Topic: There is nothing worse than a conspiracy theorist

[Andy G]

That is what I have just been told. 

I was talking about a subject where there has been a massive cover up probably up to the highest level of government, where officials have lied under oath and can be proven to have done so, where vital evidence has been thrown out of the courts as 'irrelevant', where people have perverted the cause of justice and there has been a smear campaign to stop the truth coming out.

I say there is nothing more dangerous than someone who is not a conspiracy theorist, for they refuse to believe that their governments would do such a thing.  They are the reason that governments get away with it.  That is how we got to go to war in Iraq.  For all those non conspiracy theorists out there.  You have blood on your hands because you have let them get away with it.

[Finn Solomon]

Being a conspiracy theorist first requires that you to believe that the government possesses at least the slightest degree of competency and efficiency. As I don't, so I'm not.

[Dr Cornwallis]

Being a conspiracy theorist first requires that you to believe that the government possesses at least the slightest degree of competency and efficiency. As I don't, so I'm not.

Ah, the old "dumb down the goverment so that it looks like they aren't capable of conspiracy theories" conspiracy theory, that's as old as the hills.

[Uncle Ronnie]

You don't have to be a "conspiracy theorist" to question your own government. But if you were to question eveything that they do (or don't do) then you would drive yourself mad.

You believe 9/11 was set up?
You believe there's a New World Order?
Are you Jim Corr??

[Dr Cornwallis]

You believe 9/11 was set up?
You believe there's a New World Order?
Are you Jim Corr??


As long as there is white bread on the shelves of Tesco then most people don't care if any of those questions have an answer.
I will say this though, does George Bush Jr seem like the sort of man who is capable of brainstorming disinformation strategies with a World Order group?

[Finn Solomon]

Ah, but who's to say that Georgie's actually the one in charge of the government?

[Garstonite]

You believe there's a New World Order?

Yo bedda believe it sucka.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Ah, the old "dumb down the goverment so that it looks like they aren't capable of conspiracy theories" conspiracy theory, that's as old as the hills.

I will say this though, does George Bush Jr seem like the sort of man who is capable of brainstorming disinformation strategies with a World Order group?

And still relevant today, obviously

[Dr Cornwallis]

And still relevant today, obviously

 

This thread has been closed by the Home Office.

[Alan_X]

I agree with the title.

A conspiracy theorist isn't someone who is willing to question their government. It's someone who is so gullible they will believe any old shite if it's presented in the right way - usually with the most limited of evidence.

In fact the more limited and circumstantial the evidence the better. Vague flashes, puffs of smoke, odd shadows, cod science, snatches of conversation taken out of context and most importantly coincidence are the staple "evidence" for conspiracy theories. Whereas any scientific study by experts in their field or government and independent reports can be immediately dismissed or seen as proof of the depth of the conspiracy.

Humans naturally seek explanations. Conspiracy theories are about simplistic all-encompassing explanations of things like assassinations and disasters which go against natural justice. Something as devastating and horrific as 9/11 couldn't possibly be caused by 19 Arabs could it? It's too immense and requires an appropriately immense explanation. Conspiracy theories invariably start with a supposition or an explanation, then look for evidence to support it.

The reason they're so dangerous is that they base their world view on prejudice and a willingness to accept blatant propaganda without question.

 I know that governments lie to us sometimes, but they don't lie all the time.

[Andy G]

I agree with the title.

A conspiracy theorist isn't someone who is willing to question their government. It's someone who is so gullible they will believe any old shite if it's presented in the right way - usually with the most limited of evidence.

In fact the more limited and circumstantial the evidence the better. Vague flashes, puffs of smoke, odd shadows, cod science, snatches of conversation taken out of context and most importantly coincidence are the staple "evidence" for conspiracy theories. Whereas any scientific study by experts in their field or government and independent reports can be immediately dismissed or seen as proof of the depth of the conspiracy.

Humans naturally seek explanations. Conspiracy theories are about simplistic all-encompassing explanations of things like assassinations and disasters which go against natural justice. Something as devastating and horrific as 9/11 couldn't possibly be caused by 19 Arabs could it? It's too immense and requires an appropriately immense explanation. Conspiracy theories invariably start with a supposition or an explanation, then look for evidence to support it.

The reason they're so dangerous is that they base their world view on prejudice and a willingness to accept blatant propaganda without question.

 I know that governments lie to us sometimes, but they don't lie all the time.

I am no conspiracy theorist, but I have been accused of being one taday.  I not only question the authorities on the issue in hand, but have (access to) the evidence to prove the case.  The person with whom I was speaking just dismissed it all as conspiracy theory because he did not believe that our governments (plural) would be part of such a cover up.  I say that this man is much more dangerous than the conspiracy theorist.  This man is the reason that the Government gets away with things like going to war in Iraq.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Brilliant post Alan.

Let us not forget that the most successful conspiracy theory of the 20th Century led directly here:

[Andy G]

Brilliant post Alan.

Let us not forget that the most successful conspiracy theory of the 20th Century led directly here:

Not sure what you are saying here.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

I'm not to keen on posting a whole tract of 1930's anti-semitic propaganda here, so I'll try and jog you in the right direction with this joke:

Two Jewish men meet in the park. One is reading a Nazi newspaper. The other asks him why he, a Jew, is reading a Nazi newspaper. 
He replies, "In the Jewish paper, I read about how we are discriminated against, how we can't get into the country clubs, etc, etc. In the Nazi newspaper, we own all the banks, have all the money, and we run all the newspapers!"

[Alan_X]

I am no conspiracy theorist, but I have been accused of being one taday.  I not only question the authorities on the issue in hand, but have (access to) the evidence to prove the case.  The person with whom I was speaking just dismissed it all as conspiracy theory because he did not believe that our governments (plural) would be part of such a cover up.  I say that this man is much more dangerous than the conspiracy theorist.  This man is the reason that the Government gets away with things like going to war in Iraq.

If you have documentary evidence then I wouldn't classify you as a conspiracy theorist. The reasons for the Government going to war in Iraq were quite transparent. Anyone who could be arsed could see that the famous dossier was garbage and was that it prepared to support a (foolish in my opinion) decision by Tony Blair to back Bush unconditionally after 9/11.

I'd have to understand what you mean by "cover-up" to decide whether you fall into the conspiracy theory camp.

If the cover-up was the attempt to portray the famous dossier as fact then I'd agree with you. If you start straying into scientists being murdered by shadowy forces to prevent the "truth" coming out or theories that it was a pre-planned exercise by Bush & Blair for oil, or that 9/11 was carried out to give neo-cons, Bilderberg or the Illuminati an excuse to invade you are clearly siding with the inane, the insane and the barking mad.

[Andy G]

That's why I asked, I think the point is missed.  What I am saying is that people who blindly believe that their governments would not undertake such coverups as Nazi Germany and the one I was talking about (both of which have overwhelming evidence to prove the coverup happened) are much more dangerous than the conspiracy theorists that they say there is nothing worse than.  It was the propoganda that lead to the Holocaust, many who spoke about it at the time were accused of being conspiracy theorists because people did not believe that their government would do such things.  This is the whole point.  Alan disagreed with it in my understanding, saying that the title of the thread was correct, i.e. there is nothing worse than conspiracy theorists.

[Andy G]

If you have documentary evidence then I wouldn't classify you as a conspiracy theorist. The reasons for the Government going to war in Iraq were quite transparent. Anyone who could be arsed could see that the famous dossier was garbage and was that it prepared to support a (foolish in my opinion) decision by Tony Blair to back Bush unconditionally after 9/11.

I'd have to understand what you mean by "cover-up" to decide whether you fall into the conspiracy theory camp.

If the cover-up was the attempt to portray the famous dossier as fact then I'd agree with you. If you start straying into scientists being murdered by shadowy forces to prevent the "truth" coming out or theories that it was a pre-planned exercise by Bush & Blair for oil, or that 9/11 was carried out to give neo-cons, Bilderberg or the Illuminati an excuse to invade you are clearly siding with the inane, the insane and the barking mad.

The issue we were speaking about is not important to this matter.  There are provable facts involved and these have been tabled.  The government cover up involves the total and utter dismissal of these facts as unimportant, when in reality they are key to the whole case.  The person I was talking to accused me of conspiracy theory.  He is a dangerous person as he does not believe that his government (successive governments) would act like this.  He would deffo had believed that Hitler was correct (like most of us woudl hvae done probably), but in the current day and age, this is much more dangerous than making things up a la 9/11.

[Alan_X]

That's why I asked, I think the point is missed.  What I am saying is that people who blindly believe that their governments would not undertake such coverups as Nazi Germany and the one I was talking about (both of which have overwhelming evidence to prove the coverup happened) are much more dangerous than the conspiracy theorists that they say there is nothing worse than.  It was the propoganda that lead to the Holocaust, many who spoke about it at the time were accused of being conspiracy theorists because people did not believe that their government would do such things.  This is the whole point.  Alan disagreed with it in my understanding, saying that the title of the thread was correct, i.e. there is nothing worse than conspiracy theorists.

I think you've missed the point. Accepting that there has been a conspiracy is not the same as being a "conspiracy theorist" the first is based on evidence on a case-by-case basis, the second is a default position - "governments are evil"  or "the Jews control the world".

People who said that the Nazis were running concentration camps and creating a fascist totalitarian state were supported by stacks of real evidence including testimony, documentary evidence, physical proof etc. There was a conspiracy to eradicate Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, Homosexuals and other non-Aryans. You're re-writing history when you claim that propaganda made people believe that their government couldn't do something so horrific.

The reason propaganda worked in Nazi Germany wasn't because it covered up what was happening but because it allowed people to openly express their prejudices against Jews an others. It reinforced the idea that there are murky depths and things going on behind the scenes - in this case that there was a world wide Jewish conspiracy to control the world.

Krystallnacht wasn't a cover-up - it was about as overt as it could be.





Not much of a "cover-up" was it?... For those who don't read German the sign reads:

"Germans protect yourselves. Do not buy from Jews."

My point is that people who are willing to believe anything as long as it supports their own prejudices are dangerous. My position is question everything.

[Andy G]

Thread Title - There is nothing worse than a conspiracy theorist

My original post says it is more dangerous when people believe the propaganda adn think their government can do no wrong.  This is who I was talking to today and he said to me that there is nothing worse than a conspiracy theorist.  He is the more dangerous.

I agree with the title.

I think you've missed the point.

My point is that people who are willing to believe anything as long as it supports their own prejudices are dangerous. My position is question everything.

I think we actually agree with each other, but one or both of us has not put it very well.

[Veinticinco de Mayo]

Andy, I think you have my point the wrong way around.  I'm not talking about the latter stages of National Socialism, the Final Solution.  I am talking about the 1930's and the lead up to war.  The conspiracy theory actually promoted by National Socialist propagandists was that the Jews were responsible for all Germany's economic ills. That this was all part of some great Jewish conspiracy to undermine the German state. They were so spectacularly successful in disseminating this conspiracy theory that the government was able to pass all the Aryan and anti-semitic laws with the full knowledge and support of the people.

Perhaps you named the thread misleadingly.  A healthy cynicism of government motives is probably a good thing.  However, a susceptibility to conspiracy theories is not.

[Andy G]

Andy, I think you have my point the wrong way around.  I'm not talking about the latter stages of National Socialism, the Final Solution.  I am talking about the 1930's and the lead up to war.  The conspiracy theory actually promoted by National Socialist propagandists was that the Jews were responsible for all Germany's economic ills. That this was all part of some great Jewish conspiracy to undermine the German state. They were so spectacularly successful in disseminating this conspiracy theory that the government was able to pass all the Aryan and anti-semitic laws with the full knowledge and support of the people.

Perhaps you named the thread misleadingly.  A healthy cynicism of government motives is probably a good thing.  However, a susceptibility to conspiracy theories is not.

fair enough, I think we all agree but have misinterpreted others intent.  Really angry with that bloke today though, he has just blindly pidgeonwholed me as a conspiracy theorist just to suit his own beliefs when the facts were there in front of him.  Supposed to be an intelligent bloke too.

[Alan_X]

The issue we were speaking about is not important to this matter.  There are provable facts involved and these have been tabled.  The government cover up involves the total and utter dismissal of these facts as unimportant, when in reality they are key to the whole case.  The person I was talking to accused me of conspiracy theory.  He is a dangerous person as he does not believe that his government (successive governments) would act like this.  He would deffo had believed that Hitler was correct (like most of us woudl hvae done probably), but in the current day and age, this is much more dangerous than making things up a la 9/11.

I don't believe you can say that the issue isn't important. I'd also like to know what "provable facts" are. I've been involved in many discussions with people whose definition of "provable facts" is vague in the extreme. Are you talking about documents that aren't in the public domain? Documents that you have either held in your own hands or are sure of their provenance? Or are you quoting some source - internet or otherwise that you trust? Do these facts prove something new that hasn't been divulged in the media?

Why can't you say what this is all about. You could be either John Pilger or Alex Jones for all I know. I stand by my position that a conspiracy theorist, whether passive or active, is a dangerous thing, whereas someone who's prepared to go public with facts exposing dishonesty is not. Without knowing the issues how can anyone decide which you are.

You seem to be pushing classic "conspiracy theory" lines - "it happened before so it could happen again" and "governments have been dishonest before so they are probably dishonest in this case". That's not evidence of anything.

[adopted_scouser]

I think that this thread is a conspiracy, and all the posts in it, including this one, are infact code, that reveal the goverments plans for a repeat of 9/11.

[Alan_X]

Thread Title - There is nothing worse than a conspiracy theorist

My original post says it is more dangerous when people believe the propaganda adn think their government can do no wrong.  This is who I was talking to today and he said to me that there is nothing worse than a conspiracy theorist.  He is the more dangerous.

I think we actually agree with each other, but one or both of us has not put it very well.

As I'm the mod it must be you...   

I take your point but I'm not convinced you're right. To continue the example. Who were the more dangerous in Nazi Germany? Those who acted passively and did nothing because it was outside their comprehension that their government might be so evil, or those who accepted the conspiracy theories about Jewish world control and actively took part in Krystallnacht, the persecution of the Jews and in the worst cases participated in the Final Solution?

[Andy G]

I don't believe that the normally acknowledged definition of a conspiratist theorist is those that you described.  It normally involves a conspiracy by the government, and therefore the conspiracy theorists at the time were the ones that said that Germany were killing Jews.  The people you refer to were spreading propoganda.  That is where the difference between our two lines of thought.

Now me saying that you use your 'authority' as a mod to suit your arguement - now that would also be a conspiricy nes pas?

[BIGdavalad]

the conspiracy theorists at the time were the ones that said that Germany were killing Jews.

Surely it's not a conspiracy theory if it's true?

[Andy G]

Surely it's not a conspiracy theory if it's true?

Exactly, and what I was saying is also 100% true, but I was accused of being one.  That is my point.  People who just brush it off as conspiricy theories are the most dangerous.  That is the whole point of the thread.

[Alan_X]

Andy, it's clear you believe it's true (whatever it is) but without seeing the evidence how do we know?

There are 500 people who are members of the 9/11 Truth and Justice group who all believe there is incontrovertible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. The problem is that not one of them has any "evidence" of that claim that stands up to independent scientific scrutiny.

If your evidence is of the standard that would allow the media to publish it (multiple verifiable sources etc...) then fine - if it's Alex Jones quality then your friend would be perfectly within his rights to call you a CT nut.

[Andy G]

Andy, it's clear you believe it's true (whatever it is) but without seeing the evidence how do we know?

There are 500 people who are members of the 9/11 Truth and Justice group who all believe there is incontrovertible evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. The problem is that not one of them has any "evidence" of that claim that stands up to independent scientific scrutiny.

If your evidence is of the standard that would allow the media to publish it (multiple verifiable sources etc...) then fine - if it's Alex Jones quality then your friend would be perfectly within his rights to call you a CT nut.

Actually Alan, it was all about Anne Williams case, but that should not come into it.  We know that it is true and there has been a governmental cover up to the top level.  The evidence was there and he accused me of being a conspiricy theorist.  Now he is more dangerous than a conspiricy theorist himself in my opinion because he does not believe that our government would do such a thing, and that is the type of person that lets Blair go into Iraq.  As I said, blood on their hands.

[Degs]

Reptilians.

[lachesis]

The problem is simple - there are a few genuine conspiracy theories out there but they're lost in the massive blown out of proportion, trivial, unsubstantianted and quite frankly unbelievable claims of outlandish individuals.

Then you think maybe that's the biggest conpsiracy ever, to keep feeding these outlandish conspiracy theories so the real ones are lost amongst them.

For instance, do you believe there are people who have injected tracking devices hidden in their necks by strange alien beings who visit Earth, and if reported statistics are correct means approximately 10,000 americans are abducted every month? Or do you believe the original Gulf War was really about oil, as instead of pursuing and ridding the world of Saddam, we were happy to sit pretty in Kuwait instead?

Do you believe that Mugabe's winning re election was due to violence, threats and stifling of the original ballot results or do you believe that JFK was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald and the Mafia from two separate places at the exact same time on the exact same day?

It's all relative. I bet the Vietnamese and American recorded history of the Vietnam War differ somewhat slightly, which is the point the Jewish joke was trying to make I assume.

[kesey]

I honestly do not give a fuck what people think of what I think and I do not give fuck what other people think.

But can someone please explain how JFK's swede was completey blew aprt at the front , top left and went back and to the left....back and to the left from a gun shot from behind him.

All Physics Masters and Laymen please explain.


Ta .

[Uncle Ronnie]

I honestly do not give a fuck what people think of what I think and I do not give fuck what other people think.

But can someone please explain how JFK's swede was completey blew aprt at the front , top left and went back and to the left....back and to the left from a gun shot from behind him.

All Physics Masters and Laymen please explain.


Ta .

Back, and to the left

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcaq4ElAJrE

[kesey]

Back, and to the left

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gcaq4ElAJrE

 

Check out this Bill Hicks one . The back and to the left is about 2.44 mins in but its all worth a watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Fl9ZVJ7B8

[kesey]

Iam Iam still waiting for people to tell me how this happened from a bullet from the back.

29 seconds in.   ( I think this clip is on about the limo driver but Iam not ) But come on people who believe all the shite our Governments or to be more accurate what the Governments leaders tell them.

Explain this.     

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WCc_y5k0n8&feature=related

[BIGdavalad]

Iam Iam still waiting for people to tell me how this happened from a bullet from the back.

29 seconds in.   ( I think this clip is on about the limo driver but Iam not ) But come on people who believe all the shite our Governments or to be more accurate what the Governments leaders tell them.

Explain this.     

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WCc_y5k0n8&feature=related

Watch him do what?

That clip clearly shows JFK being hit from the left hand side too, by the way.

[kesey]

Watch him do what?

That clip clearly shows JFK being hit from the left hand side too, by the way.

But there was nobody on the grassy knoll .

Erm yea OK..

[Bronx Red]

I honestly do not give a fuck what people think of what I think and I do not give fuck what other people think.

But can someone please explain how JFK's swede was completey blew aprt at the front , top left and went back and to the left....back and to the left from a gun shot from behind him.

All Physics Masters and Laymen please explain.


Ta .

Ever watch the myth busters ? They proved it possible I think but either way it makes no difference he is dead 

[BIGdavalad]

In fact, having watched it a few times it could be hitting him from the right. The quality's too shit to be sure but the wound on the right side of the head seems to appear just before the pink mist - which must mean that it's the bullet striking the head rather than leaving the head.

[kesey]

In fact, having watched it a few times it could be hitting him from the right. The quality's too shit to be sure but the wound on the right side of the head seems to appear just before the pink mist - which must mean that it's the bullet striking the head rather than leaving the head.

It was you wasn't it.