I think this is a great list and very helpful overall, though I do have some qualms with three of them. While aphorisms naturally simplify complex ideas, some of these might unintentionally reinforce conspiratorial thought patterns rather than mitigate them.
A bit of context: I’ve been deeply interested in understanding conspiracy theories since I was 13 (I'm 35 now), partially because I’ve been drawn into some myself. I’ve focused on learning the mechanisms behind these beliefs to better resist them. Additionally, while right-wing conspiracies get quite a lot of coverage, I believe similar patterns exist on the left, but are generally cloaked as intellectualism.
To address specific points:
Aphorism 1: Dogmatism is when the act of questioning the doctrine is itself a transgression against the doctrine.
Qualm: This reinforces a key element of conspiratorial belief: that doubting or questioning mainstream narratives is, by nature, suspicious or taboo. This setup encourages believers to think of themselves as part of an exclusive group that sees through these dogmas that everyone else supposedly follows uncritically.
In the context of conspiracy theories, this mentality creates a sort of intellectual armor. Conspiratorial thinkers often view skepticism of their theories as evidence that they’re onto something forbidden or hidden—perhaps because “the doctrine” (the official story) forbids it. This dynamic deepens group loyalty, as those who share in the questioning feel increasingly isolated from “the mainstream” and, thus, reinforced in their own views. It also shifts the question from the merits of the idea to a defense of the right to question, which sidesteps examining weaknesses in the theory and instead focuses on perceived censorship or dogmatism in mainstream perspectives.
So we get a self-protecting loop: questioning is seen as inherently noble, so any dismissal or challenge is treated as oppression rather than critique. This ultimately narrows the scope for healthy, critical engagement with reality, fostering deeper entrenchment in the conspiratorial worldview.
Aphorism 3: Extremism is consistency, for good or bad.
Qualm: This actually strikes me as sort of an empty statement - I just include this because I'm not sure what is intended. Since “consistency” is presented neutrally here, it’s unclear what readers are supposed to take from it, and without further explanation, I find it qualitatively inert. Would love further explanation from the author on this aphorism’s intended message.
Aphorism 5: Sincerity is a double bluff to cynics.
Qualm: I similarly need to know whether the author is identifying with cynics or the concept of a sincere person. If the latter, I interpret this for the better and generally agree - sincerity is indeed often mistrusted by cynical people, which makes it more difficult to reach them with good faith arguments. If the former, it fuels the belief that nothing at all is as it seems and that apparent honesty might just be an elaborate attempt to mislead.
This approach can push a conspiratorial thinker deeper into distrust, making it harder for them to accept genuine explanations, data, or expertise, because they see sincerity as another layer of manipulation. It turns genuine interactions into possible traps, reinforcing the idea that only they (and their community of believers) can see “what’s really going on,” while the rest of the world falls for the double bluff.
Thanks for considering my thoughts! I hope to hear back and find some clarity on those points.
Thank you for raising those challenges. The following is the best clarification I can give at present. Let me know if I missed something or if you have further qualms.
Aphorism 1: Dogmatism is when the act of questioning the doctrine is itself a transgression against the doctrine.
I was planning to write a piece expanding on this point in the future. The following will have to suffice for now:
I got the seed of this idea from a documentary about a fundamentalist cult I watched years ago. My memory is hazy, but the relevant portion was an interview with one of the children. The child was asked whether he ever experienced any doubt about the beliefs with which he was being raised. “Oh, all the time,” he replied. (Note: My quotes aren’t exact. As I said—hazy memory). He then cited Romans 1:20:
'For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.'
According to the child, this verse precludes the possibility of honest doubt with respect to the foundational tenets of his group’s teachings. Doubters are “without excuse.” Next, he cited Genesis 39:12, which has to do with fleeing temptation (one is to leave one’s garment in the hand of the adulteress, literally or figuratively, and flee without hesitation).
Then he put the two verses together. Since honest doubt of his group’s fundamental doctrines is not possible, then how can he account for the fact that doubts do, in fact, continually and automatically arise in his mind? Simple. What he is experiencing is not really doubt, but a form of temptation—specifically, the temptation to evade certain truths which are self-evident and beyond questioning. And what are we to do with temptation? We are to flee it. We are to recognize it as a danger to one’s soul, and reflexively remove ourselves from its evil influence. This child had been trained from a young age to suppress thinking by noticing the inception of a contrary idea and blanking it out of his consciousness before it can take shape.
I then began to notice this as part of a broader phenomenon. It seems there can be such a thing as a set of ideas which, once accepted, insulates itself from further examination. Another version I’ve seen goes something like this: “Due to your status as a beneficiary of an oppressive system, your attempts to pose questions that challenge our movement’s resistance are exploitative and self-serving.” So here again we see the act of questioning the doctrine is defined as immoral by the terms of the doctrine.
As far as conspiracy theorists, I’ve often thought there could be a similar type of circular delegitimization trap at play, but I haven’t yet pinned it down exactly. If conspiracy theorists stopped at merely questioning official narratives, I’d have to say I see some value in that. I must admit a lot of information I rely on is outsourced to experts and “authorities.” But they don’t stop at merely questioning. Conspiracy theorists will confidently make huge claims to very specific knowledge which they can’t justify. “Such-and-such photograph is a forgery.” “This incident was a false flag operation with paid crisis actors.” Etc.
For me, the point of this aphorism is to serve as a self-check. Have I accepted any form of idea which requires me to forego reappraising my own conclusions? Taken this way, it potentially cuts every direction—against those who would disallow questioning of mainstream information, and against those who blanketly disqualify “mainstream” criticism of their conspiracy theories.
Aphorism 3: Extremism is consistency, for good or bad.
This one is an attempt to unravel a counterproductive language game I see used a lot. Terms like “extremism” and “hate” are used as catchall denunciations in place of being specific about the content of objectionable ideas. For example, is the problem with white supremacy really that it’s just taken too far? Would we be Ok with a moderate amount of white supremacy? Or how about a mushy, non-hateful kind of white supremacy that just wants to preserve and celebrate white culture? And if we aren’t willing to tolerate any amount of it, doesn’t that make us the extremists? After all, we’re the ones taking an absolutist stand, unwilling to compromise or meet halfway. It should be clear that the problem lies in the content of the ideas. You said it strikes you as an empty statement. It is. The emptiness is the point. The point is that we can’t positively or negatively evaluate a position along some axis without being clear about what the axis measures.
Aphorism 5: Sincerity is a double bluff to cynics.
When I wrote this one I was thinking of the ‘battle of wits’ scene from the Princess Bride: the Wallace Shawn character feverishly calculating double, triple, and quadruple buffs ad infinitum in order to choose which glass isn’t poisoned. My intended meaning: If you adopt the cynics’ heuristic that people are generally acting on ulterior motives, you’re going to render yourself incapable of comprehending straightforward interactions. The result, comically, is that you end up less perceptive than an average person while fancying yourself to be more sophisticated.
Thank you for providing such a detailed response, I really appreciate it! This definitely clears up the ambiguity and confusion for me, and you've also really raised some new perspectives for me that I've never considered, particularly re the 3rd aphorism -- I look forward to your upcoming piece expanding on some of these. Also, I love how you've connected your 5th aphorism to that scene from the Princess Bride; it's definitely one of my favorite scenes in that movie, and I hadn't thought about how illustrative it is of that exact point.
"In science fiction, “internet delenda est” appears as the title of a short story by Poul Anderson, published in 1955. The story is part of his Time Patrol series, exploring the concept of a temporal police force that protects the timeline from alterations. In this context, the phrase serves as a metaphor for the destruction of a timeline or a reality, rather than the literal destruction of the internet."
I think this is a great list and very helpful overall, though I do have some qualms with three of them. While aphorisms naturally simplify complex ideas, some of these might unintentionally reinforce conspiratorial thought patterns rather than mitigate them.
A bit of context: I’ve been deeply interested in understanding conspiracy theories since I was 13 (I'm 35 now), partially because I’ve been drawn into some myself. I’ve focused on learning the mechanisms behind these beliefs to better resist them. Additionally, while right-wing conspiracies get quite a lot of coverage, I believe similar patterns exist on the left, but are generally cloaked as intellectualism.
To address specific points:
Aphorism 1: Dogmatism is when the act of questioning the doctrine is itself a transgression against the doctrine.
Qualm: This reinforces a key element of conspiratorial belief: that doubting or questioning mainstream narratives is, by nature, suspicious or taboo. This setup encourages believers to think of themselves as part of an exclusive group that sees through these dogmas that everyone else supposedly follows uncritically.
In the context of conspiracy theories, this mentality creates a sort of intellectual armor. Conspiratorial thinkers often view skepticism of their theories as evidence that they’re onto something forbidden or hidden—perhaps because “the doctrine” (the official story) forbids it. This dynamic deepens group loyalty, as those who share in the questioning feel increasingly isolated from “the mainstream” and, thus, reinforced in their own views. It also shifts the question from the merits of the idea to a defense of the right to question, which sidesteps examining weaknesses in the theory and instead focuses on perceived censorship or dogmatism in mainstream perspectives.
So we get a self-protecting loop: questioning is seen as inherently noble, so any dismissal or challenge is treated as oppression rather than critique. This ultimately narrows the scope for healthy, critical engagement with reality, fostering deeper entrenchment in the conspiratorial worldview.
Aphorism 3: Extremism is consistency, for good or bad.
Qualm: This actually strikes me as sort of an empty statement - I just include this because I'm not sure what is intended. Since “consistency” is presented neutrally here, it’s unclear what readers are supposed to take from it, and without further explanation, I find it qualitatively inert. Would love further explanation from the author on this aphorism’s intended message.
Aphorism 5: Sincerity is a double bluff to cynics.
Qualm: I similarly need to know whether the author is identifying with cynics or the concept of a sincere person. If the latter, I interpret this for the better and generally agree - sincerity is indeed often mistrusted by cynical people, which makes it more difficult to reach them with good faith arguments. If the former, it fuels the belief that nothing at all is as it seems and that apparent honesty might just be an elaborate attempt to mislead.
This approach can push a conspiratorial thinker deeper into distrust, making it harder for them to accept genuine explanations, data, or expertise, because they see sincerity as another layer of manipulation. It turns genuine interactions into possible traps, reinforcing the idea that only they (and their community of believers) can see “what’s really going on,” while the rest of the world falls for the double bluff.
Thanks for considering my thoughts! I hope to hear back and find some clarity on those points.
Thank you for raising those challenges. The following is the best clarification I can give at present. Let me know if I missed something or if you have further qualms.
Aphorism 1: Dogmatism is when the act of questioning the doctrine is itself a transgression against the doctrine.
I was planning to write a piece expanding on this point in the future. The following will have to suffice for now:
I got the seed of this idea from a documentary about a fundamentalist cult I watched years ago. My memory is hazy, but the relevant portion was an interview with one of the children. The child was asked whether he ever experienced any doubt about the beliefs with which he was being raised. “Oh, all the time,” he replied. (Note: My quotes aren’t exact. As I said—hazy memory). He then cited Romans 1:20:
'For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse.'
According to the child, this verse precludes the possibility of honest doubt with respect to the foundational tenets of his group’s teachings. Doubters are “without excuse.” Next, he cited Genesis 39:12, which has to do with fleeing temptation (one is to leave one’s garment in the hand of the adulteress, literally or figuratively, and flee without hesitation).
Then he put the two verses together. Since honest doubt of his group’s fundamental doctrines is not possible, then how can he account for the fact that doubts do, in fact, continually and automatically arise in his mind? Simple. What he is experiencing is not really doubt, but a form of temptation—specifically, the temptation to evade certain truths which are self-evident and beyond questioning. And what are we to do with temptation? We are to flee it. We are to recognize it as a danger to one’s soul, and reflexively remove ourselves from its evil influence. This child had been trained from a young age to suppress thinking by noticing the inception of a contrary idea and blanking it out of his consciousness before it can take shape.
I then began to notice this as part of a broader phenomenon. It seems there can be such a thing as a set of ideas which, once accepted, insulates itself from further examination. Another version I’ve seen goes something like this: “Due to your status as a beneficiary of an oppressive system, your attempts to pose questions that challenge our movement’s resistance are exploitative and self-serving.” So here again we see the act of questioning the doctrine is defined as immoral by the terms of the doctrine.
As far as conspiracy theorists, I’ve often thought there could be a similar type of circular delegitimization trap at play, but I haven’t yet pinned it down exactly. If conspiracy theorists stopped at merely questioning official narratives, I’d have to say I see some value in that. I must admit a lot of information I rely on is outsourced to experts and “authorities.” But they don’t stop at merely questioning. Conspiracy theorists will confidently make huge claims to very specific knowledge which they can’t justify. “Such-and-such photograph is a forgery.” “This incident was a false flag operation with paid crisis actors.” Etc.
For me, the point of this aphorism is to serve as a self-check. Have I accepted any form of idea which requires me to forego reappraising my own conclusions? Taken this way, it potentially cuts every direction—against those who would disallow questioning of mainstream information, and against those who blanketly disqualify “mainstream” criticism of their conspiracy theories.
Aphorism 3: Extremism is consistency, for good or bad.
This one is an attempt to unravel a counterproductive language game I see used a lot. Terms like “extremism” and “hate” are used as catchall denunciations in place of being specific about the content of objectionable ideas. For example, is the problem with white supremacy really that it’s just taken too far? Would we be Ok with a moderate amount of white supremacy? Or how about a mushy, non-hateful kind of white supremacy that just wants to preserve and celebrate white culture? And if we aren’t willing to tolerate any amount of it, doesn’t that make us the extremists? After all, we’re the ones taking an absolutist stand, unwilling to compromise or meet halfway. It should be clear that the problem lies in the content of the ideas. You said it strikes you as an empty statement. It is. The emptiness is the point. The point is that we can’t positively or negatively evaluate a position along some axis without being clear about what the axis measures.
Aphorism 5: Sincerity is a double bluff to cynics.
When I wrote this one I was thinking of the ‘battle of wits’ scene from the Princess Bride: the Wallace Shawn character feverishly calculating double, triple, and quadruple buffs ad infinitum in order to choose which glass isn’t poisoned. My intended meaning: If you adopt the cynics’ heuristic that people are generally acting on ulterior motives, you’re going to render yourself incapable of comprehending straightforward interactions. The result, comically, is that you end up less perceptive than an average person while fancying yourself to be more sophisticated.
Thank you for providing such a detailed response, I really appreciate it! This definitely clears up the ambiguity and confusion for me, and you've also really raised some new perspectives for me that I've never considered, particularly re the 3rd aphorism -- I look forward to your upcoming piece expanding on some of these. Also, I love how you've connected your 5th aphorism to that scene from the Princess Bride; it's definitely one of my favorite scenes in that movie, and I hadn't thought about how illustrative it is of that exact point.
Don’t forget the most important one.
Internet delenda est.
;)
Had to look this up and found:
"In science fiction, “internet delenda est” appears as the title of a short story by Poul Anderson, published in 1955. The story is part of his Time Patrol series, exploring the concept of a temporal police force that protects the timeline from alterations. In this context, the phrase serves as a metaphor for the destruction of a timeline or a reality, rather than the literal destruction of the internet."
Love it. I should read this.
Haha. For me it’s a riff off Cato’s “Carthage delenda est”, where he constantly called for Carthage’s destruction by Rome.
In any case, you get it. :)