The Skeptinazi Credo: "Conspiracies Don't Exist"

This is one of what I call a "Skeptinazi / skeptifascist" fallacy. This is a sort of get out of jail free card that the fascist demeanored self-described "Skeptics" (note the capitol S) typically pull out when it's time to actually think (about the unthinkable). Usually they'll resort to pulling this card out after all else fails, but sometimes they even go the extra mile to actually pull this out from the onset of the debate or discussion to frame you as being a 'nutjob' pick-your-word to go for total victory by destroying you.

Fallacy: a misconception resulting from incorrect reasoning

This argument destroys that claim / mindset, and can effectively make them wish they never tried framing you as being the "fantasy world" (this is Popular Mechanics terminology for anyone who's skeptical of the official 911 narrative) tinfoil hat wearing pick your word.

This 'fallacy' is a particular favorite of those who actually want to debate things of this nature yet surely go for the 'accepted' belief of the case, and in the context of (them not) doubting the 9/11 event narrative (despite vast flaws and contradictory evidence) violates the definition of skepticism. To 'weigh' evidence in the goal of making it suit preconceptions and ideal realities isn't skepticism. 9/11 isn't the only example, but it's surely the choicest besides irrational political bias.

For those who actually try to talk to people about an issue like 911 you'll surely deal with the wishfully ignoramus mindset that avoids the discussion at all costs. In most cases, it seems that those who are new to the concepts in general won't always go for this approach either. Now when you get to those who are already experienced with the prospect that "the government" could have "done it" the odds of encountering the "conspiracies don't (or CANT) exist" arguments multiply. When you get to the Skeptinazi you're almost certain to encounter this, in fact, if you don't it may be safe to assume that the potential Skeptinazi isn't actually "sophisticated" enough to qualify as a 'member' of the 'sophisticated' Skeptinazi social group.

"Sophistication" in this regard actually means the scale of bias that affects the person. In abstract terms this mostly applies to the strength of the mindset and the time under which the delusional and irrational individual has been self-enslaved to the mindset. In all fairness, this can also apply to true "conspiracy theorists" who irrationally believe in all conspiracy 'theories', even those without merit and even evidence to the contrary. True "conspiracy theorists" are the ideological polar opposite of the Skeptinazi. A good reference is the politically biased delusionalists from the left / right paradigm mentality.

For clarification: The 'conspiracies don't exist' theory is actually more than a card to pull, it's actually deep mindset that is used when analyzing anything (ideal contradicting) from daily news and actual direct research by those who follow the ideology.

The "Skeptinazi" title is the term I coined, about a year ago, in response to observing the Social-imposters that present themselves as being the rational higher sort of cognitive class than the "kooky tinfoil hat wearing nut-bags" that dare to doubt the 911 official version or have gripes with the ever increasing totalitarian political / technological enslavement that we're all witnessing. More directly, they present a reality where skepticism is to doubt anything that ultimately challenges the norm, and that anyone who doesn't doubt isn't skeptical (and therefore insane deserving ideological bashing). So, to be a "Skeptic", you must patently doubt the existence of any "conspiracy", even though everytime you turn on the news they're conspiracy theorizing about virtually everything (in between celebrity gossip).

They present themselves as being the true "skeptics", but in truth they're only skeptical of basically any and all claims against the official version (of whatever). They'll persistently present themselves as being fancy status members like "Logicians", but bias social-psycho-neuroscience still dictates they're entire mindset and methods of interpreting information to suit ones psychological needs / wants.

They naively think that by memorizing the most-common-logical-fallacy lists they can overcome irrational human behavior / thinking patterns. This mindset is a fallacy in of itself: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam. Don't get me wrong, knowing at least some of fallacies on the list can not only help you in better interpreting the information you're pouring over but can also help you maintain a higher degree of being "right". However, knowing these fallacies alone cannot save you from being biased, which is important, because fMRI brain scans have proved that politically biased people self-deceive themselves to maintain their ideal constructs of reality.

Logical fallacies are like philosophical extensions of "cognitive biases", yet cognitive biases are the neurological underpinnings of logical fallacies and more. Don't forget that philosophy was the precursor to neuroscience/psychology/sociology/etc. In fact, worthy philosophy goes back to times when most cultures still believed we think with our hearts.

It's quite plausible that some of the most common fallacies might even deserve their own cognitive bias classifications, but it's certain that virtually all of them are the result of said cognitive biases. In many cases they're the result of complexes of cognitive biases. These complexes actually stem from the overall belief system of the brain in question, or rather the mindset.

So far in my studies, I've gathered about 100 known cognitive biases, and researching them in the contexts of the critical mindset complexes -that I consider to be Political Bias, Nationalism Bias and the omnipotent Skeptinazi Bias- I've identified an average of 23 cognitive biases involved in the normal mindset behavior / thinking patterns of those social groups. Said cognitive biases, in the mindset of any involved, or even in deeper in cases of the unwitting (masses) proves to be a cognitive determinant that supercedes the mere logical fallacy in the chain of cognitive hierarchy.

Also worth noting, yet somewhat out of context, is that this same large set of cognitive biases have the potential to affect literally every "normal" or "healthy" human being alive. These are a critical set of cognitive flaws of the brain that can be exploited (but this issue deserves it's own story…).
There have been cognitive bias studies where an extra control group was given full explanations of the cognitive bias that was under the spotlight of the study. In virtually all cases it's been found that the educated control group still fell for the same cognitive bias snare. This may seem daunting, but that doesn't mean that virtually all people can't overcome them because a great deal of the physical structuring of the brain that occurs during long term memory storage happens during naps and sleep. It seems very plausible, based on my full spectrum brain / mind research, that the same control group wouldn't fall for the bias test so easily after learning about it, being stumped by it (trial and error; learn the hard way) and then have one or more nights for the brain to do its reconfiguring work during sleep.

The mind is resistant to change (but practice does makes perfect), and then there's Motivated Reasoning. Motivated Reasoning is ultimately the overall model for these biased decision making mindsets that I further into sociological categorizations (Skeptinazi, Deep Nationalist, Political Party, etc Complexes).

What's important to note here are these various cognitive dynamics and the fact that Skeptinazi's and the like are virtual slaves to maintaining their mindset. One fundamental reason is because memories and thought patterns are physical structures inside the brain. The longer they've "hardwired" themselves to the mindset(s) the more resistant and therefore more irrational they become in maintaining the ideal reality that they've chosen or more than likely have been indoctrinated with. Luckily for avoiding pessimism, said physical thought pattern structures in the brain can change thanks to neural "plasticity", however, one must understand these combined dynamics to have good hopes of truly overcoming them to achieve powers of actual free thought.

In any case the Skeptinazi social group does typically have the upper hand in debates because the true Skeptinazi practically worships the logical fallacy list, and it is an important framework in understanding human thought and decision making like the other examples above.
Now for the sake of the truth warriors I must lay out some choice historical examples that in their own right destroy the conspiracies don't exist ideal:

-American Imperialism, or "The First Truth": I can list dozen of examples of this and not even just where we were bamboozled into false beliefs of the event but events we never even knew about, many of which of become "true" thanks to mostly recent declassifications yet still few actually know about them (typically unless you directly search for info). We're not just talking the false reasons given for virtually every war or skirmish since the end of WW2, but actual overthrows of democratic governments to install military dictatorships. Countless tens of thousands, both military and corporate, involved with millions of innocent people dead. Perhaps hundreds of millions denied "freedom" or democracy. But the big story here isn't the empire itself, it's the fact that very few Americans have ever even heard or considered the term.

-The DARPA / NASA / Google joint artificial intelligence system that is nothing of any sort of theory, but rather an absolute fact that involves 'public' websites.

-The North American Union; that without Lou Dobbs there would be hardly any mainstream coverage of. Destruction of American sovereignty and nobody notices? Could this be a sort of statistic to represent this 'conspiracies don't exist' mentality? Probably mostly a representation of where the "interests" of our 'media' masters are focused, and how virtually the masses really know are shaped and prescribed by the elite.

-Echelon: the worldwide spy system that has been in operation for roughly 3 decades and wasn't accepted as real until the White House itself finally leaked to the public roughly a year ago. This is a system that has involved tens of thousands of people including not just moles or other loyalists but people from every level from construction worker to US Presidents.

-The Manhattan Project: not exactly a "conspiracy", yet a good example. This involved more than 130,000 people, yet according to Skeptinazi's "if more than 2 or 3 people know then everyone knows". There is nearly 300 million people in this country, all divided into over-competitive irrational fractions.

-Nuremburg: The Nazi trials were unprecedented. The challenge was how to even approach building the case. The primary strategy and directive was to treat the entire thing as a conspiracy, and tying the defendants to said conspiracy was ultimately the primary means of convicting anyone.

Pseudoskepticism/Pathological skepticism

Nice, reminded me of this :
pseudoskeptics show the following characteristics:

* The tendency to deny, rather than doubt
* Double standards in the application of criticism
* The making of judgements without full inquiry
* Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate
* Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks
* Presenting insufficient evidence or proof
* Pejorative labelling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.' ]
* Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof
* Making unsubstantiated counter-claims
* Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence
* Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it
* Tendency to dismiss all evidence

the first truth? ehhh...

conspiracies are as old as humanity. the first truth is still as Socrates put it--"the only true knowledge consists of knowing that you know nothing" or paraphrased--to know anything, you must first doubt everything.

I have a few problems with this essay. First, why the term skeptinazi? seems to inject an unnecessary allusion. Every conflict since world war 2. What, was world war 2 an exception? A truly just war? Not by a longshot. Nor were the Nuremberg trials anything but a show trial where the victors began warping history.

To understand world war 2 you have to understand the rise of Hitler. to understand the rise of Hitler you have to understand world war 1 and the subsequent abuse of the German people by the victors. To understand world war 1--you get the idea.

We now know (most of us anyway) to question everything we had previously taken for granted, and seek out the truth. What we will find is that the driving force of history is the will to power, and money has always been the primary medium of exchange for power. Those who control money control power. Money today is controlled by the principals in an international banking cartel that conspires to wield power in the shadows, against the will of people's democratic institutions.

All conspiracies take place within this system and are subject to its opportunities as well as its constraints. We are not meant to know of let alone unerstand this system--we are meant to live our entire lives under a false consciousness.


Real Truther a.k.a. Verdadero Verdadero - Harvard Task Force


First Truth: Check out that

First Truth:
Check out that writeup and you'll understand what I'm talking about. I'm not refering to philosophical principles, I'm refering to the first and foremost truth that can be said of this system that our society is a product of.

I coined the skeptinazi phrase back when I started noticing the ideological bashing (a prinicple of fascism) back when I initially started getting into 911 debates. I'd be bashed as a "nutter" despite not taking any particular position other than to dispute bogus arguments and whatnot.

A common fallacy of this type automatically jumps to the conclussion that you must be a "nutbag" or whatever if you dare disagree on their position, regardles of how nonsensical it is/was. I'm sure I dont need to regurgitate all of "their" insults and names they unleash in here. I noticed this Social Group, as defined above, and how they had no clearly drawn parallels to their terms like "kook". Their title is the Skeptics, while those who questions are the "kooky" "nutters". At the same time their overall attitudes and behavior was what I saw as nazi or fascist like.

In more recent times I've thought of more proper terminology, and the "pseudoskeptic" title seemed appropriate, but I had already written this piece which is was meant to be more geared towards exposing this one "conspiracies dont exist" fallacy. In my 'normal' myspace blog I've addressed these types on several occassions (including an entire list of this social groups fallacies) and this is one of my latest that I've finished.

My goal here wasn't to offer a complete history on WW's, it was to put things into perspective with a choice and often unrecognized PROOF that conspiracies DO exist, and our proceedings in that trial goes to show that even the Establishment demonstrates this, as long as it's not THEM.

Thank you

This is a very interesting article, and a very interesting Wikipedia link too, given in the first comment above.

I'm really interested in this topic of cognitive dissonance and psychological barriers which result in irrational denial.

Could anyone recommend any good books or papers that have been written about this area (cognitive dissonance)?