Handout for talks with conspiracy denialists

Handout for talks with conspiracy denialists

Since CD are mostly short of time and have a predilection for all-inclusive statements, the truth seekers (AC/DC = Anti-conspiracy denialism combatants) could help them out by answering this:

  1. No distraction from the subject via ad hominem trick! Everybody likes shortcuts. There are figures of speech. A part of it is known as incorrect shortcuts. These are fallacies. Their purpose is the distraction from the matter. Via the ad hominem fallacy you select an emotionally charged topic or a group with a bad reputation with which the rhetorical opponent would not like to be associated. This trick is called guilt by association. Reductio ad Hitlerum in Germany or reductio ad Sovieticum in Russia are very popular. Psychologically educated people like the reductio ad psychologiam. You issue a diagnosis to the opponent which urges him to first care for his own mental hygiene, before he bothers others with subjects which they do not want to hear. Very popular are phobias, rationally groundless fears of something what the person should accept as a normal reality, for example what the governors do.
  2. No distraction from the subject by “thinking”, general education or common sense. E.g.: „If this was true, the people would stand up.“ Or: „Governments make a lot of evil things, but not such a thing.“ Reading books and other sources helps to gather knowledge. The study of MK Ultra, for example, would give such a sentence: „If this is true, the masses would not be interested in learning about it.“ Ignorance and avoidance of the most important questions of survival above all by educated people is in itself already an incredibly interesting phenomenon.Fran_Lebowitz_Quote_Think_Before_you_Speak
  3. No, there are objective facts, safe knowledge and an objective truth if we understand it modestly in the judicial sense. “Factum” means that somebody (S) did (P) something (O). Subject-predicate-object. The relativity and perspectivity of all perception can be discussed separately after we will be done with the study of the evident facts. So no distraction by commonplaces! I would call this reductio ad trivialitatem or reductio ad relativitatem. Or reductio ad infinitum: “We will never find out who did 9/11.” It is less about finding out than finding in: into a just society and good life-style. The latest conspiracy fact: FISA-gate in the USA.
  4. The study of WW I and II is very important because thanks to the Internet a lot of new knowledge enriches the safe knowledge and provide conclusions about the dominant structures of today’s reality and the greatest threats. We should encourage the possibility that specialists should be allowed to practice their profession and can more exactly examine facts to increase the portion of safe knowledge without being punished for it. Above all historian and lawyers.
  5. Straw man arguments distract from the subject. “The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent’s proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition.” Often it is used together with Cherry Picking: Something unimportant or one-sided of the opponent is accentuated at the expense of the main message. Politicians do this constantly. The scientific look at the whole helps to endure one-sidedness. The scientific method trains us to search always correct proportions of perception and representation. In a debate we first should repeat the position of the opponent correctly and neutrally, then – if he agrees to this version – express our own proposition.
  6. Don’t like politics? So let us simply avoid the word and say: common good with focus on the power issue. The question of the common good leads to the investigation of the questions which forces and structures dominate in groups. This is the infamous question of power (die Machtfrage in German). In a wolf herd, we first watch out for the leading wolf. Who rules the group de facto, will also influence the discourse. Classic for this question: 1984. Key words: Political Correctness. To be against it does not mean to be against good manners, but ideologies, and thoughtcrimes like „Hate speech“, “postal-factual”, “conspiracy theory” etc. In “Correctness” we have English black humor. Notice: The more subtly the propaganda, the better. Key source: Edward Bernays.
  7. “The right”, “the left” etc. This is all part of the divide and rule plays of the power élites. Today we see an Orwellian inversion of “right” and “left” because the ruling circles declare themselves as “left” and reserve therefore the “right” label for their critics. “Left” means in general fight for social peace and justice, but also decidedly: in continual scepticism towards the respective rulers and their ideologies, especially when they want us to believe that they embody these ideals. So truly left is someone who always is self-critical and asks himself whether he was bought by the power elites if he stops questioning them and instead of this sees the dissenters or generally thinking citizens as the enemies of the society. (This is happening right now in the European societies.) By their fruits you shall know them! An easy test: Whoever is for peace, should not support the ongoing holocaust of the animals. Who is for the refugees, should reject the replacement migration politics. Who is for people’s rule (pardon, better call it democracy), should be for direct vote, sovereignty, a peace treaty (for Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea), freedom of speech, a constitution and its observance by the governors, so against lobbycracy and kakistrocracy. Who is for a healthy environment should be against geoengineering and electro-smog. Together we are strong.
  8. Veganism does not split the society or at least the truther movement. It is according to today’s knowledge (if it is true that we really need no animal elements in our food which is highly probable) the most inclusive one, because it is the easiest solution for most problems of the world. The conflict is in reality an internal fight against the truth which raves in each of us more or less strongly. Moreover, veganism is deeply “left”: against the enslavement of underprivileged beings. And the psychologically informed people can see it as the overcoming of the root of all narcissism: the speciesism, the mania that humans happen to be the species which everybody else has to serve.
  9. Thanks for the reminder that we die anyway one day. However, there are two rest risks: hell and rebirth. If you prefer to be system-compliant, it is safer to follow the conscience, live in such a way that from the maxim of your deed can be created a general law.
  10. No, I have nothing better to do. A lot, but nothing better. Moreover, this is part of the professional ethics of teachers, journalists, scientists, doctors.
  11. Citing uncritically questionable sources? Though this is an ad hominem fallacy (subjects are to be avoided because they are used by bad groups, e.g., 2+2=4 was pronounced by Stalin, Autobahn, Luegenpresse by Hitler. However this objection carries a courage-making core in itself: the reference to safe source work. Which sources do you offer in this question to the critical examination? I have provided a blog. Very recommendable. https://alethocracy.wordpress.com/
  12. The good, the true, the beautiful. These three criteria are completely sufficient. A nice quotation of a Russian author on that behalf:

“The contrary of love is not disgust. And even not indifference. It is lie. Respectively, the antithesis of hatred is truth.”

Sergej Dovlatov

Противоположность любви – не отвращение. И даже не равнодушие. А ложь. Соответственно, антитеза ненависти – правда.

Сергей Довлатов

P.S. For the verification of the term “conspiracy denialist” I searched in Google. They do not know it! What they know is “denialists” and “conspiracy theorists” which is practically the same. Often used for “science denialism”. Let us practice the aspects above in this picture:


The logical fallacies are put on a par with “conspiracy theorists” and “fake experts”. Very clever but the picture itself is a logical fallacy due to the ad hominem trick of ascribing a group label to a person who has questions and doubts about the words of rich and powerful people. Better trust only verified experts! The goal of this picture is to discourage you to study the unofficial data about 9/11, the use of depleted uranium weapons, JFK, the pedo-elite, the reason of more than 800 US bases around the world, the history of our money system etc.


Four pictures correctly depict the main task of scientific approach: to find and honor the right proportions. “Magnified minority, misrepresentation, cherry picking, impossible expectations.” Very good start. Just leave out the dirty tricks and social pressure and then:

“If you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.” Gandhi in his movie of 1982.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s