became the State of Oklahoma, it's own individual territory known as the Indian Territory, which actually once included most of Oklahoma, but after 1890 a little over half the territory was ceded to white settlers to form it's own separate territory.
In 1905 the territory formed a constitutional convention, and voted to send a petition to the United States Congress for approval of statehood.
The delegation that arrived at Washington D.C. from the Indian Territories did not receive a warm reception, with many eastern politicians not wanting to admit two new western states. Even President Theodore Roosevelt proposed that the two territories be merged back again and become the State of Oklahoma (which is what happened in 1907). Still, all the hard work of the Sequoyah state constitutional convention was not lost as the Sequoyah constitution served as the basis for the Oklahoma constitution.
It should also be noted that if Sequoyah had ended up becoming a state, it would have been the first (and only) state where the majority of the people were Native Americans.
Now there have been multiple proposals for new states over the years that never came to be. There have been several proposals for a state of Jefferson and a state of Lincoln (both in various sites). There have been proposals for the Upper Michigan peninsula to become it's own state, and even Long Island (along with New York City) to become it's own state. There was even a proposal for a state of Absaroka (which would have taken land from Northern Wyoming, South Eastern Montana, and Western South Dakota to form), but the two places that almost became their own states were called the states of Franklin and Sequoyah.
Now Franklin (if you could not tell was to be named after Benjamin Franklin) is part of what is now North Eastern Tennessee, but back when it attempted to become it's own individual state in 1785, it was actually apart of the state of North Carolina, because until 1796 Tennessee was apart of North Carolina.
Back in April 1784 North Carolina ceded what is today Tennessee to the Federal Government in order to pay off debts the state had gained as a result of the War of Independence. The government was reluctant to accept this, and also many frontiersmen in that region were pretty upset about this to, and also feared that the territory might even be sold to a foreign power, so in August of 1784 several counties in what is to North Eastern Tennessee seceded from North Carolina, which resulted in the state of North Carolina to rescind it's offer of cession, and even ordered judges to hold court in those counties, and send soldiers to the counties that wanted to secede. This of course did nothing to stop the growing secession movement, and on May 16, 1785 a delegation from the region submitted a petition to Congress for approval of statehood.
The State failed to receive the two-thirds majority of approval from the other states that is necessary in order to be admitted to the Union (only seven of the thirteen states at the time voted to admit Franklin to the Union) and couldn't even get the support of Benjamin Franklin himself.
In 1788 the region was finally disbanded and readmitted to North Carolina, and would later become part of Tennessee, but this would not be the last time the area would attempt to become it's own state, the most notable during the Civil War as a result of Eastern Tennessee disapproval of the rest of the state seceding from the union. While the region never did secede from the rest of Tennessee, there were many people there who proposed seceding from Tennessee and rejoining the Union (much like what West Virginia actually did when it seceded from Virginia and rejoined the Union in 1863).
Now as for the State of Sequoyah, which was to be named in honor of Sequoyah, a Cherokee silversmith who invented the Cherokee syllabary (or alphabet), the area which would have become it's own state was part of what is today Eastern Oklahoma, and was from 1890 until 1907 when it was merged with the Oklahoma Territory and became the State of Oklahoma, it's own individual territory known as the Indian Territory, which actually once included most of Oklahoma, but after 1890 a little over half the territory was ceded to white settlers to form it's own separate territory.
In 1905 the territory formed a constitutional convention, and voted to send a petition to the United States Congress for approval of statehood.
The delegation that arrived at Washington D.C. from the Indian Territories did not receive a warm reception, with many eastern politicians not wanting to admit two new western states. Even President Theodore Roosevelt proposed that the two territories be merged back again and become the State of Oklahoma (which is what happened in 1907). Still, all the hard work of the Sequoyah state constitutional convention was not lost as the Sequoyah constitution served as the basis for the Oklahoma constitution.
It should also be noted that if Sequoyah had ended up becoming a state, it would have been the first (and only) state where the majority of the people were Native Americans.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
How the Electoral College should be done
Probably one of the most controversial aspects of a United States presidential election isn't the money spent campaigning, or the negative ads, but how we actually vote for the candidates itself.
The United States uses a system known as the Electoral College where instead of the population voting for who will be the President of the United States as a whole, individuals called Electors actually vote for who will become the President.
Now the only reason why a presidential election is is even held in the first place is because all 50 states have laws that state that the Electors must respect the wishes of the majority of the voters in the state they are in, and all the Electors usually choose who majority of the voters voted for (although this is not always the case).
Now while this may sound okay to some, this does have several flaws in it.
The first flaw in this is that the way the Electoral College is set up is that it can led to the person who did not win the popular vote to still win the election because they had enough electoral votes (this has happened three times before, four if you count the election of 1824).
The second flaw with this is that a couple of highly populated areas can literally give a candidate all the electoral votes in one state by only a few thousand votes, which in turn creates a huge amount of resentment from everyone else in the state.
There is of course a way to solve this problem.
As most of you may well be aware all states plus the District of Columbia are given a minimum of three electoral votes. This is of course to reflect the number of people that state has in congress (members of the House of Representatives and the Senate).
So here is what I feel should be done. Instead of a presidential candidate winning all of a state's electoral votes if they win the popular vote in that state, they should only be given the two electoral votes that is suppose to represent that state's senators if they win the popular vote, and that the candidate who wins the popular vote in a certain representative district should be given the electoral vote that represents that district, regardless of whether or not they actually won the popular vote in that state.
Doing this would not only more accurately represent the voting population of a state, it would also give a boost to "third party" candidates as more people might be more willing to vote for a candidate they actually want to for instead of voting against a candidate by voting for a candidate they don't necessarily like, but they can not stand the other candidate.
This could also eliminate Faithless Electors as well, as an elector might be more willing to vote for the candidate who won the distract that the elector is assigned to rather then actually becoming a faithless electors. Electors could even become no longer necessary at all and that the electoral votes be given out by the state.
Of course we could just do away with the electoral college completely and go to direct vote...
The United States uses a system known as the Electoral College where instead of the population voting for who will be the President of the United States as a whole, individuals called Electors actually vote for who will become the President.
Now the only reason why a presidential election is is even held in the first place is because all 50 states have laws that state that the Electors must respect the wishes of the majority of the voters in the state they are in, and all the Electors usually choose who majority of the voters voted for (although this is not always the case).
Now while this may sound okay to some, this does have several flaws in it.
The first flaw in this is that the way the Electoral College is set up is that it can led to the person who did not win the popular vote to still win the election because they had enough electoral votes (this has happened three times before, four if you count the election of 1824).
The second flaw with this is that a couple of highly populated areas can literally give a candidate all the electoral votes in one state by only a few thousand votes, which in turn creates a huge amount of resentment from everyone else in the state.
There is of course a way to solve this problem.
As most of you may well be aware all states plus the District of Columbia are given a minimum of three electoral votes. This is of course to reflect the number of people that state has in congress (members of the House of Representatives and the Senate).
So here is what I feel should be done. Instead of a presidential candidate winning all of a state's electoral votes if they win the popular vote in that state, they should only be given the two electoral votes that is suppose to represent that state's senators if they win the popular vote, and that the candidate who wins the popular vote in a certain representative district should be given the electoral vote that represents that district, regardless of whether or not they actually won the popular vote in that state.
Doing this would not only more accurately represent the voting population of a state, it would also give a boost to "third party" candidates as more people might be more willing to vote for a candidate they actually want to for instead of voting against a candidate by voting for a candidate they don't necessarily like, but they can not stand the other candidate.
This could also eliminate Faithless Electors as well, as an elector might be more willing to vote for the candidate who won the distract that the elector is assigned to rather then actually becoming a faithless electors. Electors could even become no longer necessary at all and that the electoral votes be given out by the state.
Of course we could just do away with the electoral college completely and go to direct vote...
Friday, December 7, 2012
Embarrassing Conspiracy Theories: The Illuminati controls the Music Industry
One of the big conspiracy theories going around the internet (especially Youtube) is that the music industry is controlled by the Illuminati (mind you of course there is no proof that the Illuminati even exists in the first place).
One of the key pieces of "evidence" that many conspiracy theorists claims is "proof" that the Illuminati is in control of the music industry is that many musical artists tend to use hand gestures and symbols (along also with certain lyrics) that many conspiracy theorists believe contain pro-Illuminati messages, or is being used as some type of brain washing techniques.
Now besides the fact that a very secretive group (such as the allegedly existing Illuminati) probably wouldn't be so bluntly giving away their existence by having a bunch of musical artists basically giving their audience a bunch of little subtle hints of that group's existence, it would kind of defeats the purpose of a secretive group being a secret to the public at large if they gave away their existence so openly.
Musical artists can be a weird kind of bunch. They constantly "reinvent" themselves or evolve in there tastes for two main purpose: To express themselves artistically, and to stay relevant so they can make money from teenagers and young adults, because that is where a large part of where music sales come from. There is even speculation that some musical artist that are accused of working for the Illuminati are actually intentionally using what is considered Illuminati symbols in their acts and lyrics in their music in order to generate controversy, and thus publicity.
There are also other claims by people who claim to have worked in (or currently are working in) the music industry, and that they have actually "witnessed" either what they consider to be Illuminati or other occult type ceremonies occur in private with some of these musical artists. These claims tend to be few and far between, and could be simply the result of misunderstanding the actions of a musical artist (as I said before, they can sometimes be pretty weird and do weird things) or everything they are saying could just be entirely made up (including their involvement with the music industry).
Even if this was true, the music industry would not be a very good industry for a secretive group to secretly spread messages of their existence through symbols (rather then outright saying that they exist).
Besides the shear fact that many musical artists are very independent minded and would most likely never go along with being apart of the Illuminate (some of which are conspiracy theorist minded people who would have no problems exposing this) there are thousands of people who work in the music industry, and there should be a lot more evidence being brought forth, and a lot more people coming forth and claiming that the entire music industry is being controlled by some secretive shadow group.
Also, another reason why the music industry really wouldn't be a good place to do something like this in the first place is because musical artists come and go all the time, with maybe only a few lasting a decade or more (as comedian Chris Rock once put when he was talking about musical artists "here today, gone today" because that's practically how long some of these artists careers last). So with this being said, would you really want to use the music industry to secretively spread a message (without even hinting what that message was)?
From what I can tell this is simply a new spin on old accusations that have been plaguing the music industry for decades about how the music industry is being controlled by secretive and malicious forces, such as Satanists in the 1980's and 1990's, and communists even before then.
One of the key pieces of "evidence" that many conspiracy theorists claims is "proof" that the Illuminati is in control of the music industry is that many musical artists tend to use hand gestures and symbols (along also with certain lyrics) that many conspiracy theorists believe contain pro-Illuminati messages, or is being used as some type of brain washing techniques.
Now besides the fact that a very secretive group (such as the allegedly existing Illuminati) probably wouldn't be so bluntly giving away their existence by having a bunch of musical artists basically giving their audience a bunch of little subtle hints of that group's existence, it would kind of defeats the purpose of a secretive group being a secret to the public at large if they gave away their existence so openly.
Musical artists can be a weird kind of bunch. They constantly "reinvent" themselves or evolve in there tastes for two main purpose: To express themselves artistically, and to stay relevant so they can make money from teenagers and young adults, because that is where a large part of where music sales come from. There is even speculation that some musical artist that are accused of working for the Illuminati are actually intentionally using what is considered Illuminati symbols in their acts and lyrics in their music in order to generate controversy, and thus publicity.
There are also other claims by people who claim to have worked in (or currently are working in) the music industry, and that they have actually "witnessed" either what they consider to be Illuminati or other occult type ceremonies occur in private with some of these musical artists. These claims tend to be few and far between, and could be simply the result of misunderstanding the actions of a musical artist (as I said before, they can sometimes be pretty weird and do weird things) or everything they are saying could just be entirely made up (including their involvement with the music industry).
Even if this was true, the music industry would not be a very good industry for a secretive group to secretly spread messages of their existence through symbols (rather then outright saying that they exist).
Besides the shear fact that many musical artists are very independent minded and would most likely never go along with being apart of the Illuminate (some of which are conspiracy theorist minded people who would have no problems exposing this) there are thousands of people who work in the music industry, and there should be a lot more evidence being brought forth, and a lot more people coming forth and claiming that the entire music industry is being controlled by some secretive shadow group.
Also, another reason why the music industry really wouldn't be a good place to do something like this in the first place is because musical artists come and go all the time, with maybe only a few lasting a decade or more (as comedian Chris Rock once put when he was talking about musical artists "here today, gone today" because that's practically how long some of these artists careers last). So with this being said, would you really want to use the music industry to secretively spread a message (without even hinting what that message was)?
From what I can tell this is simply a new spin on old accusations that have been plaguing the music industry for decades about how the music industry is being controlled by secretive and malicious forces, such as Satanists in the 1980's and 1990's, and communists even before then.
Tuesday, December 4, 2012
Is it a Conspiracy Theory, or is it Propaganda?
Conspiracy theories and propaganda tend to go hand in hand, mainly because many conspiracy theories tend to be against something (government, industry, etc) while at the same time trying to promote something (political beliefs, alternative medicine, etc). Sometimes it's difficult to tell which is which. Sometimes they are one in the same.
Some conspiracy theories are obviously propaganda and are generally not believed by most (including those that promote the conspiracy theory) except for those who are to deluded (or have deluded themselves because of some personal bias against a certain person or group) to not accept the conspiracy theory/propaganda, or are not smart enough to figure out the deference between what is real and what is a lies.
Examples of this would be holocaust denial and the allegations the President Obama wasn't born in the United States.
Then there is the flip side of this in that some conspiracy theories have been used as some sort of propaganda. In fact it's not that uncommon that certain politicians, world leaders, and even certain celebrities will use these already established conspiracy theories in order to obtain power, maintain power, and just get attention for themselves.
Sometimes the leaders of one country who is experiencing hostilities from the leaders of another country will use already established conspiracy theories in there propaganda about their rival country as a way to try to make the leaders of that rival country to back off, and to perhaps try to sway the people in the rival country over to their side.
Probably one of the best examples of this would be the 9/11 conspiracy theories, in particular with Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has most likely used the 9/11 conspiracy theories as a way to gain support and downplay the United States, and as a way to get the US to back off from Iran.
Then there are of course conspiracy theories that you cannot tell if they were propaganda that became conspiracy theories, or if they just started as conspiracy theories, and ended up becoming propaganda. In fact many of the anti-government, modern medicine, new world order type of conspiracy theories tend to fall into this category.
This is actually where many conspiracy theories fall under simply because it's difficult to tell whether or not a conspiracy theory began as propaganda that evolved into a conspiracy theory, or vice verse. Examples of this would be FEMA camps, chemtrails, and vaccines causing autism (along with a lot of other things).
Then there are of course conspiracy theories that are so bizarre that most skeptics (and even some conspiracy theorists) suspect that they may have originally began not as propaganda but as a either a hoax or a scam.
Regardless of whether or not a conspiracy theory originally started as propaganda, or if a conspiracy theory is being exploited by someone with an agenda, the fact is that conspiracy theories are used as propaganda, and we should be skeptical of certain people or groups and ask ourselves this: are they promoting this because they seriously believe this, or do they have some type of agenda.
Some conspiracy theories are obviously propaganda and are generally not believed by most (including those that promote the conspiracy theory) except for those who are to deluded (or have deluded themselves because of some personal bias against a certain person or group) to not accept the conspiracy theory/propaganda, or are not smart enough to figure out the deference between what is real and what is a lies.
Examples of this would be holocaust denial and the allegations the President Obama wasn't born in the United States.
Then there is the flip side of this in that some conspiracy theories have been used as some sort of propaganda. In fact it's not that uncommon that certain politicians, world leaders, and even certain celebrities will use these already established conspiracy theories in order to obtain power, maintain power, and just get attention for themselves.
Sometimes the leaders of one country who is experiencing hostilities from the leaders of another country will use already established conspiracy theories in there propaganda about their rival country as a way to try to make the leaders of that rival country to back off, and to perhaps try to sway the people in the rival country over to their side.
Probably one of the best examples of this would be the 9/11 conspiracy theories, in particular with Iran's president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has most likely used the 9/11 conspiracy theories as a way to gain support and downplay the United States, and as a way to get the US to back off from Iran.
Then there are of course conspiracy theories that you cannot tell if they were propaganda that became conspiracy theories, or if they just started as conspiracy theories, and ended up becoming propaganda. In fact many of the anti-government, modern medicine, new world order type of conspiracy theories tend to fall into this category.
This is actually where many conspiracy theories fall under simply because it's difficult to tell whether or not a conspiracy theory began as propaganda that evolved into a conspiracy theory, or vice verse. Examples of this would be FEMA camps, chemtrails, and vaccines causing autism (along with a lot of other things).
Then there are of course conspiracy theories that are so bizarre that most skeptics (and even some conspiracy theorists) suspect that they may have originally began not as propaganda but as a either a hoax or a scam.
Regardless of whether or not a conspiracy theory originally started as propaganda, or if a conspiracy theory is being exploited by someone with an agenda, the fact is that conspiracy theories are used as propaganda, and we should be skeptical of certain people or groups and ask ourselves this: are they promoting this because they seriously believe this, or do they have some type of agenda.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)