For example, there are countless conspiracy theories concerning the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and likewise since there are so many theories purporting to explain anomalies surrounding the event -- the net "real world" effect of all these theories is zero.
Compounding this net zero effect on society are all the thousands of related and completely unrelated conspiracy theories which, in the main, contradict, complicate and generally overwhelm any logical attempt to change the world views of society to any significant degree. The vast soup of rumor, mystery and innuendo renders the most evil of ideas to the realm of harmless pastime.
But, what if the rapid acceleration of information delivered by the internet now allows this vast soup of theories to solidify? What would be the greatest danger from a conspiracy theory which began to explain and refute everything? Thousands of individual theories are now bounced back and forth across the earth, and in a process not unlike natural selection, bits and pieces which the global public does not wish to accept are discarded, modified or expounded upon as time passes. Rightly or wrongly a single and ever encompassing conspiracy theory can begin to take shape. The greater the number of people beginning to believe -- the more input and refinement the conspiracy receives -- and even greater numbers of people begin to believe -- and so on.
We would believe that vaccines are safe and effective, that LHO shot JFK, that 9/11 was an organic terrorist attack, that 2020 was the most secure election, that Jan 6th was an insurrection, and that Covid-19 was a naturally occurring virus. Shit like that would happen.
You have factions trying to get their own versions of events accepted.
The entire point of the internet was to facilitate cult-building. "Conspiracy theory" is simply one of the cults.
a) an effect represents the reaction to an enacting cause. Living represents the reacting effect within the enacting cause of dying. To be implies out of.
b) suggested zero (0) doesn't exist within perceivable oneness (1). To be able to perceive implies perceiving each one thing within everything perceivable.
c) to ignore perceivable (reality) for suggested (fiction) destroys those doing it; since they (living) ignore to resist reality (dying).
a) one (perceiving) within all (perceivable) cannot perceive "completeness"; hence it being suggested by others to tempt one to ignore perceivable differentiation (inspiration for adaptation).
b) each one perceiving is related to all perceivable; hence each one existing within all.
a) what the world views (perceives) represents constant change; hence being form (life) within flow (inception towards death). Logic (reason) represents ignoring perceivable (need) for reasoning (want vs not want) about suggested.
b) the parasitic few utilize suggestion for division (reason) among the ignorant many; which when consented to empowers them to define (idolatry); redefine (revisionism) and contradict (talmudic reasoning) at their will whatever the many are reasoning over.
c) perceivable inspiration represents simplicity; suggested information represents complexity build upon ignored simplicity (aka the "solidified information suggested through the internet")
The foundation for believing represents choice (consent) to choice (suggestion) contract law; which tempts one to ignore being choice (reaction) at the center of perceivable balance (enacting) natural law.
The industrialization of contract law to allow the parasitic few control over the ignorant many who ignore natural law represents RELIGION; noun (Latin religio) - "to bind anew". Hence; choice to choice (bound anew); balance to choice (original bond).
The suggested word (information) over the perceivable sound (inspiration) aka spell-craft aka the few crafting the spelling of the many by means of suggestion; which binds them to contract law while domesticating their free will of choice to willing ignorance.
interesting points -thx
Thanks for the inspiration.