Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
But they continue to make brash claims about debunkers being in the minority and how people "around the word" are becoming aware of the "problem".
Chemtrails, NWO, and UFOs: How many believers do these CTs have?
- Thread starter Psychic
- Start date
But they continue to make brash claims about debunkers being in the minority and how people "around the word" are becoming aware of the "problem".
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member.
That's called advertising, I think.
Unless you think they'd gain more traction with a "Alienate your friends and family! Have others question your sanity! Join forces with non-experts in the field to expose an unlikely conspiracy that lacks evidence, motivation, or adherence to basic physics!" kind of slant.
Unless you think they'd gain more traction with a "Alienate your friends and family! Have others question your sanity! Join forces with non-experts in the field to expose an unlikely conspiracy that lacks evidence, motivation, or adherence to basic physics!" kind of slant.
BombDr
Senior Member.
I agree with the many here that can recognise a hierarchy of belief, and oddly I found myself believing some of the stuff in some of the polls:
Do I think that drug companies make up ailments to sell their product? Yes, but thats called marketing and they take several symptoms, give it a name and make a cure for it. I also think that market forces are at work on this, as in the UK there are no 'ask your doctor' type adverts and most people accept the medicine they get given, and most doctors are reluctant to prescribe them. Do I think drug companies are in a conspiracy to get evil chemicals into us? No, they are trying to make a profit out of us.
Do I think AIPAC et al have an undue influence on the US - Yes. Do I think the Jewish lobby is really running stuff? No, not at all, and if so Id like my cheque please. In isolation, cases with small details make greater significance if they are not correctly analysed: I am in discussion with a guy on Youtube who tells me Mossad had JFK killed as he warned Ben Gurion not to produce nuclear weapons - I asked for more evidence and he cited their letters in the Library of Congress. I asked what was the connection and he replied that Israel was supposed to sign the NPT in order to qualify for foreign aid, and that Israel was the only country that had this arrangement with the US. I pointed out that India and Pakistan both receive aid from the US and have nuclear weapons and had not signed the NPT, were they suspects in JFKs killing also. Once the isolation is removed, the likelihood of it being a single causation also drops.
The Argentine narrative of the Falklands War is that Britain won only because the US supplied the Uk with Sidewinder missiles - a fact indeed but not the reason Britain won.
The Egyptian narrative of the Yom Kippur war is that Israel won (or more commonly Israel survived) only because Nixon supplied Israel during the war - This is correct, but this fails to explain away the facts that the Arab coalition enjoyed a 1000 tank advantage over Israel throughout the war and that the US supplied no manpower.
Neither the Argentinians nor the Egyptians are lying, they are simply analysing the facts in their favour.
CTs do this also, and their arguments usually fall predictably and within a certain worldview. They then drop over the edge.....:
Claim X - X cannot be verified by the media as they are corrupt - X cannot be verified by Academia as they might lose their grants - X cannot be verified by the government as they ARE X - X cannot be questioned by you as you are an X shill....
Do I think that drug companies make up ailments to sell their product? Yes, but thats called marketing and they take several symptoms, give it a name and make a cure for it. I also think that market forces are at work on this, as in the UK there are no 'ask your doctor' type adverts and most people accept the medicine they get given, and most doctors are reluctant to prescribe them. Do I think drug companies are in a conspiracy to get evil chemicals into us? No, they are trying to make a profit out of us.
Do I think AIPAC et al have an undue influence on the US - Yes. Do I think the Jewish lobby is really running stuff? No, not at all, and if so Id like my cheque please. In isolation, cases with small details make greater significance if they are not correctly analysed: I am in discussion with a guy on Youtube who tells me Mossad had JFK killed as he warned Ben Gurion not to produce nuclear weapons - I asked for more evidence and he cited their letters in the Library of Congress. I asked what was the connection and he replied that Israel was supposed to sign the NPT in order to qualify for foreign aid, and that Israel was the only country that had this arrangement with the US. I pointed out that India and Pakistan both receive aid from the US and have nuclear weapons and had not signed the NPT, were they suspects in JFKs killing also. Once the isolation is removed, the likelihood of it being a single causation also drops.
The Argentine narrative of the Falklands War is that Britain won only because the US supplied the Uk with Sidewinder missiles - a fact indeed but not the reason Britain won.
The Egyptian narrative of the Yom Kippur war is that Israel won (or more commonly Israel survived) only because Nixon supplied Israel during the war - This is correct, but this fails to explain away the facts that the Arab coalition enjoyed a 1000 tank advantage over Israel throughout the war and that the US supplied no manpower.
Neither the Argentinians nor the Egyptians are lying, they are simply analysing the facts in their favour.
CTs do this also, and their arguments usually fall predictably and within a certain worldview. They then drop over the edge.....:
Claim X - X cannot be verified by the media as they are corrupt - X cannot be verified by Academia as they might lose their grants - X cannot be verified by the government as they ARE X - X cannot be questioned by you as you are an X shill....
MikeG
Senior Member.
I know a few CTers who will claim 'I've done my research, I know whats REALLY happening', then when you ask them to show you their evidence, it turns out their 'research' consists of nothing more than reading the usual CT web-sites (cos everything else is disinformation) and watching hours of you tube vids that only serve to pander to their own world view.
Now these people are not stupid, far from it, some of biggest CT believers I've encountered over the years really are smart cookies; but its like the whole conspirasphere is brainwashing itself to believe ANYTHING the CT 'gurus' (Icke / Jones / Simpson / (insert a vast list of the guilty here).) tells them is true. Then they will tell you that 'a vast majority of the people agree with them', again because the gurus say so. (Total hogwash of course, CTer's and us debunking rationalist skeptics are both in small minorities in the general scheme of things).
I grew up in a very religious (but not fundamentalist) christian household, and although my family and a lot of the people were not 'headnagers' about their faith, I did meet a lot of born again types, and the way the born againers, and the hardcore CT speak act and preach are very similar. Which all brings me back to my own belief (and I know a few will disagree, which is fine, free world and all that), that CT is almost a form of religion, or some kind of cult at the very least, and I dread the prospect of a day when one of the more unhinged of the CT gurus decides it's time for their followers to 'drink the kool aid.'
An interesting point about cults.
It brought to mind Dane Wigington, who does (public disclaimers aside) appear to relish the role as leader of his particular group. The absence of any allowable criticism against accepted belief, the mirroring of his terminology by followers of geoengineeringwatch.org, Wigington's leadership against omnipresent evil, etc., are all familiar indicators.
It might be worth a separate thread comparing the characteristics of cult belief systems with those in the CT community.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
You already described it: Isolation. "The absence of any allowable criticism against accepted belief". It doesn't get much more cult-like than that.
Whitebeard
Senior Member.
Or look at David Icke, he does these 9 hour plus rallies for his faithful, and if you watch any of the videos of these marathons, he comes over like Billy Graham, or any other christian evangelist. He uses all the preachers tricks, repetition of key phrases through out his speaking, (get off your knees and wake up world, are two of his favourates), and after 8 or 9 hours the faithful are chanting them with him like a call and response prayer session. Add in his use of mood music, truther type worship songs from his sons band and some rebel rousing rhetoric and you have almost a full blown revival meeting going on there.
And then like all good cults there has to be the 'donation ticket' £40-£50 a pop and the over priced merch; books dvds, even posters and T-shirts on sale in the foyer after the show.
tadaaa
Senior Member
And they also like to tell you, in a hushed a knowing tone, that Governments "lie and keep secrets"
To which my response is "yes, tell me something I don't know" - in the UK at least, we have an "official secrets act" complete with a Secret Service (they are even good enough to publish the address of the headquarters)
And they seem amazed that Rich and powerful people, in some circumstances, are able to bend events to their advantage - but isn't that one of the advantages of being rich and powerful
Ps my very unscientific poll shows no knowledge of the chemtrail conspiracy, here in the UK at least, (amongst my friends and family)
Last edited:
Psychic
Senior Member
Some here seem to be using the terms 'religion' and 'cult' interchangeably. The two are fairly distinct in the sociological classification of religious groups and even more distinct in common usage (religion connotes societal acceptance and mainstreaming; cult connotes societal opprobrium and suggests there is brainwashing involved). It seems that CT belief is being compared to religion, not cults.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
In truth those two are just positions on a spectrum. The more "fundamentalist" a religion becomes, the closer to "cult" it gets.
Efftup
Senior Member.
And I would definitely say cult rather than religion. A priest, rabbi or imam is farmore likely to encourage questions to gain further understanding. A ct leader is more likely to try and block any teaching but his own. Insist he speaksthe truth and ban dissenters. A ct believer is more likely to be isolated from friends and family
Whitebeard
Senior Member.
Yet I've come across many preachers in my religious youth who said I questioned to much and my faith should be child like and I should trust the lord. When I pointed out that children questioned stuff and often had 'why' as their favorate word I was told I was thinking too much. And when I pointed out the bible story of Jesus in the temple Luke 2 41-52 I got told it was 'the devil' that making me doubt my faith. So by the age of 21 I had had enough and walked away from the faith completely.
I'm still in touch with many of my friends from those day and many had a similar experience, or so they tell me. I know that speaking from a free church protestant stand point, and that Jewish and Islamic traditions do have more of a culture of understanding through religious debate however.
tadaaa
Senior Member
Maybe the difference between an established religion and a cult is this concept of a hidden knowledge
An inner circle of trust/understanding/knowledge/enlightenment, that sets you apart from the "sheep" (whether they believe or not)
It s the exclusive snobbery, "we know something you don't" that is the currency
CT'ers seem to exhibit this exulted knowledge meme
An inner circle of trust/understanding/knowledge/enlightenment, that sets you apart from the "sheep" (whether they believe or not)
It s the exclusive snobbery, "we know something you don't" that is the currency
CT'ers seem to exhibit this exulted knowledge meme
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
Yes, but that line is EASILY crossed in religions where they have a complex book they actually worship as their God, even though they would deny that. They find stuff in there which they take as almost "encoded" for only the enlightened to find.
Efftup
Senior Member.
but that's like a religious CT, where people say there's stuff encoded in the book,as opposed to just saying 2this is how it is" what if you have decoded it wrong and you are now doing the exact opposite of what the code REALLY said? Plus, when the book itself has been translated from language to language and been reworded from time to time as deemed appropriate, how is the code still intact, unless the translators knew the code?
deirdre
Senior Member.
no there are very specific definitions of cult (I don't want to look up). I only know this because some guy flipped out on me over a spiritual comment and gave me like 4 books on cults. Apparently the "Church" he belonged to had been accused of being a cult...probably by his ex-wife...., and he thought I was insinuating that. Who'd a thunk it, a cult right in the middle of town!
ps. it wasn't a cult, just one of those new age churches.
JRBids
Senior Member.
I am in real estate sales and I attended an hour long presentation by one of Tony Robbins' pitchmen. I was noting all those methods he was using in his presentation, and when we pitched a 3 day seminar, I almost signed up myself. I had to keep reminding myself of the tricks he was using. Many agents I know have gone to the 3 day seminars and they do come back all hyped up.
Efftup
Senior Member.
Interestingly enough, a radio show I was involved with once had some guests on (you just KNOW it was Tony's guests, don't you Whitebeard?) who were some very odd "Born Again" Christians (the guy was the most unchristian christian I have ever met) and they had started a Good church guide on the internet (but really badly done) They accused a few churches in Bristol of being cult like, that I think were just a bit new agey.
This was also a good illustration of different churches having different ideas. The lady was apparently brought up catholic in Ireland, where they had used something called the catechism, and she claimed to have never HEARD of The Holy Bible until she was an adult and became "born again". I , on the other hand was brought up catholic in England and up to that point, I had never heard of the catechism, and only been taught stuff from the Bible itself.
This was also a good illustration of different churches having different ideas. The lady was apparently brought up catholic in Ireland, where they had used something called the catechism, and she claimed to have never HEARD of The Holy Bible until she was an adult and became "born again". I , on the other hand was brought up catholic in England and up to that point, I had never heard of the catechism, and only been taught stuff from the Bible itself.
Whitebeard
Senior Member.
All good points, I see it as a spectrum of belief, at one end you have yer bog standard Catholics and CoE (Church of England - Anglicans), all tradition and evensong etc at the other extreme you have the Branch Davidians, Children Of God and The Unification Church, with all the others lined up in between. Some being more cult like than others eg The Exclusive Brethren. But there isn't a clear cut line between church and cult, just a long shifting spectrum of 'cultiness'. For examples many Methodist churches are fairly mild and mainstream, but a few are most definitely on the newage demi-cult shade of things. I once went out with the daughter of a Methodist minister, we were doing fine, ok she was fairly religious, but we enjoyed going to gigs, popping out for a pint etc. Then, literally over night she changed, went to see one of these evangelist types and got 'born again'. All of a sudden guitars were 'evil', every night was bible study night and after a few weeks I got dumped because the minister had told her, cos I had lost my own faith a year or previous, I was 'an evil influence' on her as were many of her other friends, and from now on she was to date and hang out with only other 'born agains'.
Same with conspiracy theorists, You have the 9-11 truthers at one end of the line and the David Icke lizard people types at the other with the same grey area in the middle.
Same with conspiracy theorists, You have the 9-11 truthers at one end of the line and the David Icke lizard people types at the other with the same grey area in the middle.
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member.
Cults differ from churches in that a cult must have beliefs and practices that do not adhere to social norms. Most churches make a point of being inclusive and minimizing the more extreme aspects of their beliefs to broaden their appeal. Cults are defined by their narrowly dogmatic behavior and their practices that are at odds with mainstream society. One common way to ensure compliance is isolation, allowing an echo chamber to form around the core beliefs of the group.
By these standards, FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, a polygamous offshoot of Mormans) is likely a cult, while mainstream LDS is a church.
Unfortunately, the fact that social deviance is ultimately subjective allows groups to use or avoid the label almost at will.
By these standards, FLDS (Fundamentalist Church of Latter Day Saints, a polygamous offshoot of Mormans) is likely a cult, while mainstream LDS is a church.
Unfortunately, the fact that social deviance is ultimately subjective allows groups to use or avoid the label almost at will.
NoParty
Senior Member.
I'd still argue that it's still mostly just the size of the group (which alone can influence what "social norms" are).
The FLDS has far less members than the LDS.
But the LDS has far less members than mainstream Christianity...and many of those people do view the Mormons as a cult.
Get enough believers and you usually get to point the "cult" finger at smaller groups.
This little article does a nice job of making clear that--though much was made of 94 year-old Billy Graham
having a sudden, mysterious change of heart (just in front of the 2012 election)
about whether LDSwas a cult, Mormons clearly are still a cult by the criteria given for cults on Graham's website. Tomato / Tomahto.
http://www.mrm.org/billy-graham-mormonism-christianity
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
You have just describe the fallacy and plight of book-based religion, throughout history.
That reminds me of a quote from Jimmy Swaggart, years ago, when he said: "The Bible is the LITERAL word of God... it's meant to be taken LITERALLY.... except of course where you can't...."
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
no there are very specific definitions of cult (I don't want to look up). I only know this because some guy flipped out on me over a spiritual comment and gave me like 4 books on cults. Apparently the "Church" he belonged to had been accused of being a cult...probably by his ex-wife...., and he thought I was insinuating that. Who'd a thunk it, a cult right in the middle of town!
ps. it wasn't a cult, just one of those new age churches.
RIGHT HERE IN RIVER CITY?!?
Psychic
Senior Member
Consider Amish and Menonite Christians, Hasidic Jews, and Wahhabi Muslims: all these groups are fairly small, extremely isolated from the mainstream, and have beliefs and practices which are very much at odds with the mainstream; yet few would refer to them as 'cults'.
Although in sociology there is a 'cult' typology, it's not precisely defined and is controversial. So I think the 'common usage' definition is the one to go by: imo, a group which espouses mystical beliefs and practices and is not accepted by mainstream society. Why are the groups I mentioned above not called 'cults' by most people? Because (probably because of their history) western societies have 'accepted' them as a component of society.
Last edited:
Spectrar Ghost
Senior Member.
I'd agree with that assessment, though I'd argue 'social deviancy' is, at a practical level, not just different beliefs or practices than the mainstream, but different beliefs or practices that are not accepted by the mainstream.
Amish and Mennonites have unique outlooks and practices. However, their practices are largely considered quaint, but not offensive, and their core beliefs are mostly in line with mainstream christianity.
Contrast with the Realians or upper echelons of Scientology where both practices, and particularly beliefs, are not just novel, but actually at odds with what most people would accept as normal.
Amish and Mennonites have unique outlooks and practices. However, their practices are largely considered quaint, but not offensive, and their core beliefs are mostly in line with mainstream christianity.
Contrast with the Realians or upper echelons of Scientology where both practices, and particularly beliefs, are not just novel, but actually at odds with what most people would accept as normal.
deirdre
Senior Member.
hmm. apparently the FBI doesn't want us calling any of them "Cults" anymore. Makes sense actually, besides this new 'politically correct' thing and Waco type situations. and this is from 2000! I guess it was longer ago than I thought when that guy called me the anti-Christ.
They now group all the "NRE Religious Movements" together.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Interacting+with+"Cults".-a066035873
They now group all the "NRE Religious Movements" together.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Interacting+with+"Cults".-a066035873
interesting passage that kinda relates to CT leaders.There is a common tendency to view "cults" with a combination of mistrust and fear. Much of this hostility derives from widespread misconceptions about the nature of "cults," founded upon popular stereotypes and simple ignorance. While such misconceptions are unfortunate in the general populace, they may be dangerous when harbored by law enforcement officers charged with dealing with these groups and ensuring the safety of both "cult" members and the general public. The intent of this article is to shed light on what "cults" are and are not, to give law enforcement officers some general guidance on how to approach such movements, and to provide an illustration of how one police department successfully handled the arrival of a doomsday "cult" in its jurisdiction
If officers suspect that NRM officials have improper motives, they should examine the leaders' backgrounds. Sociopaths [12] or con artists generally will not invest years trying to spread their messages and form groups without a guaranteed payoff. Officers also should remember that NRM leaders and followers may have many complex motivations for their behavior, not all of which are internally consistent. NRM leaders may manipulate others and, yet, still hold sincere religious beliefs. Thus, even if leaders display signs of sociopathic or criminal behavior, officers should not assume that these individuals are insincere about their religious beliefs. In the absence of contrary evidence, officers should assume that NRM leaders are true to their spiritual convictions.
(12.) The term sociopath or antisocial personality disorder is a clinical diagnosis used by mental health professionals. For law enforcement purposes, sociopaths generally are totally self-centered individuals who lack a conscience, do not display remorse for their actions, and do not learn from their mistakes. Law enforcement professionals spend a great amount of time dealing with these individuals, who some believe are responsible for most of the criminal acts committed in society. For further information, see The Sociopath--A Criminal Enigma (undated) produced by the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit.
Hama Neggs
Senior Member.
NRM?
Meh... it's mainly the various religions/churches who like the use of the word "cult" and they're not likely to give it up. It's too "juicy".
That is interesting. I know many people say that the chemtrail promoters are in it for the money. But my experience with them (and in particular Dane and MJM) is that they are genuinely believe what they say, and they are not saying it to make money. They have "many complex motivations" for what they do.
Marine0811
Active Member
In the future, will people evolve to trust or distrust the mainstream media and government?
I predict that more will evolve to distrust the government, because of past history and lies. The more who distrust the government turn to social media for their news sources. Conspiracy theorists are born and evolve through social media. Unless the government controls content on social media, I think they will easily outnumber non conspiracy theorists. I don't think the majority of the public knows what evidence is or how to test evidence.
Whichever side has the most appealing and convincing influences is who will have the most believers.
Marine0811
Active Member
I agree with fact checking social media along with mainstream media claims. It is part laziness, and part interest and time. If there is no interest in the objective truth, people will not spend time researching an issue. I think that most people discussing philosophy on a forum are the minority, many people spend their time trying not to think.
