The “deep state” conspiracy theory, particularly as it has been emphasized by supporters of former President Donald Trump, alleges the existence of a hidden, powerful network within the U.S. government, working to undermine and oppose Trump’s presidency and agenda. In reality, the epithet is an elaborate way of discrediting the non-partisan civil service personnel who are brought in to government for their expertise and competence, who typically remain in their posts through Presidential transitions regardless of which party is occupying the White House.
Origin of the deep state meme
The term “deep state” originated in Turkey in the 1990s, referring to a clandestine network of military officers and their civilian allies who, it was believed, were manipulating Turkish politics. In the American context, the term was popularized during the Trump administration as a meme, evolving to imply a shadowy coalition — echoing other popular conspiracy theories such as the antisemitic global cabal theory — within the U.S. government, including intelligence agencies, the civil service, and other parts of the bureaucracy.
Main claims
Bureaucratic opposition: The theory posits that career government officials, particularly in intelligence and law enforcement agencies, are systematically working against Trump’s interests. This includes alleged sabotage of his policies and leaking information to the media.
Manipulation of information: Proponents believe that these officials manipulate or withhold information to influence government policy and public opinion against Trump.
Alleged connections with other theories: The deep state theory often intersects with other conspiracy theories, like those surrounding the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election and the impeachment proceedings against Trump. It suggests these events were orchestrated by the deep state to discredit or destabilize his presidency.
Contextual factors
Political polarization: The rise of the deep state theory is partly attributed to the increasing political polarization in the U.S. It serves as a narrative to explain and rally against perceived opposition within the government.
Media influence: Certain media outlets and social media platforms have played a significant role in propagating this theory. It’s often amplified by commentators who support Trump, contributing to its widespread dissemination among his base.
Trump’s endorsement: Trump himself has referenced the deep state, particularly when discussing investigations into his administration or when responding to criticism from within the government.
Criticism and counterarguments to deep state “theory”
Lack of concrete evidence: Critics argue that the deep state theory lacks substantial evidence. They contend that routine government processes, checks and balances, and the separation of powers are mischaracterized as clandestine operations.
Undermining trust in institutions: There’s concern that such theories undermine public trust in vital governmental institutions, particularly those responsible for national security and law enforcement.
Political tool: Detractors view the deep state concept as a political tool used to dismiss or discredit legitimate investigation and opposition.
Impact on governance and society
Influence on supporters: For many Trump supporters, the deep state theory provides an explanatory framework for understanding his political challenges and defeats. It galvanizes his base by portraying him as an outsider battling corrupt, entrenched interests.
Public trust and conspiracism: The theory contributes to a broader erosion of trust in government and institutions, fostering a climate where conspiratorial thinking becomes more mainstream.
Policy implications: Belief in the deep state can impact policy discussions and decisions, as it frames certain government actions and policies as inherently suspect or malicious.
Comparative perspective
Globally, similar theories exist in various forms, often reflecting local political and historical contexts. They typically emerge in situations where there is a distrust of the political establishment and are used to explain perceived injustices or power imbalances.
The deep state conspiracy theory as espoused by Trump’s MAGA movement plays a significant role in current American political discourse, impacting public perception of government, policy debates, and the broader social and political climate. Its lack of verifiable evidence and potential to undermine democratic institutions make it a dangerous propaganda prop applied recklessly by the current GOP frontrunner for the 2024 nomination.
PizzaGate originated in 2016 from the hacked emails of John Podesta, Hillary Clinton‘s campaign manager, published by WikiLeaks. Internet users on platforms like 4chan and Reddit began to interpret these emails, focusing on those that mentioned pizza and other food items. They falsely claimed these were code words for a child sex trafficking ring operated by high-ranking Democratic Party members and associated with a Washington, D.C., pizzeria named Comet Ping Pong.
The theory was fueled by various coincidences and misinterpretations. For instance, references to pizza were interpreted as part of a secret code, and the pizzeria’s quirky artwork was misconstrued as sinister symbolism. Despite the lack of credible evidence, these interpretations quickly gained traction online.
The broader political context
PizzaGate should be understood within the broader political context of the 2016 U.S. presidential election. This period was marked by intense partisanship and the proliferation of disinformation and fake news, with social media acting as a catalyst. The theory emerged against the backdrop of a highly contentious election, with Hillary Clinton as a polarizing figure. In such a climate, conspiracy theories found fertile ground to grow, particularly among those predisposed to distrust the political establishment.
Impact and aftermath
The most immediate and dangerous impact of PizzaGate was an incident in December 2016, when Edgar Maddison Welch, motivated by the conspiracy theory, fired a rifle inside Comet Ping Pong. Fortunately, there were no injuries. This incident highlighted the real-world consequences of online conspiracy theories and underscored the potential for online rhetoric to inspire violent actions.
In the aftermath, social media platforms faced criticism for allowing the spread of baseless allegations. This led to discussions about the role of these platforms in disseminating fake news and the balance between free speech and the prevention of harm.
Lasting effects
PizzaGate had several lasting effects:
Polarization and distrust: It exacerbated political polarization and distrust towards mainstream media and political figures, particularly among certain segments of the population.
Conspiracy culture: The incident became a significant part of the modern conspiracy culture, linking it to other conspiracy theories and contributing to a growing skepticism of official narratives.
Social media policies: It influenced how social media companies manage content, leading to stricter policies against misinformation and the promotion of conspiracy theories.
Public awareness: On a positive note, it raised public awareness about the dangers of misinformation and the importance of critical thinking in the digital age.
Legitimacy of investigations: The theory, though baseless, led some people to question the legitimacy of genuine investigations into sexual misconduct and abuse, potentially undermining efforts to address these serious issues.
Caveat, Internet
PizzaGate serves as a stark reminder of the power of the internet to spread misinformation and the real-world consequences that can ensue. It reflects the complexities of the digital age, where information, regardless of its veracity, can be disseminated widely and rapidly. As we continue to navigate this landscape, understanding phenomena like PizzaGate becomes crucial in fostering a more informed and discerning online community — as well as thwarting the march of fascism.
“Love bombing” is a manipulative tactic employed to gain emotional control over an individual by showering them with affection, compliments, and promises. This technique is often used by both narcissists and cults, often for similar objectives — to overwhelm a target with positive feelings, in order to secure their loyalty. Understanding the nuances of love bombing can be crucial for identifying and avoiding this core tactic of emotional predators.
Love bombing by narcissists
Narcissists use love bombing as a way to quickly establish emotional dependency. They may shower their target with gifts, compliments, and an overwhelming amount of attention. This is often done during the “honeymoon phase” of a relationship, creating an illusion of a perfect partner who is deeply in love.
How to identify love bombing by a narcissist:
Intensity: The affection and attention feel overwhelming and come on very strong.
Rapid progression: The relationship moves quickly, often skipping normal stages of emotional intimacy.
Idealization: You are put on a pedestal, and any flaws you have are either ignored or spun into positive traits.
How to avoid it:
Pace yourself: Slow down the relationship and insist on a more typical progression.
Seek outside opinions: Consult trusted friends or family about the relationship, and share your misgivings about its pace of progression.
Set boundaries: Make your limits clear and stick to them. If someone is pushing back and not respecting the boundaries you set, it is yet another red flag of potential narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) traits.
Love bombing by cults
In the context of cults and cultish groups, love bombing serves to recruit and retain members. As one of a host of different influence techniques, newcomers are often greeted with extreme enthusiasm, given immediate friendship, and showered with positive affirmation. The objective is to create a euphoric emotional state that is then associated with the cult — making it harder to leave later, when the cracks begin to show.
Instant community: You receive immediate acceptance and friendship from multiple members.
Unconditional affection: Love and acceptance seem to be given freely, without the need for personal growth or change.
Isolation: Efforts to separate you from your existing support network and even your family, making you dependent on the cult for emotional support.
How to avoid it:
Be skeptical: Question why you’re receiving so much attention and what the group might want in return.
Research: Look into the group’s history, beliefs, and any reports or articles about them.
Maintain outside connections: Keep in touch with your existing network and consider their opinions. The group may encourage secrecy, but sharing your experiences outside the group and getting a wider perspective on them is critical.
General tips for avoiding love bombing
Trust your instincts: If something feels too good to be true, it probably is.
Time: Time is your ally. Manipulators often need you to make quick decisions. The more time you take, the more likely you are to see inconsistencies in their behavior.
Consult with trusted individuals: Sometimes an outside perspective can provide invaluable insights that you might have missed.
Understanding the mechanics of love bombing is the first step in protecting yourself from falling into such emotional manipulation traps. By being aware of the signs and knowing how to counteract them, you can maintain control over your emotional well-being.
When someone has skin in the game, they have some stake in the outcome of their opinion or decision. They are incentivized to act in their own best interest, naturally aligning them with the best outcome. It mitigates effects like moral hazard, which misaligns incentives of the parties in an interaction based on an asymmetry of knowledge, power, and/or other factors.
The metaphor of skin in the game also relates to a number of core concepts in moral philosophy:
The term “skin in the game” is said to have originated from gambling, where it denotes having a personal stake or investment in an endeavor. In a broader sense, it implies that individuals or entities have something of personal value at risk in the outcome of a situation, typically financial or reputational.
Ethical implications
Accountability and Responsibility: When an individual or entity has “skin in the game,” they are more likely to act responsibly and ethically. This stems from the direct impact their actions will have on their own welfare. For example, a business owner with a substantial personal investment in their company is more likely to make decisions that ensure long-term sustainability over quick, risky profits that could jeopardize the business.
Trust and Credibility: In contexts like financial advising or political leadership, having “skin in the game” builds trust. Stakeholders are more likely to trust someone who shares in the risks and rewards. It demonstrates a commitment to shared outcomes, which can be a strong ethical foundation.
Moral Hazard Reduction: The concept helps mitigate moral hazardsβsituations where one party takes risks because another party bears the cost of those risks. For instance, if a CEO’s compensation is tied to the company’s performance, they have a vested interest in the companyβs success, reducing the likelihood of risky behavior that could harm the company while benefiting themselves personally.
Aligned incentives
The notion of “skin in the game” is closely linked to the alignment of incentives, which is crucial for effective and ethical decision-making.
Mutual Interests: When all parties involved in a decision or project have something at stake, their interests become more aligned. This alignment leads to decisions that are more likely to benefit all involved, rather than favoring one party at the expense of others.
Long-term Planning: Aligned incentives encourage long-term thinking. When decision-makers share in the long-term risks and rewards, they are incentivized to plan for sustainable growth and stability.
Risk Sharing: It also implies a fair distribution of risks. In a well-aligned system, no single party bears an undue burden of risk, which fosters a more equitable and ethical environment.
Buckle up, we’re in for a wild ride. Many of the serious scholars of political history and authoritarian regimes are sounding the alarm bells that, although it is a very very good thing that we got the Trump crime family out of the Oval Office, it is still a very very bad thing for America to have so rapidly tilted towards authoritarianism. How did we get here?! How has hyper partisanship escalated to the point of an attempted coup by 126 sitting Republican House Representatives? How has political polarization gotten this bad?
These are some of the resources that have helped me continue grappling with that question, and with the rapidly shifting landscape of information warfare. How can we understand this era of polarization, this age of tribalism? This outline is a work in progress, and I’m planning to keep adding to this list as the tape keeps rolling.
America has had flavors of authoritarianism since its founding, and when fascism came along the right-wing authoritarians ate it up — and deeply wanted the United States to be a part of it. Only after they became social pariahs did they change position to support American involvement in World War II — and some persisted even after the attack of Pearl Harbor.
With Project 2025, Trump now openly threatens fascism on America — and sadly, some are eager for it. The psychology behind both authoritarian leaders and followers is fascinating, overlooked, and misunderstood.
Scholars of authoritarianism
Karen Stenner — Australian political psychologist Karen Stenner found that approximately 1/3 of populations are authoritarian, have an authoritarian personality, or have authoritarian tendencies.
Derrida — the logic of the unconscious; performativity in the act of lying
ketman — Ketman is the psychological concept of concealing one’s true aims, akin to doublethink in Orwell’s 1984, that served as a central theme to Polish dissident CzesΕaw MiΕosz‘s book The Captive Mind about intellectual life under totalitarianism during the Communist post-WWII occupation.
Erich Fromm — coined the term “malignant narcissism” to describe the psychological character of the Nazis. He also wrote extensively about the mindset of the authoritarian follower in his seminal work, Escape from Freedom.
Eric Hoffer — his book The True Believers explores the mind of the authoritarian follower, and the appeal of losing oneself in a totalist movement
Fascism — elevation of the id as the source of truth; enthusiasm for political violence
double highs — social dominators who can “switch” to become followers in certain circumstances
Loyalty; hero worship
Freud = deeply distrustful of hero worship and worried that it indulged people’s needs for vertical authority. He found the archetype of the authoritarian primal father very troubling.
The “Dark Triad” is a term in psychology that refers to a trio of personality traits: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. These traits are considered “dark” because of their malevolent qualitiesβnamely, they are associated with a callous-manipulative interpersonal style.
Narcissism is characterized by grandiosity, pride, egotism, and a lack of empathy. It’s derived from the Greek myth of Narcissus, a man who fell in love with his reflection. In a psychological context, narcissism ranges from healthy self-esteem to a pathological level where it can be the full-blown personality disorder NPD and have a great impact on relationships and quality of life.
A hallmark of pathological narcissism is the constant need for admiration and a sense of entitlement. While a certain degree of narcissism may be essential for healthy self-confidence, its extreme can lead to destructive behavior both to the narcissist and to those around them.
Machiavellianism is named after the philosophy espoused by NiccolΓ² Machiavelli, a Renaissance-era political philosopher who argued that deceit and manipulation were effective in politics. This trait is characterized by a person’s tendency to deceive and manipulate others for personal gain. Itβs not an officially recognized personality disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), but it is widely recognized in the field of psychology. People high in Machiavellianism are often adept at controlling others and tend to prioritize their interests over morals or societal rules.
Psychopathy is perhaps the most dangerous trait of the Dark Triad. It is often associated with a deficit in affective (emotional) responses and a lack of empathy. Psychopaths may exhibit antisocial behavior, diminished capacity for remorse, and poor behavioral controls. It’s important to note that while psychopathy is not a formal diagnosis in the DSM, its behaviors are often associated with antisocial personality disorder. Psychopaths are typically impulsive and thrill-seeking, they may be charming and intelligent, which masks their inability to form genuine emotional bonds.
Widespread traits
Each of these traits exists on a spectrum, and all individuals may exhibit these traits to some degree. Itβs the extreme manifestations and the presence of all three traits in an individual that become particularly problematic. The Dark Triad has been a subject of significant research, especially in occupational and social psychology, due to its implications for workplace behavior, relationship dynamics, and social harmony.
Individuals with these traits may be drawn to certain professions or social situations that allow them to exert power or control over others. In the workplace, for example, Dark Triad traits may be beneficial to some extent for individuals in high-level management positions or in industries where cutthroat tactics are common. However, these traits can also lead to toxic work environments, unethical behavior, and organizational dysfunction.
The Dark Triad can also affect interpersonal relationships. Individuals with high levels of these traits may be charismatic and engaging initially, but their relationships are often superficial and plagued by manipulation and conflict. Their lack of empathy can result in the callous treatment of others and a focus on short-term relationships that serve their needs.
Made and Born
Research on the Dark Triad is extensive and has explored the biological, psychological, and social factors that contribute to these traits. Some studies suggest that there are genetic predispositions for these traits, while others point to environmental factors such as childhood experiences. It’s likely a combination of both. The expression of these traits is also influenced by cultural and societal norms; what may be considered assertive or ambitious behavior in one culture could be viewed as aggressive or unethical in another.
Understanding the Dark Triad is important not just for psychologists and mental health professionals, but also for individuals in managerial roles, human resources, and those involved in policy-making. By recognizing these traits, it is possible to develop better screening tools for positions that require high ethical standards and to create interventions that may mitigate the impact of these traits in various settings.
The Dark Triad encompasses three interrelated personality traits that have significant implications for individual behavior and social interactions. While these traits are part of the human personality spectrum, their dark aspect lies in their potential to harm individuals and society when present in high levels. Understanding and addressing the Dark Triad traits can lead to healthier social environments, more ethical workplaces, and overall improved wellbeing.
In a world of increasing disinformation, it’s more important than ever to be armed with actual information. And being curious about the meaning, nature, and origins of things is a rewarding journey in and of itself.
Think of these dictionaries as tools for your mind — they can help you make connections between concepts, understand the terminology being used in the media and all around you, and feel less lost in a sea of dizzying complexity and rapid change. A fantastic vocabulary also helps you connect with people near and far — as well as get outside your comfort zone and learn something new.
Dictionaries List
This section includes dictionaries and definitions of important terms in important realms — and is continually being built out. Stay tuned!
Authoritarianism is a political system where a single leader or a small group holds significant power, often without the consent of the governed. Decisions are made by authorities without public input, and individual freedoms and democratic principles are usually suppressed. The government may control various aspects of life, including media and the economy, without checks and balances. This leads to a concentration of power that can foster corruption and human rights abuses. In an authoritarian regime, obedience to the authorities is often emphasized over personal liberties and democratic participation.
Definitions and terms relating to the study of the mind, including ideas from social psychology, political psychology, positive psychology, and Buddhist psychology.
Influence techniques are a set of psychological and social strategies employed to sway people’s opinions, beliefs, and behaviors. While these techniques are commonly used in various aspects of life, such as marketing and politics, they can be particularly potent when wielded by cults and high-demand groups. Existing on the same spectrum as brainwashing, undue influence techniques can be leveraged as powerful tools for controlling individuals, groups, and even entire populations if left unchecked.
Influence Techniques
Reciprocity: This principle is based on the human tendency to want to give back when something is received. Cults often offer something of perceived value, like a sense of community or spiritual enlightenment, to create an obligation to reciprocate with loyalty or service.
Commitment and Consistency: Once a person makes a small commitment, like attending a meeting, they are more likely to agree to larger requests. Cults often use low-risk, high-reward initial engagements to lure people into more significant commitments.
Social Proof: People are more likely to do something if they see others doing it. Cults often showcase devoted members as testimonials to attract new recruits.
Authority: Leaders often present themselves as figures of authority, either through claimed divine inspiration or specialized knowledge. This makes it easier for members to surrender their judgment.
Liking: Cults often employ “love bombing,” where new recruits are showered with affection and attention, making them more susceptible to influence.
Scarcity: The idea that something is limited in availability often makes it more appealing. Cults may claim to offer exclusive truths or salvation, making their teachings appear more valuable.
Use in Cults
Isolation: One of the first steps a cult takes is to isolate new members from their previous life, including family and friends. This makes the individual more dependent on the cult for social support, thereby increasing the cult’s influence.
Indoctrination: Cults often have their own set of beliefs and values, which are rigorously taught to new members through repetitive teaching, chanting, or even thought-reform techniques. Various methods of indoctrination exist, including phobia indoctrination — which involves keeping members and prospective members in a constant state of fear and anxiety.
Fear and Intimidation: Many cults use fear as a control mechanism. This could be fear of outsiders, fear of losing salvation, or fear of retribution from the cult itself.
Financial Exploitation: Members are often encouraged or required to donate significant amounts of money, or even to hand over their financial assets entirely.
Charismatic Leadership: Cult leaders often possess charismatic qualities that make them naturally persuasive. They use this charisma in conjunction with influence techniques to exert control over members.
Use in High-Demand Groups
High-demand groups, like multi-level marketing schemes or extreme political organizations, also employ similar influence techniques but may not go to the same extremes as cults.
Recruitment: High-demand groups often use targeted recruitment strategies, appealing to individuals’ desires for financial freedom or social change. They also employ influence techniques like love bombing in order to secure loyalty quickly from new followers.
Peer Pressure: These groups often use peer pressure to encourage conformity, whether it’s meeting sales targets or participating in group activities.
Identity Reformation: Members are often encouraged to adopt a new set of beliefs or even a new identity aligned with the group’s goals.
Obedience to Authority: Just like in cults, high-demand groups often have a hierarchical structure where questioning authority is discouraged.
Conclusion
Influence techniques are powerful tools that can be used for both good and ill. When wielded by cults and high-demand groups, they can be particularly manipulative and damaging. Awareness of these techniques is the first step in safeguarding oneself against undue influence.
Whether it’s the allure of a charismatic leader or the promise of exclusive knowledge, understanding the psychological mechanisms at play can provide a critical line of defense. In an age when undue influence techniques are being put to use more broadly in society — including inside of mainstream political rhetoric and strategy — we would be wise to pay close attention and apply a dose of healthy skepticism when confronted with any approach that smells like the tactics described above.
Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) is a psychological approach that originated in the 1970s, primarily developed by Richard Bandler and John Grinder. It posits that there is a connection between neurological processes, language, and behavioral patterns that have been learned through experience. NLP is often used in psychotherapy, personal development, and communication training. It employs techniques like modeling, anchoring, and reframing to help individuals change their thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.
However, it’s important to note that NLP has been met with skepticism within the scientific community. Many critics argue that it lacks empirical evidence to support its efficacy. Despite this, NLP has found a broad range of applications, from sales and leadership training to self-help seminars.
Abuse in Cults
The darker side of NLP emerges when it is misused, particularly in cult-like organizations. Cults often employ psychological manipulation techniques to indoctrinate and control their members, and NLP can be a potent tool in their arsenal. Here are some ways NLP can be abused in such settings:
Mind Control: NLP techniques can be used to subtly manipulate individuals into adopting the cult’s belief system. By using language patterns that bypass critical thinking, leaders can implant suggestions directly into the subconscious mind.
Emotional Anchoring: This involves associating positive emotions with the cult and negative emotions with the outside world. Over time, this can make leaving the cult emotionally distressing, effectively trapping the individual.
Reframing: Cult leaders may use NLP to reframe negative experiences as positive or necessary for personal growth, making it difficult for members to recognize the harm being done to them.
Identity Shaping: Through continuous application of NLP techniques, cults can gradually alter a person’s self-concept, making them more susceptible to the group’s influence.
Isolation: NLP can be used to devalue critical thinking and outside perspectives, encouraging members to isolate themselves from friends and family who might offer a reality check.
Dependency: By using NLP to induce states of relaxation or euphoria, cults can make members dependent on the group for emotional well-being, further entrenching their loyalty.
The abuse of NLP in cults is a serious ethical concern. It exploits the vulnerabilities of individuals, often leading to financial, emotional, and sometimes even physical harm. While NLP itself is a tool that can be used for both good and bad, its potent psychological influence techniques make it particularly susceptible to misuse — including emotional abuse and an entire pantheon of greater transgressions.
Conclusion
Neurolinguistic Programming is a complex and controversial field that has both proponents and detractors. While it offers various techniques for personal development and communication, its lack of empirical support makes it a subject of ongoing debate. More alarmingly, when these techniques fall into the wrong hands, such as cult leaders, they can be used to manipulate and control individuals in harmful ways. As with any powerful tool, ethical considerations must be at the forefront when employing NLP techniques.
Racists tend to see democracy itself as a conspiracy against white people, thanks in large part to the Lost Cause Religion that sprouted up after the South lost the Civil War and had to live with themselves after destroying their economy and stature for immoral ends. Authoritarians tend to get very agitated by diversity and difference. White nationalism is the Venn diagram between these two groups.
White nationalist ideology gained renewed attention in the late 20th and early 21st centuries, often manifesting through hate groups, online forums, and political movements. White nationalists argue for policies that would establish or maintain a white majority in the country, often opposing immigration from non-European countries and advocating for policies that they believe would preserve white culture. These views are widely considered to be based on racial prejudices and are often associated with hate crimes and domestic terrorism.
Prominent white nationalists
With the emergence of the alt-right and neoreaction groups espousing flavors of accelerationism during the Trump era, a host of white nationalists have come out of the closet and said the quiet parts out loud. Here are a few figures to watch out for:
White supremacy: ideology that whites have “inherently” superior genetics and culture, fomented over the past few centuries and lingering still among the dramatically insecure and small-minded
Theory: White supremacy as a kind of background radiation receding — with some geographical areas of high historical concentration showing less redshift effect.
Sometimes our minds play tricks on us. They can convince us that untrue things are true, or vice versa.
Cognitive distortions are bad mental habits. They’re patterns of thinking that tend to be negatively slanted, inaccurate, and often repetitive.
These unhelpful ways of thinking can limit one’s ability to function and excel in the world. Cognitive distortions are linked to anxiety, depression, addiction, and eating disorders. They reinforce negative thinking loops, which tend to compound and worsen over time.
Irrational thinking
Cognitive distortions are systematic patterns of thought that can lead to inaccurate or irrational conclusions. These distortions often serve as mental traps, skewing our perception of reality and affecting our emotional well-being. Let’s delve into three common types: emotional reasoning, counterfactual thinking, and catastrophizing.
Emotional Reasoning: This distortion involves using one’s emotions as a barometer for truth. For example, if you feel anxious, you might conclude that something bad is going to happen, even if there’s no objective evidence to support that belief. Emotional reasoning can create a self-perpetuating cycle: your emotions validate your distorted thoughts, which in turn intensify your emotions.
Counterfactual Thinking: This involves imagining alternative scenarios that could have occurred but didn’t. While this can be useful for problem-solving and learning, it becomes a cognitive distortion when it leads to excessive rumination and regret. For instance, thinking “If only I had done X, then Y wouldn’t have happened” can make you stuck in a loop of what-ifs, preventing you from moving forward.
Catastrophizing: This is the tendency to imagine the worst possible outcome in any given situation. It’s like always expecting a minor stumble to turn into a catastrophic fall. This distortion can lead to heightened stress and anxiety, as you’re constantly bracing for disaster.
More cognitive distortions
Cognitive distortion
Explanation
Example
all-or-nothing thinking
viewing everything in absolute and extremely polarized terms
"nothing good ever happens" or "I'm always behind"
blaming
focusing on other people as source of your negative feelings, & refusing to take responsibility for changing yourself; or conversely, blaming yourself harshly for things that were out of your control
catastrophizing
belief that disaster will strike no matter what, and that what will happen will be too awful to bear
"What if tragedy strikes?" "What if it happens to me?"
counterfactual thinking
A kind of mental bargaining or longing to live in the alternate timeline where one had made a different decision
"If only I could have done it differently..."
dichotomous thinking
viewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms
discounting positives
claiming that positive things you or others do are trivial, or ignoring good things that have happened to you
emotional reasoning
letting feelings guide interpretation of reality; a way of judging yourself or your circumstances based on your emotions
"If I feel that way, it must be true"
filtering
mentally "filters out" the positive aspects of a situation while magnifying the negative aspects
fortune-telling
predicting the future negatively
framing effects
tendency for decisions to be shaped by inconsequential features of choice problems
halo effect
belief that one's success in a domain automagically qualifies them to have skills and expertise in other areas
illusory correlation
tendency to perceive a relationship between two variables when no relation exists
reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict negative thoughts
intuitive heuristics
tendency when faced with a difficult question of answering an easier question instead, typically without noticing the substitution
just-world hypothesis
belief that good things tend to happen to good people, while bad things tend to happen to bad people
labeling
assigning global negative traits to self & others; making a judgment about yourself or someone else as a person, versus seeing the behavior as something they did that doesn't define them as an individual
ludic fallacy
in assessing the potential amount of risk in a system or decision, mistaking the real randomness of life for the well-defined risk of casinos
magical thinking
a way of imagining you can wish reality into existence through the sheer force of your mind. Part of a child developmental phase that not everyone grows out of.
http://doctorparadox.net/essays/magical-thinking/
magnification
exaggerating the importance of flaws and problems while minimizing the impact of desirable qualities and achievements
mind reading
assuming what someone is thinking w/o sufficient evidence; jumping to conclusions
negative filtering
focusing exclusively on negatives & ignoring positives
nominal realism
child development phase where names of objects aren't just symbols but intrinsic parts of the objects. Sometimes called word realism, and related to magical thinking
overgeneralizing
making a rule or predicting globally negative patterns on the basis of single incident
projection
attributing qualities to external actors or forces that one feels within and either a) wishes to promote and have echoed back to onself, or b) eradicate or squelch from oneself by believing that the quality exists elsewhere, in others, but not in oneself
provincialism
the tendency to see things only from the point of view of those in charge of our immediate in-groups
shoulds
a list of ironclad rules one lives and punishes oneself by
"I should exercise more" "I should eat better"
teleological fallacy
illusion that you know exactly where you're going, knew exactly where you were going in the past, & that others have succeeded in the past by knowing where they were going
academia especially is rife with this one
what if?
keep asking series of ?s on prospective events & being unsatisfied with any answers
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur when arguments are constructed or evaluated. They are deceptive and misleading, often leading to false or weak conclusions. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.
These flaws in rhetorical logic can be observed aplenty in modern political and civil discourse. They are among the easiest types of argument to dispel, because their basic type has been discredited and compiled together with other discarded forms of rational persuasion, to make sure that ensuing generations don’t fall for the same tired old unethical ideas.
By understanding and identifying these common logical fallacies, individuals can sharpen their critical thinking skills and engage in more productive, rational discussions. Recognizing fallacies also helps avoid being swayed by deceptive or unsound arguments — which abound in increasing volume thanks to the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and disingenuous forms of motivated reasoning.
Types of logical fallacies
There are several types of logical fallacies, each with its own pitfalls. Here are a few examples:
Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, dismissing someone’s opinion on climate change because they’re not a scientist is an ad hominem fallacy.
Straw Man: This involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. If someone argues for better healthcare and is accused of wanting “socialized medicine,” that’s a straw man.
Appeal to Authority: This fallacy relies on the opinion of an “expert” who may not actually be qualified in the relevant field. Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn’t mean it’s effective.
False Dichotomy: This fallacy presents only two options when, in fact, more exist. For example, stating that “you’re either with us or against us” oversimplifies complex issues.
Slippery Slope: This fallacy argues that a single action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events, without providing evidence for such a chain reaction.
Circular Reasoning: In this fallacy, the conclusion is used as a premise, creating a loop that lacks substantive proof. Saying “I’m trustworthy because I say I am” is an example.
Hasty Generalization: This involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. For instance, meeting two rude people from a city and concluding that everyone from that city is rude is a hasty generalization.
Understanding logical fallacies equips you to dissect arguments critically, making you a more informed participant in discussions. It’s a skill that’s invaluable in both professional and personal settings. Arm yourself with knowledge about this list of logical fallacies:
Logical fallacy
Explanation
Example / Notes
ad hominem attack
attacking something about the character of the opposing side, instead of engaging with the argument or offering a critique
ambiguity
using double meanings and language ambiguity to mislead
anecdotal
appeal to a personal, individual observation as relates to the topic in question
often used to dismiss statistical analysis
appeal to authority
using opinion of authority figure or institution in place of an actual argument
appeal to emotion
manipulating emotional response in lieu of valid argument
a huge part of Donald Trump's playbook
appeal to nature
arguing that b/c something is βnaturalβ it is valid / justified / inevitable / good / ideal
bandwagon
appealing to popularity as evidence of validation
Retort: "When everyone once believed the earth was flat β did that make it true?"
begging the question
when conclusion is included in the premise
one form of circular argument (tautology is another)
black or white
presenting two alternative states as the only options, when more possibilities exist
very commonly used by political and media resources as a way to polarize issues
burden of proof
claiming the responsibility lies with someone else to disprove one's claim (& not with the claimant to prove it)
composition/division
assuming what is true of one part of something must be applied to all parts
fallacy fallacy
presuming that a poorly argued claim, or one in which a fallacy has been made, is wrong
false cause
presuming that a real or perceived relationship between things implies causation
gambler's fallacy
putting a tremendous amount of weight on previous events, believing they will influence future outcomes (even when outcome is random)
also a psychological bias
genetic
value judging based on where something comes from
loaded question
asking a question with an assumption built in, so it can't be answered without appearing guilty
middle ground
claiming a compromise between two extremes must be the truth
the media establishment is often guilty of this for a number of reasons: lack of time for thorough inquiry; need for ratings; available field of pundits and wonks; established programming formats, and so on
no true scotsman
making an appeal to purity as a way to dismiss relevant criticisms or flaws
personal incredulity
saying that because a concept or argument is difficult to understand, it can't be true
slippery slope
arguing that a small change or decision will inevitably lead to larger-than-intended (perhaps even disastrous) consequences rapidly
special pleading
moving goalpost to create exceptions when a claim is shown to be false
strawman
misrepresenting someone's argument to make it easier to attack
texas sharpshooter
cherry-picking data to suit an argument, or finding a pattern to fit a presumption
the impending era of big data will increase the prevalence of this type of sheister
tu quoque
avoiding having to engage with criticism by criticizing the accuser
The special grand jury in Georgia that investigated efforts to overturn the state’s 2020 presidential election results in favor of loser Donald Trump has recommended indictments against 39 individuals, a number significantly higher than the 19 people ultimately charged by prosecutors. Among those recommended for indictment in the Georgia RICO case but who were not charged were South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former U.S. Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue of Georgia, and former Trump national security adviser Mike Flynn.
The report suggests that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis exercised discretion in streamlining the case, possibly due to factors like immunity deals, federal protections, or insufficient evidence. The grand jury accused the individuals of various offenses, including racketeering, conspiracy to defraud the state, false statements, perjury, and criminal solicitation to commit election fraud.
39 Georgia co-conspirators recommended for indictment
Rudy Giuliani — Rudy Giuliani is an American attorney and politician, best known for serving as the Mayor of New York City from 1994 to 2001. He gained national prominence for his leadership during the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Later, he became a personal lawyer to Donald Trump and was involved in various legal challenges related to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election.
John Eastman — John Eastman is a constitutional law scholar and attorney. He gained attention for advising former President Donald Trump on legal matters, particularly concerning the 2020 election. Eastman has been criticized for promoting theories that questioned the election’s integrity.
Kenneth Chesebro — Kenneth Chesebro is a less-publicized figure, primarily known as a Harvard Law School lecturer. He specializes in legal writing and research, but has not been prominently involved in mainstream political or legal events.
Donald Trump — Businessman and television personality. His presidency was marked by a polarized political climate, economic highs and lows, and two impeachments. He remains a highly influential figure in American politics.
Cleta Mitchell — Cleta Mitchell is an American lawyer specializing in election law and campaign finance. She gained attention for representing Donald Trump in matters related to the 2020 presidential election and has been a vocal critic of its outcome.
Jenna Ellis — Jenna Ellis is an American attorney and author. She served as a legal advisor to Donald Trump during his presidency and was involved in legal challenges concerning the 2020 election. Ellis is known for her conservative viewpoints.
Mark Meadows — Mark Meadows is an American politician who served as the White House Chief of Staff under Donald Trump. Prior to that, he was a U.S. Representative from North Carolina. Meadows is a founding member of the Freedom Caucus in the House of Representatives.
David Shafer — David Shafer is a Republican politician from Georgia, serving as the Chairman of the Georgia Republican Party. He has been involved in state politics for years and was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump during the 2020 election.
Ray Smith III — Ray Smith is a Georgia-based attorney who gained attention for representing the Trump campaign in legal matters related to the 2020 election in Georgia. He specializes in civil litigation and business law. He is accused of making false claims of election fraud at legislative hearings in December 2020.
Lin Wood — Lin Wood is an American attorney known for high-profile defamation cases. He became a controversial figure for his involvement in legal challenges related to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election and his promotion of conspiracy theories.
Lindsey Graham — Lindsey Graham is a U.S. Senator from South Carolina, serving since 2003. A member of the Republican Party, Graham is known for his conservative stance on issues like national security and his close relationship with Donald Trump.
Sidney Powell — Sidney Powell is an American attorney and author. She gained national attention for her involvement in legal challenges related to the 2020 presidential election, promoting theories that have been widely discredited.
Robert Cheeley — Robert Cheeley is a Georgia-based attorney specializing in personal injury law. He gained attention for his association with Lin Wood in various legal matters but is not a mainstream political figure. He is accused of making false claims of election fraud at legislative hearings in December 2020.
Mike Flynn — Michael Flynn is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General who briefly served as National Security Advisor under Donald Trump. He was convicted of lying to the FBI but was later pardoned by Trump.
William Ligon — William Ligon is a Republican politician who serves as a State Senator in Georgia. He gained attention for his efforts to challenge the results of the 2020 presidential election in Georgia.
David Perdue — David Perdue is an American businessman and politician who served as a U.S. Senator from Georgia from 2015 to 2021. A member of the Republican Party, Perdue was a close ally of former President Donald Trump. He lost his re-election bid in the 2021 Georgia runoff to Democrat Jon Ossoff.
Kelly Loeffler — Kelly Loeffler is an American businesswoman and politician who served as a U.S. Senator from Georgia. Appointed in 2019, she lost her seat to Democrat Raphael Warnock in the 2021 Georgia runoff. Loeffler is co-owner of the Atlanta Dream, a WNBA team.
Cathy Latham — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
Misty Hampton — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
Scott Hall — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
Boris Epshteyn — Boris Epshteyn is a Russian-American political strategist and commentator. He served as a special assistant to President Donald Trump and has been a vocal supporter of Trump’s policies.
Jeffrey Clark — Jeff Clark is an American attorney who served as the Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division under the Trump administration. He gained attention for his role in Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.
Kurt Hilbert — Kurt Hilbert is an American attorney based in Georgia. He gained attention for his involvement in legal challenges related to the 2020 U.S. Presidential election, particularly in Georgia.
Stephen Lee — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
Trevian Kutti — Trevian Kutti is a public relations consultant who has worked with high-profile clients, including politicians and celebrities. She is not a mainstream political figure but has some influence in the PR world.
Harrison Floyd — Harrison Floyd is a military veteran and political activist. He has been involved in conservative political campaigns and organizations but is not a mainstream political figure.
Alex Kaufman — Alex Kaufman is an American attorney based in Georgia. He specializes in election law and has been involved in various legal matters related to elections, although he is not a widely recognized public figure.
Joseph Brannan — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
Vikki Consiglio — Vikki Consiglio is a Georgia-based political activist and member of the Republican Party. She has been involved in local politics and grassroots organizing but is not a mainstream political figure.
Carolyn Fisher — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
Burt Jones — Burt Jones is an American businessman and politician serving as a Republican State Senator in Georgia. He has been in office since 2013 and is known for his conservative stances on issues like healthcare and education. Jones was a vocal supporter of Donald Trump and has been involved in efforts to challenge the 2020 election results in Georgia.
Gloria Godwin — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
Mark Hennessy — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
Mark Amick — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
John Downey — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
Brad Carver — Brad Carver is an American attorney and political strategist based in Georgia. He is a partner at Hall Booth Smith, P.C., and specializes in governmental affairs. Carver has been involved in Republican politics and has served as a delegate to the Republican National Convention.
Shawn Still — A previously lesser known figure in Georgia politics.
C. B. Yadav — C. B. Yadav is a businessman and community leader based in Georgia. While not a mainstream political figure, Yadav has been involved in local community initiatives and has received recognition for his philanthropic efforts.
Jacki Pick — Jacki Pick is an American attorney and conservative commentator. She has appeared on various media platforms to discuss legal and political issues. Pick is known for her conservative viewpoints and has been a guest speaker at several conservative events.
What is RICO?
The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a U.S. federal law enacted in 1970, designed to combat organized crime. Initially aimed at dismantling the Mafia, RICO has evolved to address a broad range of illegal activities carried out by enterprises, which can include businesses, gangs, and even political organizations. The law targets patterns of racketeering, which may involve activities like money laundering, drug trafficking, and fraud.
In the legal profession, RICO cases are approached with meticulous care due to their complexity. Prosecutors must prove four key elements: the existence of an “enterprise,” a pattern of racketeering activity, a connection between the enterprise and the criminal conduct, and the defendant’s participation in the enterprise through the pattern of racketeering. Establishing a “pattern” usually requires at least two acts of racketeering activity within a 10-year period.
Defense strategies often focus on dismantling one or more of these elements. For instance, they may argue that the alleged activities do not constitute a “pattern” or that the defendant was not sufficiently involved in the enterprise. Given the severe penalties, which can include hefty fines and up to 20 years in prison per racketeering count, both sides often rely on extensive documentation, expert testimonies, and intricate legal arguments.
Trials are usually long-drawn affairs, involving multiple parties and numerous charges. The prosecution may use tools like wiretaps, surveillance, and informants to build their case, while the defense may scrutinize the validity and legality of such evidence. Due to the high stakes, RICO cases are typically handled by attorneys with specialized expertise in this area of law.
TL;DR: RICO is a powerful tool for prosecuting organized criminal activities, but its cases are complex and require a nuanced legal approach.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is a seminal study in the field of social psychology, offering profound insights into the dynamics of power, authority, and human behavior. Conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, the experiment aimed to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power and authority within a simulated prison environment. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment set the stage for deeper explorations of the ways in which individualist doctrines of western nations tend to overweight the role of the individual (dispensational attribution) while underweighting the role in the situation and social milieu of the setting.
The Experiment Setup
Zimbardo and his team transformed the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building into a mock prison. Participants, who were college students, were randomly assigned roles as either “guards” or “prisoners.” The guards were given uniforms, sunglasses to prevent eye contact, and batons, while the prisoners were stripped of personal identity, referred to by numbers, and subjected to various forms of psychological manipulation and humiliation designed to dehumanize them in the eyes of their faux captors.
The Unfolding
The Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment was initially planned to last two weeks but had to be terminated after just six days due to the extreme and disturbing behavior exhibited by the participants. The guards became increasingly sadistic, employing psychological torture techniques, and the prisoners showed signs of extreme stress, depression, and helplessness. The environment became so toxic that some prisoners had to be released early due to emotional breakdowns.
Ethical Concerns
The study has been widely criticized for its ethical shortcomings. Zimbardo himself acted as the “prison superintendent,” and his failure to intervene has been seen as a significant ethical lapse (he shares this sentiment, and has been vocal about examining his own role in the profoundly disturbing results of his experiment). The lack of informed consent and the emotional and psychological harm caused to the participants have also been points of contention in the academic community.
Before this study, though, I think it was counterintuitive to assume that otherwise decent, law-abiding good people could be turned into snarling sadists so quickly, in the right circumstances. And the reality of that truth disturbs us and the field of social psychology to this day.
Social Psychological Learnings
Despite its ethical issues, the Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment offers invaluable insights into human behavior and social psychology:
Deindividuation: The guards’ uniforms and sunglasses served to deindividuate them, making it easier for them to engage in cruel behavior without feeling personally responsible.
Social Roles and Conformity: Both guards and prisoners conformed to their assigned roles to a disturbing extent, highlighting the power of social roles in shaping behavior.
Authority and Obedience: The experiment showed how ordinary people could commit atrocious acts when they perceive themselves to be following authoritative commands.
Situational vs. Dispositional Factors: The study emphasized the influence of situational factors over dispositional ones in determining behavior. It argued that the environment could significantly impact how individuals act, as opposed to inherent personality traits.
Ethical Considerations in Research: The study serves as a cautionary tale for ethical considerations in psychological experiments, leading to stricter guidelines and review boards for research involving human subjects.
Implications and Legacy
The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment has had a lasting impact on psychology, ethics, and our understanding of human behavior. It has been cited in various contexts, from understanding the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison to corporate misconduct a la Enron, et al. While the study’s ethical lapses have led to ongoing debates, its findings remain a crucial part of social psychology curricula and continue to inform our understanding of the human psyche.
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment serves as both a revealing exploration of the dark corners of human behavior and a cautionary tale for ethical conduct in scientific research. It provides a complex, multifaceted look into the social psychological mechanisms that can lead ordinary people to commit extraordinary acts of cruelty or submission.
“Global cabal” is one of several popular conspiracy theories in radical right-wing discourse that refers to a perceived “Jewish conspiracy” behind the international order of institutions like NATO and the UN. There are many euphemisms and alternate names for the same core conspiracy theory alleging the existence of a single group of shadowy people who control world events behind closed doors as clandestine world rulers. It has appeared in many forms, derivatives, and retellings throughout history, from Nazism to one of its latest incarnations: QAnon.
A cabal is a small, usually secretive group that uses its considerable power to establish control over a larger group, or more broadly over society itself. The term is derived from the word kabbalah, a school of thought in Jewish mysticism that is concerned with the essence of God. Thus the concept of a global cabal ruling secretly over the world has deeply anti-Semitic origins, even though a number of its proponents are unfamiliar with the foundations of the idea in anti-Jewish hatred.
Structure and origin of global cabal conspiracy theory
The most basic tenet of the global cabal conspiracy theory genre is that a single group controls everything that happens in the world, but manages to keep that control entirely secret from everyone except those who believe in the global cabal. The identity of the controlling group may be different in different networks of believers, but it is typically seen as an evil cabal working various nefarious plots: Jewish bankers in the case of the Nazis (emerging out of the anti-Semitic blood libel conspiracy theory), Freemasons, The Illuminati, reptilian lizard people, Democratic pedophiles in the case of QAnon, and so on.
The origins of the global cabal conspiracy trace back to the 18th century, when the Illuminati conspiracy theory began to circulate. The Illuminati conspiracy theory alleged that a secret society of Freemasons was working to overthrow the governments of Europe and establish a New World Order. This conspiracy theory quickly spread to other parts of the world, and it has been used to explain a wide range of events, from the French Revolution to the 9/11 attacks.
Global cabal conspiracies have a predilection for collapsing the distinction between opposites. The Nazis claimed that communism and capitalism were both Jewish plots; conspiracists in America allege that bitter political rivals like the Bushes and the Clintons are actually BFFs in on the “real” story conducted behind the scenes and out of the public eye. The Russian rhetorical tactic of whataboutism is a quintessential manifestation of this phenomenon, wherein the speaker refutes an accusation by stating that other people elsewhere have also done that thing, often people on the accuser’s side or team.
How to deprogram global cabalists
The staying power and allure of conspiracy theories surprises many people — why would anyone want to believe in these far-fetched, over the top ridiculous ideas about how the world works? People believe in conspiracy theories because they offer simple solutions in a complex, overwhelming world. They also offer a sense of superiority and positive self-image by means of collective narcissism — which likewise makes them fragile and prone to insecurities and doubts.
People going through traumatic or epochal life events are especially vulnerable to the power of conspiracy theories. They find comfort and easy social support in the arms of the group of believers, but buy in to the cultish practice of demonizing and dehumanizing the non-believers. Their abrasiveness can make it difficult to approach them about the topic of their belief in conspiracy theory, even if they’re a close family member — sometimes especially if they’re a close family member.
Often the conspiracy theory believer will refuse to read any information from a source that is not in the right-wing echo chamber. If you think they might, however, send them this essay by Yuval Noah Harrari. It’s the best I’ve found to explain the core essence of the “belief system” and the core con of the whole thing.
If they won’t accept information from credible sources, you might find an opening by asking them questions about their beliefs, getting them to talk more about the ideas, and look out for opportunities to ask “frame breaking questions” that address the fundamental flaws of the global cabal theory: that even small numbers of people are difficult to control, much less a whole planet; and that no one can predict the future with a high degree of accuracy.
In reality, there is not one but many conspiracies at work all around us to knit the fabric of history together. James Madison — the architect of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights — called them factions. Many of these conspiracies work directly against one another, and many work entirely independently but pursue some percentage of similar goals in common.
Global cabal conspiracy theory is totalitarian, in the sense that it collapses all of the immense complexity of human existence into billions of puppets pulled by the strings of a very few puppetmasters. Real life is a multiverse — and that can be overwhelming, and confusing.
The anxiety of the modern world can be intense, and conspiracy theories offer a seductively simple relief. But ask your global conspiracist friend or family member whether or not they think there are some things that are too good to be true: like a story about a handful of people causing everything that happens in the world.
Global cabal conspiracies list
Global cabal is part of a broader category of conspiracy theories, which often involve secret or hidden groups working behind the scenes to control events or manipulate public opinion. While these ideas can be intriguing, they are often unsupported by evidence and can lead to misinformation, great misunderstanding, and even political violence.
Here’s a list of other belief systems that are related to or often associated with global cabal conspiracy theories:
The Illuminati: A supposed secret society controlling all world events.
Chemtrails: The belief that aircraft trails contain harmful substances that the government is spraying on the earth for purposes of a top-secret geoengineering program.
Area 51: Associated with UFOs and government secrecy.
False Flag Operations: The idea that governments stage attacks to manipulate public opinion.
MK-Ultra: A real CIA program that has spawned various conspiracy theories.
Reptilian Elite / Lizard People: The idea that shape-shifting reptilian beings control Earth.
Adrenochrome: Another derivative of blood libel and global cabal in which elites harvest a substance created by the oxidization of adrenaline in young children for its anti-aging and psychedelic properties
HAARP: A research program that has been associated with mind control and weather manipulation theories.
Vaccine Conspiracy Theories / Anti-vax movement: Various theories about the hidden dangers of vaccines.
Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG): Anti-Semitic theories about Jewish control over governments, and a chosen secret cabal of the anti-government white power movement that flourished in the U.S. after the Vietnam War.
Flat Earth Theory: The belief that the Earth is flat, not spherical.
Big Pharma Conspiracy: The idea that pharmaceutical companies suppress natural cures.
Deep State: The belief in a hidden government within the legitimate government, popularized by Trump.
Satanic Ritual Abuse/ Satanic Panic: The belief in widespread satanic ritual abuse, often linked to elite groups.
QAnon: A wide-ranging conspiracy theory alleging a secret plot against President Trump. The latest incarnation of the global cabal casts Donald Trump in the role of savior from the shadowy group of Democratic pedophiles who run the country and — via NATO and the UN — the world.
PizzaGate: False claims that the Democratic Party was running a child sex trafficking ring out of a DC pizza shop.
Crisis Actors: The belief that events like mass shootings are staged with actors.
The Great Replacement conspiracy theory: white nationalist variant of the global cabal conspiracy, in which the nefarious plot of the shadowy Elites this time is to dilute the white race by allowing sane immigration policy. This stochastic terrorism strategy is being waged by Rupert Murdoch‘s Fox News via fish stick-heir Tucker Carlson, resulting in directly named ideological inspiration for some of the most heinous mass murders of our time including the Anders Breivik killing of 77 in Oslo, Norway and the assassination of 10 people, mostly Black, in a Buffalo supermarket the shooter chose for its high percentage of Black people. Great Replacement theory is also known as white genocide conspiracy theory.
Our ability to see patterns in randomness and dissemble stories on the spot, along with numerous other cognitive and psychological biases, make us vulnerable to belief in conspiracy theories.
In an increasingly complex world of information bombarding us as blinding speed and high volume, the cognitive appeal of easy answers and turnkey βcommunityβ may be much stronger than ever before.
