world ruled by supreme shadow elite. promotes hatred and violence towards marginalized groups
:what: how is this not real???
Epstein didn't kill himself, JFK Assassination, Iran Contra (leaving reality)
:wut:
How is Iran Contra, a conspiracy that people literally admitted to and that Oliver North was convicted for, in any way outside the realm of reality?
A reply tweet:
I should clarify: I’m not saying Iran-Contra didn’t happen. This was meant to imply we have questions about Reagan’s involvement. That is why it’s in the “we have questions” category. Sorry, that could’ve been more clear.
The only real :brainworms: here is the "shadow elite" stuff, which I think they're talking specifically about people who think that there's a discrete group of eyes wide shut weirdos running the world and not just Capitalists as a class doing it by acting in their class interest (of course, the capitalist class has no shortage of eyes wide shut weirdos). Also Epstein didn't kill himself.
Questions about Reagan's involvement in IC is some serious re-writing of history, and exactly what people are freaking out about. That would be like some kid in 30 years trying to act like there's "questions" about Trump's involvement in some shady shit, RWR (666) was viewed exactly the same way as DJT by his contemporaries, down to the idea of him being a "bumbling oaf who let's the GOP swamp creatures around him run wild".
Area 51, UFOs and 'We live in a simulation' are plausible to this person. Like, they think those are as likely to be real as Reagan being in on Iran-Contra or JFK assassination theories. Area 51 is a real place I guess, but that's not what they mean.
Also love how they say "FBI spied on MLK" but omit the also confirmed "they tried to make him commit suicide" part
Wapo conspiracy theory quiz
Holy shit there is so much wrong with it.
- Like above, not going into the full extent of the FBI's actions against MLK.
- Blindly stating Epstein definitely killed himself as if that's proven fact. With the evidence being "a government official said so".
- Saying Republicans didn't cheat in 2000, 2004, and 2016. 2000 was so blatant it's insane to argue otherwise. And of course they're always suppressing voters.
- Surprisingly it acknowledges that Trump colluding with Russia in 2016 was bs, but then it says only 37% of people believe it. It's way more than that. Also no acknowledgement of the media's (including WaPo's) role in spreading and legitimizing it. Edit: lol and the only reason they say it's not true is because of Muller's inconclusive report.
- Acting like the "deep state" is a 100% not real thing. Yeah it's not quite like Trump supporters believe, but the FBI and CIA exist and basically aren't accountable to anyone, that's a "deep state".
Also love how they say “FBI spied on MLK” but omit the also confirmed “they tried to make him commit suicide” part
And you know the actual (very possibly true) conspiracy theory: that they were behind his death.
This is just libs patting themselves on the back for having the "correct" opinions, just like that WaPo conspiracy theory quiz that was featured on a recent Chapo reading series.
The most pervasive conspiracy theory is the idea that every conspiracy theory is inherently absurd and paranoid, even the ones that have been confirmed by the involved parties and are public knowledge, and it was most likely planted in the public mind by a CIA conspiracy like with the UFO stuff.
Parenti posting time:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=Pg9xgJc2efc
The Iran Contra is written under "We have questions"; it is a bad infographic
Even libs are fully down with the Iran-contra scandal and the introduction of crack cocaine into black communities being real. Who is this.
My favorite is "The US is a corporation" in the unequivocally false category lol
To be fair, isn't that last one part of Sovereign Citizen mythology?
Ah yeah that’s where’s it’s from. It’s like making Trump the 16th president shit.
Just a horribly abbreviated chart. Apparently the excuse for contra is Qs about what Reagan knew… lol
Wait what's the Trump's the 16th president thing lmao
Edit: read a bit about it. Unsurprisingly it's super fucking racist.
The US is a corporation” in the unequivocally false category
a state under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is still a state
I thought that at first but I think theyre referring to the sovereign citizen shit
The best one from an older chart is that celebrities moisturize their faces with baby foreskins, being equated with qanon and moon nazis. Now seems to be gone, since everyone knows it and there’s “nothing that weird” about it lol.
https://qz.com/quartzy/1230002/sandra-bullock-and-cate-blanchett-had-a-penis-facial-its-not-that-strange/
:picard-annoyed: well the baby's not using it anymore, is it?
Can't stop thinking about this infographic this morning, honestly.
I'm not sure whether the basic structure of it is good or bad, at minimum a number of things are badly placed because of the author's political brainworms or other worldview issues. Consider two things that aren't on the chart: "Russiagate" and "Havana Syndrome".
I believe the author would put both of these in the green "known to be fact" zone, even though they're both substantially conspiracy theories. I could easily place both of them in two different categories, though. I could place them in "we have questions", because they both involve speculation about real things that happened. Russiagate: Russia did buy Facebook ads during the 2016 election season, and someone leaked DNC emails to Wikileaks, though the evidence connecting it to Russia is questionable. Havana Syndrome: a bunch of US and Canadian diplomats serving in Cuba (and some others in Vietnam) did get sick around the same time, though it's most likely because of exposure to pesticides used in mosquito fogging, and not the directed energy weapon that the State Department is pushing as an explanation.
But despite the fact that they're speculation related to real events, I would honestly put both of them in the "harmful to yourself and others" category, because the mainstream/establishment narrative about them embraces some of the most extreme speculations about them, poisons domestic political discourse, and promotes hostility towards other countries based on lies.
Then there's the "Deep State", which the author puts in the most extreme category, past the "antisemitic point of no return". But the Deep State is simply a real thing that has been misrepresented by right-wing conspiracy theorists and then reflexively denied by liberals; it is nothing more or less than the continuity of US foreign policy between presidential administrations, as implemented by the continuity of State Department and "intelligence community" staff. I'd file it under "we have questions" at most; there are definitely unhinged conspiracy theories about the Deep State, and the public understanding of it has been severely deranged by the Trump administration's misuse of the term, but an actual understanding of the Deep State is actually useful for understanding US politics. I guess now we need to refer to it as "the national security establishment" to avoid getting lumped in with right-wing conspiracy theorists, which is annoying.
Also, cryptids belong in "we have questions". I will not elaborate.
This is the CIA version of the Star Trek thing, where they say "famous scientists like Einstein, X and Newton", where "X" is a made-up Star Trek character.
I like how George Soros is a de facto conspiracy theory.
Also, the theory that the Rothchilds... aren't a famous family of ultra-wealthy British bankers?
Seems like "Rich Jews Exist" is a conspiracy theory on its face.
Also really enjoying how UFOs are things we need to take a second look at but Alien Abductions are not. Real bucket-full-of-question-marks on that one.
My S.O. is a Warren lib and we kinda got into this chart over a long dinner conversation and walk afterward. Part of the problem with the infographic is that there are just not consistent concise or specific theories covering events like JFK, 9/11, or even the deep state. Each of those have a wide gamut themselves that can and should really be broken into its own infographic.
Like 9/11 for example you have on the more grounded end of the spectrum a lot of questions about what intelligence seemed to know and yet not act on. Then you get to the far more speculative or outright bad science stuff like controlled demolition, or "Jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams". Eventually you can go completely off the deep end and I've seen actual videos suggesting the entire attacks were all visual fx created fake news footage.
"Deep state" as a concept suffers the same problem. If you really start talking to people and break down the idea of these sort of bureaucratic government branches and institutions as bulwarks against institutional reform people will nod right along and totally be on board for it. The problem is that shit like Qanon has promoted a very specific rendering of the concept of the deep state to the forefront of the public consciousness...and that specific variant IS crazy. Some might speculate that is in part intentional by the deep state. Its certainly beneficial at least.
Right, like with JFK you have a range involving how many shooters and shit, but the House Select Committee on Assassinations came to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy to kill JFK. That's just never brought up by these ghouls
Right, like with JFK you have a range involving how many shooters and shit,
Exactly. With the way it is portrayed and discussed in media: you would think that any conspiracy by the deep state, intelligence services, military industrial complex, et al, to kill Kennedy is entirely 100% dependent on the existence of a second shooter.
That's a complete straw man though. Even if you concede that Oswald was the only shooter...that doesn't negate some of the open questions surrounding him and automatically mean he acted alone. Personally I'm of the mindset that he had ties to intelligence and he did act alone and those connections were covered up because it would have been a bad look...but I'm definitely more agnostic these days.
That used to be my view, now I am broken thanks to trueanon and some other stuff. The shit connecting him to Ruby prior to the murder and the timeline with the theater arrest are just aggghhhhh
Yeah...totally I get it. I still accept the official report with regards to the "mechanics" (for lack of a better word) of how the actual shooting went down but man....there's so much in the leadup to and after the actual event that really makes you raise your eyebrows.
Yes, this is an important part of what's wrong with the infographic, and you're right to point it out.
"Jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is literally the official story. Please investigate this stuff, you don't know what you're talking about. I know everyone's super loathe to touch on 9/11 because of the association with wackos, but this shit is deeply documented. https://youtu.be/Rq9nUPs2RAk
“Jet fuel can’t melt steel beams” is literally the official story. Please investigate this stuff, you don’t know what you’re talking about.
No, you don't. Putting aside that there was a lot more shit burning in those buildings that has a ton of heat release then simply jet fuel: steel beams do not have to "melt" to lose structural integrity.
Yes I have. What you consider "research" is just fringe nonsense: and I say that as someone who 100% believes Epstein didn't kill himself.
Lol no you quite obviously haven't, because you said that "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is a wacky conspiracy theory when it's literally in the official report.
“Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams” is a direct quote on the conspiracy chart bruh.
Then you get to the far more speculative or outright bad science stuff like controlled demolition, or “Jet fuel doesn’t melt steel beams”.
So you agree with the chart
Not all of it. In fact I might dispute its placement on the chart a bit, but I'm just saying that's what I was directly quoting.
I do agree that people who argue over whether or not "Jet fuel can melt steel beams" are missing the forest for the trees and tend to be deep in the conspiracy/bad science pipeline because they seem to think that this somehow that proves the planes and fire alone couldn't have made the towers collapse when everything I've seen and researched has made it clear that its by far the simplest and most logical explanation.
Lol
Can you show me this research?
If the strongest steel building to ever exist was destroyed by fire, I'd think we'd have updated architectural codes for steel buildings. Do those exist?
Can you show me this research?
https://www.nist.gov/el/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
To sum up from the FAQ
- The impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and
- The subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers.
So yeah: jet fuel combined with tons of office equipment with a shit ton of heat release which burned at insane temperatures for a hella long time led to the collapse of the buildings structural integrity and down they went.
If the strongest steel building to ever exist was destroyed by fire, I’d think we’d have updated architectural codes for steel buildings. Do those exist?
I don't know, I'm not an architect. I just listen to them.
Lmao this is literally the official story. Gonna link me the Warren commission on JFK next? Fucking incurious loser lmao.
It being the "official story" doesn't mean it isn't true, and the fact that that's your go to position is very revealing. Again: Jet fuel burning for hours in contained spaces over multiple floors mixed with tons of other computer and office equipment weakened the structural integrity of the buildings and they collapsed.
Guy who believes the US government:
"Maybe try being a little skeptical"
You haven't watched the video. Irredeemable American.
Guy who believes everything he sees in a dumb youtube video:
"Shut the fuck up you incurious savage."
Lol, I'd bet money you're exactly the sort of person who built an identity around that godawful "Zeitgeist" film back in the early 00s.
You literally cited the US government report and then asserted that it's not relevant that the US government commissioned it. World's smartest American lmao.
Oh god I'm right aren't I?!? You were that guy weren't you? And you're still that guy now!!!!
No I believed the stupid incurious bullshit that you do before I investigated the subject.
Be kind, comrade. I'm with you, but you won't win much support with this tone. :meow-hug:
Here's what I don't understand about the NIST: why won't they release the raw data for their computer models so that independent researchers can verify their simulation? Science is literally about being as open as possible. It would be in their interest to better communicate their knowledge to the public and put these theories to rest. They claim that releasing the data would be a threat to "national security". Is that really true? How does knowing how to demolish a building which no longer exists pose a threat? In order to prevent a 9/11, all you have to do is secure the airplanes, which they've already done.
I get to do my favourite thing, say "goddamn yankees" and be 100% correct
In the context of the chart, "jet fuel can't melt steel beams" is obviously a stand-in for "WTC was a controlled demolition" or all 9/11 theories more broadly.
Pls fuck off thx, 9/11 nutjobbery and YouTube research is always going to be silly. There are plenty of concerns and questions to be had over what happened but obvious and unscientific bullshit is not one of them, things do not have to fully melt to lose their structure when under pressure.
Well it's obviously not a perfect analogy because of the structural and chemical difference, think of something like a marshmallow or a piece of ice. A frozen marshmallow is hard, a room temperature is more soft and squishy but both are not melted. Kind of similar to ice where it gets harder and more brittle as the temperature lowers. Temperature changes an objects structural integrity, and keep in mind this is after a lot of the building got hit by a plane and a lot of the load-bearing supports were destroyed.
Call me all the names you want, if you don't think a plane could destroy shitty 1970s New York Mob construction filled with paper then that is on you. I will say stop posting that garbage here.
Strongest steel building where they cheaped out on rebar. Sure.
I’ve seen actual videos suggesting the entire attacks were all visual fx created fake news footage.
:so-true: Can I get a link? :meow-popcorn:
Oh man, I haven't seen them since the very earliest days of youtube. Did a quick search and I couldn't find any, but it was some serious wild analysis of parallax and shit.
A lot of 9/11 videos like that have been shadow banned or scrubbed. I'm of the same mind as Will Menaker when he complained about twitter banning Naomi Wolf for her weird theories about covid-contaminated sewage: I hate it when social media companies try to protect us from kookery because they're depriving us of delicious slop. If the theories are truly insane then they should be innocuous anyway. It's not like anybody's theories about JFK or 9/11 are keeping people from getting vaccinated.
If the theories are truly insane then they should be innocuous anyway.
You would think so....but honestly if that was the case then IDW types and MLM grifters should be out of a career and that clearly isn't the case sadly. I go back and forth on this one a lot tbh. Generally I lean towards the free speech side of things, but less because of any sense of idealism and more a matter of pragmatism since I at least partially agree with Kyle kulinski that once you normalize banning or canceling people it can more easily be weaponized against the left.
...then again I also have been cynically disillusioned into thinking that power will do whatever the fuck it wants whenever the fuck it wants so honestly it's almost a masturbatory intellectual exercise.
Some of those are just jokes. Like, I don't think anyone seriously believes Ted Cruz is the Zodiac Killer, he's a bit young for that, but it's a funny joke.
I suspect it's something about how soy supposedly "feminizes" men by containing compounds which mimic estrogen. Never mind that plastic is doing that just fine...
But... that's not a conspiracy. That's just a pseudoscientific assertion.
I'm not seeing anything terrible here.
I think you might be misreading some things.
I'm pretty sure they're not saying believing Epstein didn't kill himself, Nixon was involved in the Iran Contra affair or that Bush did the JFK assassination means you're leaving reality.
The words in between the sections aren't titles of that section, they're what crossing the line from the lower section to the higher represents, so believing stuff you read about cointel pro is just knowing facts about the world, believing Epstein didn't kill himself is probably true, but there's alot of unknowns involved so you're engaging in speculation. Believing that Epstein was abducted by aliens would mean you're leaving reality, believing Prince Charles (who is a vampire) took Epstein away and gave him the dark embrace as a reward for his loyal service would mean you're actively denying reality and believing Prince Charles only did it because GEORGE SOROS who is a LIZARDMAN and helped FAKE THE HOLOCAUST told him to means that not only have you left reality behind to indulge in delusional nonsense but your particular brand of nonsense is actively harmful nazi shit that crosses the antisemitic point of no return.
The "Promotes hatred and violence towards marginalised groups" I think is referring to the conspiracies themselves, not the "shadowy elites" the conspiracies are about, and while it's true that capitalists leeches have squirmed their way into a majority of the worlds "elite" positions and will do absolutely anything to get the teensiest bit fatter off of our blood, they're not exactly "shadowy" or at least, not nearly so shadowy as the NWO MOON NAZI LIZARD JEWS of triangle topping fame.
I agree, I think most people that seem to have a problem with it are just reading it the wrong way, the Iran Contra one is probably the only actual mess up but the twitter OP even admits to that as being unclear. :grumpy-lizard: :hex-moon:
I’m not seeing anything terrible here.
The ranking and assortment is so bad it may as well be random IMO. How is believing that America has a deep state 3 tiers more detached from reality than believing we live in a simulation, aka not reality?
The most deranged tier is labeled "world ruled by supreme shadow elite" which is a true statement except for (debatably) the shadow part.
Also at least half of the items in the "dangerous to yourself and others" category are actually harmless (and I believe at least two of them).
Yeah, Abbie the person who wrote this is definitely a :LIB:, but she's also like, a 19 year old with a 300k Tik-Tok follower count who's trying to use her platform to stop people radicalising into fascists via conspiracy theories so I don't see a reason to be too hard on her.
When she says "Deep State" I'm 90% sure she's talking about a specific reactionary Q-Anon adjacent conspiracy theory rather than just the idea of the US having a deep state in the first place.
Her channel's here and she put together a compilation of her videos on the 2020 version of the chart here if you want some context.
I see what you’re saying, the graph is initially poorly designed. I get it now about the text in between showing the motion of going upwards, but it also still reads as being descriptive of the box below it
