Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Alien pyramid builders were mentioned in passing a few times, but we're missing out on some classics though:

I feel like in the same vein that someone saying "the world is ill prepared for a viral epidemic" isn't a conspiracy theory, fringe science/scholarship isn't necessarily a conspiracy theory either (until it starts accusing groups of vast secret keeping, then it's a conspiracy theory). Honestly I feel like the central hallmark of a conspiracy theory is the secret keeping aspect, the idea of 'hidden' groups with 'hidden' agendas and uncovering 'hidden' information reveals them. Fringe science is almost this whole other thing with its own set of characteristics, errors, and dangers. Outside of the medical field, it's generally harmless nonsense not something that actively ruins lives like some of the more extreme garbage conspiracy nuts engage in. I'd honestly put it a step up from conspiracy theories, because while fringe academics do employ fact twisting, unverifiable claims hinged on ignorance, and leaps of logic, it does (most of the time) restrain itself from taking the extra leaps of inventing evidence where it is lacking or assigning nefarious goals.

Ancient aliens thing is as nonsensical as anything a conspiracy theorist has put out, but at least it can be entertaining in its harmlessness. It's not pissing on the dead, causing collateral damage (usually) or taking advantage of human suffering for profit. Most of it is built on evidence that actually exists and just drawing nebulous conclusions about that evidence. A classic example is Gavin Menzies and his fringe idea that Chinese admiral Zheng He circumnavigated the globe between 1421 and 1434, discovering Europe and the Americas (with not a single written record to support such a monumental event anywhere to be seen). He brings up pieces of evidence that do exist, but he strings them together incoherently with leaps of logic and hand waves away the obvious questions suggesting his evidence doesn't say what he says it says. He never makes the leap to accusing anyone of nefarious goals, keeping secrets for some sinister intent, or alleging any sort of 'conspiracy.'

He's a gak scholar who doesn't realize he's a gak scholar. But he's harmless for the most part.

queen_annes_revenge wrote:What about the moom landing? surely that mustve come up in here? or is that just old cheese, put to bed?

I have a video I've been saving for this moment!

Conspiracy thinking comes from the parts of the human brain that are there to either save us time or to allow us to smooth over minor inconsistencies in perception. Without going too deep down the "perception/reality" rabbit hole, our understanding of reality is a mix of our own senses and the stuff our brain provides to fill in the rest. Have you ever wondered why you can so easily spot some minor change in your environment? It's because your subconscious handles all the visual information it gets, and mostly just says "work, home, commute... wait, something new!"

what does this have to do with conspiracies? Everything! Basically, our brains work really hard to fill in gaps, so that stories make sense. See, our brains know that between flaws in our perception, and our willingness to add information gained from others, basically everything we think we know probably has some level of inconsistency in it. What happens for some people is that their brains smoothing doesn't kick in for something, and they can't let it go. We've all done this, but for conspiracy theorists, it's about the "official story."

So, you've got people who are fixated on inconsistencies or patterns they see, and then decide that they mean something. Now, most of the time when two stories don't match, it's because somebody misspoke. And when two things happen the same way, it's a coincidence. Again, that's what most people think. Some people assume it' can't be. Or they "just ask questions."

Finally, add in the fact that we know that our world is manipulated by forces beyond the transparent ones. Like, we know deep down that oligarchs and industrialists and all form of powerful figures manipulate our governments. Of course, most people understand, at least hazily, the difference between influence and control. some people don't.

If you take a healthy brain, regardless of education or intelligence, and just tweak a few things, you end up with somebody primed to really seek out conspiracy theories.

 LordofHats wrote:



Ancient aliens thing is as nonsensical as anything a conspiracy theorist has put out, but at least it can be entertaining in its harmlessness. It's not pissing on the dead, causing collateral damage (usually) or taking advantage of human suffering for profit.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

And feth you for even indulging the idea 26 people didn't die....I wish that destruction was visited on everyone who engages in it because it's inhumanly disgusting. Report me to the mods for rule violation. Don't give a gak.

Yeah, I'm out. I think we could've had an interesting discussion, but I'm not interested in whatever this is.

Help me out with this:

At least for Sandy Hook, which your quote was talking about, it is not the lack of verifiability of the conspiracy theory which drives it, but rather the lack of verifiability of the the event itself.

How is that not verified? It occurred. Children and people died. They were alive. The police were there. The functioning school was there. Its a poster boy for verification.

nfe wrote:
It's fundamentally racist and pissing on the cultures really responsible.

This is oftentimes true though I don't think it's always so. Ancient alien stuff seem to me to come from other places. They're more casually racist than purposefully so imo. Many European sites are also typically attributed to aliens by them (Stonehenge, Roman roads, and the Parthenon have all be targets of ancient alien claims). I do think there's roots in racist notions though, particularly the notions of 'noble savages' who were close to nature and not technologically advanced and the innate 'mysticism' of the lands Europeans were going to in the Age of Discovery. We've simply inserted aliens in the place of magic. The ancient aliens concept I think has largely evolved past that in more recent decades to become a more equal opportunity offender.

Not sure if it's been mentioned, but how about the so-called 'Mandela effect'? I'm fascinated by the ego it must take to believe you may be from another dimension just because something is different than how you remember it.

 Frazzled wrote:
How is that not verified? It occurred. Children and people died. They were alive. The police were there. The functioning school was there. Its a poster boy for verification.

Somewhat counterintuitively, Frazz...that makes it a better and more powerful conspiracy to those who are predisposed to believe something like that. Because "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG" and "THE POWERFUL FORCES ALIGNED" and so on. It's a more dramatic narrative, and human beings always seek narratives.

Also lets not forget that a huge amount of information about the world around us comes purely from the TV reports. You have to put a lot of faith that what they report is actually true. If they wanted they could produce huge programs of lies about countries, places, continents and the average person would never be able to tell it apart from the real.


Of course I'd also argue that this viewpoint becomes more entrenched in those who travel a lot less. Who basically have a reduced chance of actually seeing and experiencing the world that they see through the TV. Wheras the more you travel, whilst you might well develop a wider awareness of situations than the media reports; you'd at least have a better potential to grasp the enormity of the world and also the reliability on what gets reported to us day by day.

 Laughing Man wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

 flamingkillamajig wrote:
Interesting conspiracies....hmmm. I'm pretty sure we've all heard of the conspiracy about hitler not committing suicide but ending up in a latin American colony for the rest of his life. I've heard people legit believe in that one.

While it is rather silly now, at the time it wasn't really all that crazy. Lots of Nazi big wigs did indeed flee to south america, those who weren't immediately rounded up for Nuremberg anyway. The Soviets were the ones who captured the area around the bunker and they weren't exactly open and forthright with information. It wasn't really inconceivable that Hitler could have faked his death and escaped. There were actually plans in place for him to escape, he simply chose not to use them and offed himself. Which is just enough fodder for people to maybe consider if he actually did.

So its a conspiracy theory now, but its rooted in the post-ww2 murkiness that shrouded the actual events that took place then. Information that never came to light till after the Soviet Union collapsed was the missing half of the equation.

True but there were far too many people wanting Hitler dead. I mean where would he have gone. One of the most notorious dudes of the time somehow manages to hide from the world in south America without someone finding out and getting a bounty on his head. Yeah I don't think so. He probably weighed the options and realized they were bleak and there was no point to continue. He was too well known to just hide so easily.

Not gonna lie though there were some post-war Nazis that took on a fake identity with some even hiding in the usa. I even think I knew a guy whose grandparents never shared their lineage and I saw his last name looked german or similar and I guessed his grandparents may have been Nazis. He said it's possible but he doesn't know. The guy in question was nice and I don't think he was mixed up in anything. Whether his grandparents did something or not it's clear it was never brought up again. At least it didn't make it's way down to the kids and grandkids far as I know.

"Hiding"? The US government literally gave them fake identities and jobs.

I mean, it's still hiding if the government helps you do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
This thread frustrates me, because I have a large collection of the cards from the excellent old Steve Jackson Illuminati card game, and I can't play with anyone because of covid.

the_scotsman wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:
This thread frustrates me, because I have a large collection of the cards from the excellent old Steve Jackson Illuminati card game, and I can't play with anyone because of covid.

I enjoyed the heck out of that game.....

If this thread has shown us anything, blame The Swiss!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
If this thread has shown us anything, blame The Swiss!

.

Guilty as charged, if the case is in preference Of coffee over uncivilised tea.

I do like a Toblerone though.

One of the things I've always found interesting is how there are some conspiracy theorist leaning folks who can/will use other actual events to prop up their gakky views.

For instance, some/many of you may have heard/read about the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. Basically, over the course of decades, many, predominately black African Americans in The South, particularly around the Tuskegee, Alabama area were intentionally infected with Syphilis. Further to this study, many who were intentionally infected (and many who unintentionally got it) went untreated for years because, reasons.


Now, I bring up that black mark in US history for a reason: its not to point out that the US government is capable of such an act. Nor that it was kept "secret" for so many years (truth is, it wasn't so much a secret as it was unpublished). . . however, I have seen many a conspiracy theorist latch on to misinterpreted portions of this whole episode as "proof" of some other, grander conspiracy

 gorgon wrote:
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but how about the so-called 'Mandela effect'? I'm fascinated by the ego it must take to believe you may be from another dimension just because something is different than how you remember it.

 Frazzled wrote:
How is that not verified? It occurred. Children and people died. They were alive. The police were there. The functioning school was there. Its a poster boy for verification.

Somewhat counterintuitively, Frazz...that makes it a better and more powerful conspiracy to those who are predisposed to believe something like that. Because "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG" and "THE POWERFUL FORCES ALIGNED" and so on. It's a more dramatic narrative, and human beings always seek narratives.

Indeed. It's verified by the media, who are clearly in on the conspiracy. The ravings of some random ex-cop with an agenda are clearly more trustworthy than multiple media organisations, law enforcement agencies, paramedics and local residents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I do like a Toblerone though.

Just as they intended...

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I do like a Toblerone though.

We call them panzersperre,or panzerzahn schoggi sometimes.

Meaning Tank trap, or tankteeth due to it's rather Hard nature for chochlate and form.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
Not sure if it's been mentioned, but how about the so-called 'Mandela effect'? I'm fascinated by the ego it must take to believe you may be from another dimension just because something is different than how you remember it.

 Frazzled wrote:
How is that not verified? It occurred. Children and people died. They were alive. The police were there. The functioning school was there. Its a poster boy for verification.

Somewhat counterintuitively, Frazz...that makes it a better and more powerful conspiracy to those who are predisposed to believe something like that. Because "EVERYTHING YOU KNOW IS WRONG" and "THE POWERFUL FORCES ALIGNED" and so on. It's a more dramatic narrative, and human beings always seek narratives.

Indeed. It's verified by the media, who are clearly in on the conspiracy. The ravings of some random ex-cop with an agenda are clearly more trustworthy than multiple media organisations, law enforcement agencies, paramedics and local residents.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I do like a Toblerone though.

Just as they intended...

The whole "Media in on it" is btw utter nonsense.
F.e. most Swiss Papiers are owned by one single entity yet the overarching entity does not influence the Papers itself due to the Papers having their own audience. Influencing them automatically Leads to lower abonments meaning losses,which means that the papers Run basically independently except for printing and distribution.


Jokingly also if you want unbiased Paper Info you just a leftleaning Tagesanzeiger and a more right leaning NZZ.(both high quality papers.) Or better , buy your local one instead .

One thing about me is I do tend to play "Devil's Advocate" a lot. I often express views that, while not too popular, are nevertheless valid or at least have valid elements to them.

Needless to say I am not always a popular person. I do get a lot of over what I do. (When i got death threats in the mail and someone tried to set fire to my property I stated taking measures to make it harder for people to track me down.)

So let me say something on the subject of conspiracies that may seem like i'm defending or advocating them, when in fact I'm just pointing out something most people may see but not wish to discuss despite the fact it's relevant and deserves mention.

In some cases conspiracy theories are strengthened by the way people react to the events behind them and in these cases the theories gain a lot of traction.

Let's look at the 911 CS that held the government knew about the attacks and either caused or allowed them for it's own reasons.

Well, the government used 911 to vastly expand its powers, especially with the 'patriot act" which we still have. It increased police powers with no knock warrants, FISA courts issues search warrants, the ability of the government to try people without presenting the evidence against them for national security, etc.

It was also used as a pretext to invade and conquer iraq which we all know the guy in the white house at the time wanted to do and was looking for an excuse to do since his first day in office.

Now, looking at how the government at the time reacted reacted to 911, it's obvious they capitalized on it and exploited it for their own ends to a vast degree.

When people react to a crisis in a way that sure looks like they wanted to exploit and capitalize on it, it's natural to start wondering if maybe they had something to do with it happening.

That's what happened with 911. Whether the government had something to do with it beforehand or not it certainly used it to do things that would have been unthinkable on 9-10. They practically became accessories after the fact to terrorizing america and using that fear to get what they wanted.

So, sometimes people who buy into CS are not stupid, insane, paranoid, etc. They simply look at a situation for a POV that while may be different from the majority's is not without merit. The administration at the time did absolutely use 911 to get what it wanted and exploited it shamelessly. It's not that unreasonable to wonder if they might have had something to do with it even if some of the 'evidence' p[resented doesn't stand up to scientific review.


Yes there are a lot of CS that are flying mammal excrement level insane, stupid, ignorant, etc. But some of them do have some merit or at least an understandable rational to them so let's not dismiss them all out of hand.

Not Online!!! wrote:
The whole "Media in on it" is btw utter nonsense.

Well, yes, of course it is. It comes back to the whole 'the more people are allegedly involved, the less likely it is to be true' thing. Particularly when it involves something horrible... the chances of someone not blowing the whistle become increasingly remote the more people are in on it.

The problem is that such a large chunk of the media has spent the last several decades showing themselves to not be entirely trustworthy through both sloppy and deliberately misleading reporting in order to sell headlines, leading to a general mistrust. When people are already looking at the news through a skeptical lens, some nut coming along and screaming 'The media are lying to you!' on a given subject is easier to believe.

 insaniak wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
The whole "Media in on it" is btw utter nonsense.

Well, yes, of course it is. It comes back to the whole 'the more people are allegedly involved, the less likely it is to be true' thing. Particularly when it involves something horrible... the chances of someone not blowing the whistle become increasingly remote the more people are in on it.

The problem is that such a large chunk of the media has spent the last several decades showing themselves to not be entirely trustworthy through both sloppy and deliberately misleading reporting in order to sell headlines, leading to a general mistrust. When people are already looking at the news through a skeptical lens, some nut coming along and screaming 'The media are lying to you!' on a given subject is easier to believe.

Fully agree that quite a lot of the papers have gone to the gutter never to be Seen again. (In regards to their nieveau) the Problem Here is though that that strategy just seems to not work to expand your reach which i assume has to do with the highly fractured and localized society which is also the point of the joke i Made.

It's not just those that go full gutter, though. Even supposedly reputable papers are guilty of exaggeration, or of getting details wrong. And it's only gotten worse as news reporting moved online, as the focus went from getting the paper out tomorrow morning or the news headline ready for this evenings' bulletin to being the first to get the news online. The emphasis is on speed and clicks, these days, instead of quality journalism.

And that the media cannot simply stick to telling you WHAT happened; everything has become a thinly disguised op-ed piece today. The line between journalism and opinion has been completely nuked.

Meanwhile, I miss a good old fashioned game of Steve Jackson's Illumnati...as long as you could get 4 or more players, it was usually a lot of fun.

The best one I have heard lately is the double-down on the "Covid19 is caused by 5g towers" is how to "solve" the pandemic the government is going to use nanotech RFID chips placed in the vaccines to track all the citizens. It's quite awesome in it's craziness.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
The best one I have heard lately is the double-down on the "Covid19 is caused by 5g towers" is how to "solve" the pandemic the government is going to use nanotech RFID chips placed in the vaccines to track all the citizens. It's quite awesome in it's craziness.

Dear god it's like a whole bunch of different conspiracy theories came together and decided to form a hive mind.

Ok, let's take a look at conspiracy theories and why people fall for them in scientific and evolutionary terms.

First we hop in the TARDIS, or step thru the time tunnel, or just fly close to the sun at warp 8, whichever time travel method you prefer.

We look at the origins of humanity, and our pre human hominid ancestors who had to survive in a sticks and stones era world.

Each has brains wired a little differently due to Genetic variance.

So you've got the little hominid the rest may call names like chicken charlie or jumpy jerry. He hears a rustle in the grass near him. He shrieks and jumps for his life. A couple seconds later a rabbit or possum comes out of the grass. (We're talking like 3-4' high grass here, fellas.)

His buddies laugh at him. He's alive, tho, he's still in the gene pool.

Now we have the guy they call fearless fodsick. (Look it up) He ain't afraid o' nuffin'! Everyone thinks he's so brave and tough. Grass rustles near him. He ignores it, probably just a rabbit.

A tiger jumps out of the grass and eats him. He's not in the genepool anymore. Chicken charlie is.

There are very sound reasons why being fearful, seeing danger where there is none, jumping at shadows,etc are positive survival traits especially in our pre-human hominid ancestors, and being positive survival traits they get reinforced in their DNA and are passed up the evolutionary ladder to what would later call itself the human race.

So, yeah, some people see dangerous things, like conspiracies, even where there's nothing there. It's an ancient survival trait that got hardcoded into our DNA thanks to evolution.

I know conspiracy nuts may be annoying, irritating, occasionally amusing and at times dangerous if organized and lead by a bad guy, but when you shine the clear light of science and reasoinl on them, you can see them for what they really are, just products of the same evolutionary process that created you and I.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I do like a Toblerone though.

We call them panzersperre,or panzerzahn schoggi sometimes.

Meaning Tank trap, or tankteeth due to it's rather Hard nature for chochlate and form.

Yeah! the best bit is when they cut the top of your mouth open when you try to eat a whole triangle. although I believe theyve started rounding the tops now?

 insaniak wrote:
It's not just those that go full gutter, though. Even supposedly reputable papers are guilty of exaggeration, or of getting details wrong. And it's only gotten worse as news reporting moved online, as the focus went from getting the paper out tomorrow morning or the news headline ready for this evenings' bulletin to being the first to get the news online. The emphasis is on speed and clicks, these days, instead of quality journalism.

Ahh sensationalism i guess you'd call that?

I honestly think it has more to do with the classic news makret slowly drying up whilest online news take over and the Clickbait title and circles are prefered by algorithms, which is incidentally something they can't influence, unless of course they go after their own plattform in many cases.

To put it bluntly, it's google skewing the playingfield into the gutter.

generally though i feel like wait and see aproaches aka patience are out of the mode. However i'd remind some that they maybee should look at the papers from 100 years ago and tell me that they weren't even more sensationalist.
Infact we had an unprecedented lowering of that behaviour in the 90- 2000s of the tone and sensation seeking atleast over here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 queen_annes_revenge wrote:
I do like a Toblerone though.

We call them panzersperre,or panzerzahn schoggi sometimes.

Meaning Tank trap, or tankteeth due to it's rather Hard nature for chochlate and form.

Yeah! the best bit is when they cut the top of your mouth open when you try to eat a whole triangle. although I believe theyve started rounding the tops now?

We could give a special customizable one just for you with a hint of razorwire in it

Na but Toblerone is the only "export" swiss choclate that actually tastes decentish.

 Matt Swain wrote:

Spoiler:

Ok, let's take a look at conspiracy theories and why people fall for them in scientific and evolutionary terms.

First we hop in the TARDIS, or step thru the time tunnel, or just fly close to the sun at warp 8, whichever time travel method you prefer.

We look at the origins of humanity, and our pre human hominid ancestors who had to survive in a sticks and stones era world.

Each has brains wired a little differently due to Genetic variance.

So you've got the little hominid the rest may call names like chicken charlie or jumpy jerry. He hears a rustle in the grass near him. He shrieks and jumps for his life. A couple seconds later a rabbit or possum comes out of the grass. (We're talking like 3-4' high grass here, fellas.)

His buddies laugh at him. He's alive, tho, he's still in the gene pool.

Now we have the guy they call fearless fodsick. (Look it up) He ain't afraid o' nuffin'! Everyone thinks he's so brave and tough. Grass rustles near him. He ignores it, probably just a rabbit.

A tiger jumps out of the grass and eats him. He's not in the genepool anymore. Chicken charlie is.

There are very sound reasons why being fearful, seeing danger where there is none, jumping at shadows,etc are positive survival traits especially in our pre-human hominid ancestors, and being positive survival traits they get reinforced in their DNA and are passed up the evolutionary ladder to what would later call itself the human race.

So, yeah, some people see dangerous things, like conspiracies, even where there's nothing there. It's an ancient survival trait that got hardcoded into our DNA thanks to evolution.

I know conspiracy nuts may be annoying, irritating, occasionally amusing and at times dangerous if organized and lead by a bad guy, but when you shine the clear light of science and reasoinl on them, you can see them for what they really are, just products of the same evolutionary process that created you and I.

See, I think that's giving your average conspiracy theorist far too much credit, not to mention being a gross oversimplification of how evolution works. Trying to paint this as some sort of evolutionary quirk ignores the much more likely possibility that most beliefs in conspiracy theories are rooted in narcissism. The idea you're special and different because you know something the sheeple don't seems to be at the heart of most conspiracy beliefs and I think it's a huge stretch to claim that's just an over-active survival instinct.

There was talk earlier about how the Lewinsky affair stands as testament that keeping secrets is really sodding hard to do.

It’s a valid point, and according to the BBC, the woman who exposed it by secretly recording conversations with Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp has passed away at 70 from pancreatic cancer.

Thoughts and wishes with her family at this time.

Her actions go to show just how implausible the claim that ‘the greater the scale, the greater the silence’ is.

I mean, whilst it was an abuse of position, it was ultimately between two consenting adults, so in terms of ‘how’s your father’ dodginess, it was relatively low key. Yet still, someone piped up and exposed the whole thing to the point a President was impeached.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Right, back a bit more on topic from my last post!

Known hoaxes, and how they inspire the Conspirasphere.

Here, let’s consider Piltdown Man. The village of Piltdown is a short drive from my front door. And it’s best known for being the finding place of Piltdown Man.

At the time, and for quite a while, it was touted as evidence of a missing link, as predicted by Evolutionary Theory. But come 1953, the fraud was exposed.

To those who have it in for evolution in general, it’s held up as ‘one fake, all fake’ evidence. Sure, it’s a welcome change to their wilful misinterpretation of what evolution actually predicts, and indeed works. But it’s still intellectually dishonest.

For instance, survival of the fittest isn’t an accurate statement. It’s not about physical strength, speed etc. Instead, it’s about how well adapted a creature is to its environment. So in an arid environment, efficient body heat and water use is beneficial. In the climes of Northern Europe, lighter skin was beneficial, as we can better absorb sunlight to synthesise vitamin D. But in far sunnier climes, it’s a significant drawback as it leaves us more prone to skin cancer.

The whole "the media is in on it" thing shows a complete lack of understanding of how the media works. I was trained as a journalist (not working in that field now) and I have to say journalists are easily the most cynical group of people I've ever met. They also love nothing more than getting one over their fellow reporters (often in a good-natured professional rivalry kind of way, but sometimes in a very personal kind of way too). More importantly, the pinnacle of any journalistic career would be revealing some sort of Watergate-style conspiracy. That's pretty much what every reporter dreams of and it's precisely because it doesn't matter whether you're a massively experienced Reuters reporter or a fresh-faced guy working a local beat there's always that chance you stumble on something that's so big it changes the way we think about the world.

Things like government false flag operations, the Earth actually being flat, 5G causing coronavirus and so on would, if true, be far too juicy a story for any journalist to sit on so the idea that the media are in on it just makes no sense. As is the idea that there's some sort of global censorship going on that prevents these things being published. All it takes is one organisation to step out of line and the whole thing comes crashing down. By my estimation it would take approximately 0.001 seconds for any editor to decide to do that rather than toe the global censorship line.

Yeah, the media is in on it assumes no journalist wants a Pulitzer. Like climate change is a hoax demands that no environmental scientist wants a Nobel.

Not to say that there aren't journalists and media outlets that are government/elite mouthpieces, or that there aren't scientists in the pay of interested parties, but everyone, all the time, for years/decades/centuries? Nah mate.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

For instance, survival of the fittest isn’t an accurate statement. It’s not about physical strength, speed etc. Instead, it’s about how well adapted a creature is to its environment. So in an arid environment, efficient body heat and water use is beneficial. In the climes of Northern Europe, lighter skin was beneficial, as we can better absorb sunlight to synthesise vitamin D. But in far sunnier climes, it’s a significant drawback as it leaves us more prone to skin cancer.

Survival of the Fittest often gets combined with "I'm an Alpha" arguments as well.
You've already noted that the first is based on a gross missunderstanding of the statment; the latter is based on science that was poorly produced on captive wolves which was later, by the same scientist, debunked. Sadly the whole Alpha thing struck a cord with a segment of the population who like to promote themsleves with it and defend their attitude and manners with it. In reality it was found not to be alpha,beta, gammer but more a case of one wolf rising to bully all the others whilst engaged within the original study. So all they are doing is defending their own bullying behaviour.