As David Rockefeller opined when head of the Club of Rome for a time. . . something like "the substitute for war as the organizing principle of society will be a war against humanity in the name of the environment and saving the planet."
Some tips on convincement of others from an old hand.
Don't start defensive:
"Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. This is ‘conspiracy theory’.
Tell you what - I’ll double down on not only this not being ‘conspiracy theory’, but in fact another ‘established hoax’ being legit as well."
Never debase your own theory. Never berate, harangue, or undermine your own position, as if you show doubt in your position, others will. Even if that is insincere, sarcastic doubt, it still psychologically introduces the seeds of doubt. Don't do it. Don't stoop to calling yourself or your theories that (or 'self-indentifying with the outgroup').
You don't have a "conspiracy theory", you have a hypothesis. A hypothesis can either have evidence, or be speculative.
If you must make reference, say *others* might call it that. But never call it that yourself.
It's very easy to prove how ineffective the approach of self-debasement or even sarcastic denial is. Have you ever heard a person say:
"I am NOT a pedophile" - and then you immediately started to suspect they were, in-fact, a pedophile?
What if they phrased it sarcastically and said:
"So what if I might be a pedophile?" - would that invite trust?
Or even went for the giant clanger and said:
"Lets assume for a moment I am a pedophile"
Never do this. Don't work from the negative assumption trying to fight forwards. Always work from the positive assumption and reach backwards. So instead of:
"Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. This is ‘conspiracy theory’.
Tell you what - I’ll double down on not only this not being ‘conspiracy theory’, but in fact another ‘established hoax’ being legit as well."
Put:
"Some people may classify this as a conspiracy theory. Some may even call it an established hoax. But what if there's evidence to show even part of it is true?"
Always aim the doubt cannon at the opposite side. If you work from the position people won't believe you, you'll write and act like it and it will give off subconscious cues to people to not believe you.
Like trying to leave a shopping store in a roundabout way (that ends up looking suspicious) after not purchasing anything in order to not make yourself look like a shoplifter.
oh i somewhat work on the assumption that the scale of sarcasm cannot possibly be misunderstood, in fact, to the point of aggressively challenging prevailing 'consensus'. but it's a valid point, and will attempt to steer clear in the future.
probably a hint of self-deprecating danish humour in there as well, but either way, all good points.
Nothing wrong, just the human mind works in a bizarre way.
It's the same reason people trust a man in a business suit over a man dressed like a hobo, despite there being no other evidence as to their character.
It's also why some homeless(?) folks 'dress down' into ragged clothing to solicit more donations from the public, rather than buying new clothes and looking more presentable.
BTW: The Editors of the Nation along with Lewin finally admitted authorship during the Vietnam War of the Report from Iron Mountain as a satire of ruling class failed "efforts" to move away from WAR their principle for organizing society. A give-away is their claim that pollution was being purposely increased to justify the necessity for "war on pollution." In fact, the Club of Rome invents environmental crises out of the "whole cloth!"
I read Silent Weapons for Quiet wars around the same time many decades ago which seemed to me to be another such satire written in a style not used in ruling class policy documents. However, both documents make good contributions to forming a conspiracy theory of what the RULING CLASS thinks and does!
No one should back away from the appellation of conspiracy theorist. To conspire is human nature. Theorizing is what scientists do. Conspiracy theorist = Conspiracy scientist!
yeah no, i dont really buy that. it's just so convenient to have all these people 'own up' down the line. even LBJ was supposedly spooked by its release, there's more to this story than this deflection.
As David Rockefeller opined when head of the Club of Rome for a time. . . something like "the substitute for war as the organizing principle of society will be a war against humanity in the name of the environment and saving the planet."
club of rome, 1991.
https://twitter.com/_Escapekey_/status/1736291049335619778/photo/1
Yes! That quote is what I was looking for. . .
Splendid work - very good questions! Thank you!
Some tips on convincement of others from an old hand.
Don't start defensive:
"Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. This is ‘conspiracy theory’.
Tell you what - I’ll double down on not only this not being ‘conspiracy theory’, but in fact another ‘established hoax’ being legit as well."
Never debase your own theory. Never berate, harangue, or undermine your own position, as if you show doubt in your position, others will. Even if that is insincere, sarcastic doubt, it still psychologically introduces the seeds of doubt. Don't do it. Don't stoop to calling yourself or your theories that (or 'self-indentifying with the outgroup').
You don't have a "conspiracy theory", you have a hypothesis. A hypothesis can either have evidence, or be speculative.
If you must make reference, say *others* might call it that. But never call it that yourself.
It's very easy to prove how ineffective the approach of self-debasement or even sarcastic denial is. Have you ever heard a person say:
"I am NOT a pedophile" - and then you immediately started to suspect they were, in-fact, a pedophile?
What if they phrased it sarcastically and said:
"So what if I might be a pedophile?" - would that invite trust?
Or even went for the giant clanger and said:
"Lets assume for a moment I am a pedophile"
Never do this. Don't work from the negative assumption trying to fight forwards. Always work from the positive assumption and reach backwards. So instead of:
"Yeah, yeah, I know, I know. This is ‘conspiracy theory’.
Tell you what - I’ll double down on not only this not being ‘conspiracy theory’, but in fact another ‘established hoax’ being legit as well."
Put:
"Some people may classify this as a conspiracy theory. Some may even call it an established hoax. But what if there's evidence to show even part of it is true?"
Always aim the doubt cannon at the opposite side. If you work from the position people won't believe you, you'll write and act like it and it will give off subconscious cues to people to not believe you.
Like trying to leave a shopping store in a roundabout way (that ends up looking suspicious) after not purchasing anything in order to not make yourself look like a shoplifter.
oh i somewhat work on the assumption that the scale of sarcasm cannot possibly be misunderstood, in fact, to the point of aggressively challenging prevailing 'consensus'. but it's a valid point, and will attempt to steer clear in the future.
probably a hint of self-deprecating danish humour in there as well, but either way, all good points.
Nothing wrong, just the human mind works in a bizarre way.
It's the same reason people trust a man in a business suit over a man dressed like a hobo, despite there being no other evidence as to their character.
It's also why some homeless(?) folks 'dress down' into ragged clothing to solicit more donations from the public, rather than buying new clothes and looking more presentable.
BTW: The Editors of the Nation along with Lewin finally admitted authorship during the Vietnam War of the Report from Iron Mountain as a satire of ruling class failed "efforts" to move away from WAR their principle for organizing society. A give-away is their claim that pollution was being purposely increased to justify the necessity for "war on pollution." In fact, the Club of Rome invents environmental crises out of the "whole cloth!"
I read Silent Weapons for Quiet wars around the same time many decades ago which seemed to me to be another such satire written in a style not used in ruling class policy documents. However, both documents make good contributions to forming a conspiracy theory of what the RULING CLASS thinks and does!
No one should back away from the appellation of conspiracy theorist. To conspire is human nature. Theorizing is what scientists do. Conspiracy theorist = Conspiracy scientist!
yeah no, i dont really buy that. it's just so convenient to have all these people 'own up' down the line. even LBJ was supposedly spooked by its release, there's more to this story than this deflection.