Mainstream conspiracy vs non-mainstream

Anyone else notice how anything infowars puts out isn’t even controversial these days?

Mainstream conspiracies

  • 9/11
  • GMO/Monsanto “food engineering”
  • anything wikileaks says regarding the Clinton’s
  • global warming is man-made
  • FEMA camps
  • flouride in water
  • area 51
  • shutting down the alternative news (i.e. the alt-right kool-aid)
  • secret societies
  • big brother is watching you (seems out of mainstream conspiracy realm these days & accepted by the majority)

Had Clinton won the electoral college as well, that would be a mainstream conspiracy.

“Fringe” mainstream

  • shape-shifting reptilian people
  • prophecies regarding Trump

What is NOT mainstream conspiracy & far more controversial.

  • wikileaks is actually ran by the government to drum up the tinfoil crowd
  • the popular/electoral vote split was by design, i.e. the elites are trolling everyone

Then you have the “shadow government” which could go either way.


Actually all of the items mentioned are controversial, but not as the OP is talking about. Many are actually controversial just in the sense that there are discussions on why there are a lot of dumb people that believe in them, and that is as far as serious sources of information go.

That one is particularly wrong as the conspiracy sources actually do usually report that the current global warming is not man-made, and they repeat the false conspiracy that scientists are changing the temperature data.

There’s another theory that Alex Jones himself is a CIA secret agent. Keep in mind, infowars is now strictly in the realm of alt-right “mainstream” conspiracy & nothing else.

Another big one…SUPER mainstream.

Soros is funding the protests.

Basically, anything sanctioned by the alt-right can be considered mainstream conspiracy.

Uh, no.

That they will try to make it mainstream can be happening, but just because the alt right is pushing it it does not make it mainstream automatically.

Let me rephrase, it’s not really that controversial to say that Soros is behind the protests.

QI Klaxon

It is controversial indeed. And likely false.

Describing any of these theories as “mainstream” and not “the pathetic ramblings of undereducated persons manipulated for someone’s agenda or amusement” is misleading.

Not very “original” at all.


Shut the fuck up, you fucking troll.

There’s no “empirical data” on this.

Social media seems to be a reshuffling at the moment of various “mainstream conspiracy” theories. No one seems to really get mad over it.

Dare you say the vote (popular/electoral split) was by design, then that is extremely controversial.

Given the massive disparity, it should be questioned.

The “massive disparity” is a piece of cake to explain. Clinton won by big margins in large, blue states such as New York and California, which contribute to her popular vote nationwide but make little difference in the Electoral College tally, since those states were always figured into her win column to begin with.

Trump won by small margins in key, crucial battleground states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania.

If “mainstream conspiracy theory” is defined as “moronic bullshit that’s endlessly recycled by dingbats”, then yeah, it’s “mainstream”.

It’d be mildly interesting if something genuinely new emerged*, but we only get variations on the same boring themes.

*for instance, all the fooferah about concussions in the NFL is an invention of the Soccer Overlords, so that pro football is killed off and we have to spend our weekends watching nil-nil ties, while snacking on jellied eels and spotted dick.


Why the ever living fuck would I pay enough attention to rate the originality of their gobbledygook?!?

The one with the picture of the buses on Canal Street in Chicago is particularly fucking stupid. Anybody who lives in the city and travels down that street just south of Roosevelt knows that there’s always buses lining the street there (as the Google Street View images provided there show.) I mean, how fucking stupid is this conspiracy? Do these dimwits really think people need to be bused in to protest Trump, especially in a large city like Chicago?

I’ve never been to this “infowars” place.
It sounds… squirrely. And not in the sense of your clever backyard-maze-running squirrels; I’m talking ADD short-bus squirrels, squirrels that succumb to squirrel cults and smoke squirrel-meth.

Idiots, basically, I’m drawing an analogy to human idiots.

No one in history has ever won the popular vote by so many votes while losing the electoral college by such a large margin. If you had asked every pundit out there, they would have told you this was impossible & only a “doomsday scenario” since it would further divide an already divided country.

It’s unprecedented.

Should be spelled “unpresidented” these days. lol

Your statement is wrong on several counts (I’m willing to grant “so many votes” in absolute terms, but as a percentage of the total vote, the 1824 election was much worse) and your joke goes back to at least 2000, when Time used “UNPRESIDENTED” on the cover of its November 27th issue, in light of the chaos following that year’s election.

I have not kept close tabs on the cover of Time magazine. From now on, I will.

Judging from the list in your OP, I’d venture what you do keep tabs on is collective fantasies.