On The Psychology Of The Conspiracy Denier
On The Psychology Of The Conspiracy Denier
A closer look at the class that mocks. - ( Or The Sociopathic Oligarchy and the people they dumb-down and blind. )
 |
| (Thanks to Jay Dyer's wife "Jamie" for finding and pointing out this article.) |
Why is it that otherwise knowledgeable, thoughtful and rationally minded people balk at the idea that sociopaths are conspiring to manipulate and deceive them? And why will they defend this ill-founded position with such intensity?
History catalogues the machinations of liars, thieves, bullies and narcissists and their devastating effects. In modern times too, evidence of corruption and extraordinary deceptions abound. We know, without question, that politicians lie and hide their connections and that corporations routinely display utter contempt for moral norms - that corruption surrounds us. We know that revolving doors between the corporate and political spheres, the lobbying system, corrupt regulators, the media and the judiciary mean that wrongdoing is practically never brought to any semblance of genuine justice. We know that the press makes noise about these matters occasionally but never pursues them with true vigor. We know that in the intelligence services and law enforcement, wrongdoing on a breathtaking scale is commonplace and that, again, justice is never forthcoming. We know that governments repeatedly ignore or trample on the rights of the people and actively abuse and mistreat the people. None of this is controversial.
So exactly what is it that conspiracy deniers refuse to acknowledge with such fervour, righteousness and condescension? Why, against all the evidence, do they sneeringly and contemptuously defend the crumbling illusion that 'the great and good' are up there somewhere, have everything in hand, have only our best interests at heart, and are ethical, wise, and sincere? That the press serves the people and truth rather than the crooks? That injustice after injustice result from mistakes and oversights, and never from that dread word: conspiracy? What reasonable person would continue to inhabit such a fantasy world? The point of disagreement here is only on the matter of scale. Someone who is genuinely curious about the plans of powerful sociopaths won't limit the scope of their curiosity to, for example, one corporation, or one nation. Why would they? Such a person assumes that the same patterns on display locally are likely to be found all the way up the power food chain. But the conspiracy denier insists this is preposterous. Why?
It is painfully evident that the pyramidical societal and legal structures that humanity has allowed to develop are precisely the sorts of dominance hierarchies that undoubtedly favour the sociopath. A humane being operating with a normal and healthy cooperative mindset has little inclination to take part in the combat necessary to climb a corporate or political ladder. So what do conspiracy deniers imagine the 70 million or more sociopaths in the world do all day, born into a 'game,' in which all the wealth and power are at the top of the pyramid, while the most effective attributes for 'winning' are ruthlessness and amorality? Have they never played Monopoly? Sociopaths do not choose their worldview consciously and are simply unable to comprehend why ordinary people would put themselves at such an incredible disadvantage by limiting themselves with conscientiousness and empathy, which are as beyond the understanding of the sociopath as a world without sympathy and kindness are to the humane being. All the sociopath needs to do to win in the game is lie publicly, while conspiring privately. What could be simpler? In 2021, to continue to imagine that the world we inhabit is not primarily driven by amoral and bent sociopaths amounts to reckless naivete, which truthfully borders on insanity.
Where does such an inadvertently destructive naivete originate?
The infant child places an innate trust in those it finds itself with - a trust which is, for the most part, essentially justified. The infant could not survive otherwise. In a sane and healthy society, this deep instinct would evolve as the psyche developed. As self-awareness, cognitive and reasoning abilities, and skepticism grew in the individual, this innate trust impulse would continue to be understood as a central need of the psyche. Shared belief systems would exist to consciously evolve and develop this childish impulse to place this faith somewhere intentionally - in values and beliefs of lasting meaning and worth to the society, the individual, or, ideally, both. Reverence and respect for tradition, natural forces, ancestors, for reason, truth, beauty, liberty, the innate value of life, or the initiating spirit of all things, might all be considered proper resting places in which to consciously place our trust and faith - as well as those derived from more formalized belief systems.
Regardless of the path taken to evolve and develop personal faith, it brings one's consciousness and cognition to this innate impulse that is relevant here, this infantile and childlike trust. I believe this is a profound responsibility - to develop and cultivate a mature faith - a duty of which many are, understandably, unaware. What occurs when there is a childish need within us which has never evolved beyond its original survival function of trusting those in our environment who are, simply, the most powerful, the most present and active? When we have never truly explored our own psyches and deeply interrogated what we truly believe and why? When our motivation for trusting anything or anyone goes unchallenged? For a rational creature, when is philosophy left to the philosophers? When is personal health left to the doctors and the drug companies? When is personal safety left to the police and experts? When is the health of one's own psyche, one's own soul, and one's cognitive and reasoning abilities left to the vagaries of the culture.
What happens when these responsibilities are not taken seriously?
I suggest the answer is simple. The evidence of this failure creates a phenomenon and the havoc it is wreaking around us: the innate impulse to trust the mother never evolves, never encounters and engages with its counterbalance of reason (or mature faith), and remains forever on its 'default' infant setting. While the immature psyche no longer depends on parents for its well-being, the powerful and motivating core tenet I have described remains intact: unchallenged, unconsidered and undeveloped. Common sense dictates that in a world in which stability and security are distant memories, these survival instincts, rather than being well-honed, considered, relevant, discerning and up to date, remain, quite literally, those of a baby. Trust is placed in the biggest, loudest, most present and undeniable force around, because instinct decrees that survival depends on it. In this great 'world nursery,' the most omnipresent force is the network of institutions that consistently project an unearned image of power, calm, expertise, concern, and stability. In the case of America, and indeed the entire industrialized world, the chief of these institutional powers is the Scientistic Dictatorship Elite. Yet those with arrested emotional development, that totalitarian power is a trusted mother.
In my view, this is how conspiracy deniers can cling to and aggressively defend the utterly illogical fantasy that somehow - above a certain undefined level of the societal hierarchy - corruption, deceit, malevolence, and narcissism mysteriously evaporate. That, contrary to the maxim, "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," the more power a person has, the more integrity they will inevitably exhibit. These poor deluded souls essentially believe that where personal experience and prior knowledge cannot fill in the gaps in their worldview - in short, where there is a barred door - some beneficent force, like mummy and daddy are behind it, working out how best to ensure that their little precious will be comfortable, happy and safe forever. This is the core, comforting illusion at the root of the conspiracy denier's mindset, the frail foundation upon which they build a towering castle of justification from which to pompously jeer and mock those who see otherwise, who in fact see clearer.
This nascence, this inappropriate innocence, explains why the conspiracy denier will attack any suggestion that the caregiving archetype is no longer present - that sociopaths are behind the barred door; sociopaths who hold us all in utter contempt or disregard us completely. The conspiracy denier will attack any such suggestion as viciously as if their survival depended on it - which, in a way, within the makeup of their unconscious and precarious psyche, it does. Their sense of well-being, of security, of comfort, even of a future at all, is completely (and completely unconsciously) invested in this fantasy. The infant has never matured, and because they are not conscious of this, other than as a deep attachment to their personal security, they will fiercely attack any threat to this unconscious and central aspect of their worldview.
The tediously common refrain from the conspiracy denier is, 'there couldn't be a conspiracy that big.' The question is, how big? The biggest 'medical' corporations in the world have gone for decades settling court cases where people are injured, maimed even die from their products as mere business expenses, with no regard for human life. This is the history. We could name numerous examples. Governments perform the vilest and most unthinkable 'experiments' (crimes) on their own people without consequence. Also, the history and we could sight numerous examples here as well. Politicians habitually lie to our faces without consequence. The British Government has been caught running a psychological terror war on their own people, vis a vis the Covid Lockdown Hysteria. We have seen the same here and in many countries. We know they planned something called the "Spars Pandemic" in May of 2017, John Hopkins published the lies to tell. We know they have followed that playbook to the letter with the SARS Pandemic. At what point, exactly, does a conspiracy become so big that 'they' just couldn't get away with it, and why? I suggest it's at the point where the cognitive ability of the conspiracy denier falters, and their unconscious survival instinct kicks in. The point at which the intellect becomes overwhelmed with the scope of events and the instinct is to settle back into the familiar, comforting faith known and cultivated since the first moment one’s lips found the nipple. They engage in the blind belief that someone else is dealing with it - that where the world becomes unknown to us, a powerful and benevolent human authority exists in which we have only to place our faith unconditionally to guarantee eternal emotional security. This dangerous delusion may be the central factor placing humanity's physical security and future in the hands of sociopaths.
To anyone in the habit of dismissing people who are questioning, investigative and skeptical as tin foil hat wearing, paranoid, science-denying Trump supporters, the question is: what do you trust? Is it trustworthy? Where have you placed your faith and why? How is it that while no one trusts governments, you appear to trust nascent global governance organizations without question? How is this rational? If you are placing faith in such organizations, consider that in the modern global age, these organizations, as extraordinarily well presented as they are, are simply grander manifestations of the local versions we know we can't trust. They are not our parents and demonstrate no loyalty to humane values. There is no reason to place any faith whatsoever in any of them. If you haven't consciously developed a reasonable thought-out faith or questioned why you believe as you do to some depth, such a position might seem misanthropic, but in truth, it is the opposite. These organizations have not earned your trust with anything other than PR money and glossy lies. Illusions created by the powerful control the masses, and those masses remain unaware that true power remains, as ever, with the people.
Massive criminal conspiracies exist. The evidence is overwhelming. The scope of those currently underway is unknown, but there is no reason to imagine, in the new global age, that the sociopathic quest for power or the possession of the resources required to move towards it is diminishing. Indeed not while dissent is mocked and censored into silence by gatekeepers, ‘useful idiots,' and conspiracy deniers, who are, in fact, directly colluding with the sociopathic agenda through their unrelenting attack on those who would shine a light on wrongdoing. It is every humane being's urgent responsibility to expose sociopathic agendas wherever they exist. Why would you choose to attack those doing the investigating and exposing? Why, except via emotions grounded in arrested development. Now, more than ever, it is time to put away childish things, childish impulses, childish innocence, childish fear and stand up as adults to protect the future of the actual children who have no choice but to trust us with their lives.
This essay has focussed on what I consider to be the most profound psychological driver of conspiracy denial. There are certainly others, such as the desire to be accepted; the avoidance of knowledge of, and engagement with, the internal and external shadow; the preservation of a positive and righteous self-image: a generalized version of the 'flying monkey' phenomenon, in which a self-interested and vicious class protect themselves by coalescing around the bully; the subtle unconscious adoption of the sociopathic worldview (e.g. 'humanity is the virus'); outrage addiction/ superiority complex/ status games; a stunted or unambitious intellect that finds validation through maintaining the status quo; the dissociative protective mechanism of imagining that crimes and horrors committed repeatedly within our lifetime are somehow not happening now, not 'here'; and plain old fashioned laziness and cowardice.
Comments
Post a Comment