|I had this clock as a kid, was amazing.|
The X would light up in the dark!
I'll state up front, I'm interested in understanding multiple viewpoints of the world, but I am certainly not what you'd describe as 'into' this kind of political and social movement in any significant way. I just follow the odd link or recommendation from friends.
I dislike using it as a catch all given it's nudged push into being a scare term, but I'll use the term 'conspiracy theories' for ease of writing. (I was called a Conspiracy Theorist once simply for stating I didn't believe Iraq had weapons of mass destruction!)
Have you ever visited sites of conspiracy theorists? They are invariably awful. David Icke's site looks like a slightly drunk designer sat down after watching 3 hours of the X-Files and went heavy on the green. In 1998.
They (I.e.: Most I have seen) look like the sites of people who are sat at home in their underwear trawling for data, they don't look like professional news sites, or even journalistic. The average person would see them and instantly be skeptical about the quality of content.
|Neo. You are our only hope.|
I dislike too the way that some try to goad people and insult them into a response. Telling people they are ignorant for not knowing a fact printed on a badly designed theorist website seen by 0.001% of the internet is hardly likely to create the next generation of informed political and social investigators. Don't tell people they are sheep, tell them about the amazing and juicy gossip and rumours they are missing out on. Don't criticize celebrity culture as being the proverbial antichrist, try and get the intelligent parts of it to get involved and help share the desire not to accept everything you see at face value.
The problem is that the vast majority of 'conspiracy theorists and sites' only ever do the job of talking to the converted. They attract those of a similar investigative mindset, but put off the ordinary people who might actually be interested in learning some new facts or alternate ideas on the world. I think being shunned by some sections of the public drives many to talk more and more to those who already share their ideals. But even when these ideas are wrong, it's still a good thing to promote reading between the lines and having a more informed society. Too many start only talking in theories, and mix those based on facts or named sources and move to the kind of ethereal, coincidence filled and spiritual concepts that the average person will never find attractive in a million years. Even if David Icke did a piece that was entirely true and full of well researched facts, most people would never believe it because of his insistence on also talking about wildly unusual theoretical ideas.
|David Icke with less green.|
If you aren't going to write like a journalist, then at least try and engage people and inspire them to find out more. As dodgy as the charity eventually sounded, look at pieces like the Invisible Children work from last year. It talked in an inspirational way, and in a matter of weeks took a little known issue and made it major news around the world.
We wouldn't stand for ads that talk the way most conspiracy sites do. Maybe if they start learning a few marketing lessons they might find a lot more people interested in what they have to say.