Good long read about conspiracy theories

OutOfBreath · February 2008

Here is explored in full connections between religion and various grand conspiracy theories. I thought it a good read.

Part 1: http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa092299.htm

Part 2: http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa092299b.htm

Engage naive-flaming..... NOW!

Peace
Dan

ClimberInOz · February 2008

Nice read (albeit quickly because I am in a hurry).

I was interested to see the author mention randomness and indirectly chaos. I have often thought that chaos theory might apply to humanity in many different areas (politics, economies, communication and many more).

There would be a PHD in there somewhere.

OutOfBreath · February 2008

ClimberInOz wrote:

Nice read (albeit quickly because I am in a hurry).

I was interested to see the author mention randomness and indirectly chaos. I have often thought that chaos theory might apply to humanity in many different areas (politics, economies, communication and many more).

There would be a PHD in there somewhere.

Haven't there been done phDs on those areas? There should at least, I agree to that. Interesting notions at least.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath · February 2008

Shameless bump.

Feels it need to be up there for counterweight these days.

Peace
Dan

Drowned Out · February 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

Here is explored in full connections between religion and various grand conspiracy theories. I thought it a good read.

Part 1: http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa092299.htm

Part 2: http://atheism.about.com/library/weekly/aa092299b.htm

Engage naive-flaming..... NOW!

Peace
Dan

About.com is owned by Primedia, a publicly traded company with controlling interest held by KKR, whose founder Henry Kravis is a trustee for the CFR. That was too easy

LikeAnOpeningBandForTheSun · February 2008

7 degrees of cfr

Drowned Out · February 2008

MrSmith wrote:

7 degrees of cfr

more like one degree...a CFR director is the founder of the company that owns the website. (the 7th most visited site on the net = msm)...hardly an unbiased source for an op-ed on conspiracy theorists. Still, it was an interesting (tho at times misleading) read.

OutOfBreath · February 2008

Drowned Out wrote:

About.com is owned by Primedia, a publicly traded company with controlling interest held by KKR, whose founder Henry Kravis is a trustee for the CFR. That was too easy

Nothing like drawing the lines with guilt by association. Nicely done.

Peace
Dan

Drowned Out · February 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

Nothing like drawing the lines with guilt by association. Nicely done.

Peace
Dan

I can't even decide if I'm being serious or not

The line being drawn, basically goes like this.....a CFR director controls about.com
True or false?

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the article you posted would be of interest to a founder of the website's parent company....when the topic concerns shady dealings by another organization he directs. But hey, it's totally unfounded to think there could be an "international cabal seeking world SATANIC government"

OutOfBreath · February 2008

Drowned Out wrote:

I can't even decide if I'm being serious or not
The line being drawn, basically goes like this.....a CFR director controls about.com
True or false?

I wouldn't know. You made that assertion. Probably not unlikely that some rich and influential guy owns any and all media outputs over by you. Whether he controls it and micromanages what comes out everywhere I wouldn't be so certain about.

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that the article you posted would be of interest to a founder of the parent company....when the topic concerns shady dealings by another organization he directs.

This wasn't about shady dealings inside CFR, this piece was about conspiracy theories and the hows and whys of their unlikelyness, added the religion dimension. He seemed to have a slightly atheist agenda and perhaps ridicules a bit more than strictly called for. (But I guess to some that's the smoking gun right there)

But hey, it's totally unfounded to think there could be an "international cabal seeking world SATANIC government"

Yes, it is pretty unfounded and highly unlikely.

Peace
Dan

DriftingByTheStorm · February 2008

Bump for the CFR.

I may at some point venture past the first page of this article, but he lost me even before the summary of his first point at this line:

from the article wrote:

The order they see is not the organic sort which can arise piecemeal out of the nature of complex systems, as with the example of large cities. Instead, the order which exists is created by vast, shadowy forces seeking world domination.

This false statement attempts to deride "conspiracy theorists" for daring to believe that a relatively small group of men could exert and would want to exert relative control over "the world".

Beyond trying to insinuate that "complex systems" and the "organic" social structure could not somehow be subverted through the use of overwhelming financial manipulation (Federal Reserve), political control (CFR presidents) and systemic control (education system, media, corporate ownership) is not only silly itself ...

... but such talk also fails to acount for one very glaring truth: there are quotes and documents galore to show that such people have, do, and will continue to exist ... people who want as much control and power as humanly possible ... and that WILL act as "shadowy forces seeking world domination".

WE HAVE THE quoteS THAT PROVE IT
is basicaly what i'm trying to say.

CFR is EVERYWHERE and Rockefeller is CONFESSED.

They are just arrogant cocksuckers and they do half of it so blatantly that people are resigned. The other half is MOST DEFINATELY SHADOWY as shit.

Formation of the federal reserve act? Done under the cloakness of an escape from the city on a private traincar by night, with differen servants than usualy, hidden identities, made up stories, a private traincar that hitched and unhitched seperately after and before both departure and arrival (respectively) sweeping conspiratorial elitist participants to Rockefellers very own private island "clubhouse" resort where again, all the servants had been replaced so no one would know whom these elitist gentlemen were ... and if that isn't a fucking conspiracy, i don't know what the fuck is. Because thats about as cut and dry as they come in the real world.

Having EVERY presidential candidate be CFR is also a little bit damning, isn't it? I mean, come on.

And lest we not go back in time before Rockefeller to one other realy classy fuck, CECIL RHODES.

A man whose first 6 wills or so all contained a direct request to set up a SECRET SOCIETY ... even wikipedia couldn't white wash this shit:

straight from wikipedia wrote:

In his first will (before he had any real money), Rhodes wanted to create a secret society that would bring the whole world under British rule.

Oh, but by the time he died he realized the BEST way to get total control was to PRETEND to be charitable (even though the legality of his OTHER will still stood, i think), setting up "THE RHODES SCHOLARSHIP". ... ah yes ... I believe old Bill Clinton was one, too.

BUT DIG THIS.
I just listened to this today, so lucky you. It's our buddy Alex Jones talking (in the last hour) to Charlotte Iserbyt, author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. Now, i'm not gonna go into it, cause you should just listen, but the evidence on it is DAMNIG, and then check this ... our little Proto-NWO wanting Cecil Rhodes got THIS out of his scholarship:

The Rhodes fortune, through the Rhodes Scholarship Fund, has been used to promote the concept of globalism and one-world government. Up to 1953, out of 1,372 American Rhodes Scholars, 431 had positions in teaching and educational administration, 31 were college presidents, 113 had government positions, 70 held positions in the media, and 14 were executives in foundations. -source

And THOSE (pre 50's) were the GOOD times in education (at least in america) ... but after that they REALLY got control of the educational system.

Anyway ..

Yeah i give up.

Theres no conspiracies.

OutOfBreath · February 2008

Was wondering when you'd chip in.

Oh there are conspiracies abound. Just not knit together in a tight matrix by a satanic cabal of evil men.

It is not surprising that the CFR, that officially is supposed to be bi-partisan foreign policy think-tank of the US, actually have presidential candidates on visit for talks. It would be very strange if they didn't invite potential presidents, actually.

That Rockefeller quote that he is an internationalist, is not the same as confessing to the secret conspiracy.

And that various rich guys had ideas, schemes and wills that weren't actually wholesome still isn't near to evidence of the all-present super-conspiracy that is claimed.

What I have little respect for or belief in is the satanic super-conspiracy that somehow is behind everything bad in the world. And depending on the personal beliefs, they either replace Satan (for the atheists) or are agents of Satan (for the religious).

Peace
Dan

Abookamongstthemany · February 2008

There have been conspiracies in which the believers were ridiculed and thought to be crazy, that later turned out to be true.

Just because something is a conspiracy doesn't make it automatically false or true, for that matter. That's why I always say let's just talk about what we know and go from there. It seems here most don't even want to entertain a thorough discussion about these theories...they only want to dismiss them right from the start without really taking the time to look into what's being said and countering it. Like putting down info just because it came from youtube. Youtube like any other information medium has plenty of true and false material...so I don't understand dismissing material simply because it's a youtube clip. I just think the conspiracy theorists aren't treated fairly when these threads come up. Mostly they are shot down without the first attempt at a civil discussion and that's a shame.

Even the official 9/11 story is still just a theory based on speculation and circumstantial evidence.

OutOfBreath · February 2008

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

There have been conspiracies in which the believers were ridiculed and thought to be crazy, that later turned out to be true.

Just because something is a conspiracy doesn't make it automatically false or true, for that matter. That's why I always say let's just talk about what we know and go from there. It seems here most don't even want to entertain a thorough discussion about these theories...they only want to dismiss them right from the start without really taking the time to look into what's being said and countering it. Like putting down info just because it came from youtube. Youtube like any other information medium has plenty of true and false material...so I don't understand dismissing material simply because it's a youtube clip. I just think the conspiracy theorists aren't treated fairly when these threads come up. Mostly they are shot down without the first attempt at a civil discussion and that's a shame.

Even the official 9/11 story is still just a theory based on speculation and circumstantial evidence.

Well certainly. Conspiracies happen. I just tend to disregard the "total" brand which has the world all figured out and has evil men responsible for all ills. There are no random events, seems to be the motto.

And I dont know if you've been around often lately, but most threads tend to be hijacked by the conspiracy-crowd these days. It gets old, and the backing they have is often flimsy. Which is why they might get shot down quickly these days in here.

And I'm all for asking questions, but these folks have answers that they do the net equivalent of yelling in your ear, while being completely impervious to questions going against their answer.

That's what rubs me the wrong way about them, and that's some of what is adressed in the links i posted.

Peace
Dan

Drowned Out · February 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

I wouldn't know. You made that assertion. Probably not unlikely that some rich and influential guy owns any and all media outputs over by you. Whether he controls it and micromanages what comes out everywhere I wouldn't be so certain about.

This wasn't about shady dealings inside CFR, this piece was about conspiracy theories and the hows and whys of their unlikelyness, added the religion dimension. He seemed to have a slightly atheist agenda and perhaps ridicules a bit more than strictly called for. (But I guess to some that's the smoking gun right there)

Yes, it is pretty unfounded and highly unlikely.
Peace
Dan

An entire section of the second page was dedicated to the CFR.

Read the last sentence of each paragraph in that section of the article (whadaya call that again? the conclusive statement?)

It is beyond ridicule or bias....the more I read it the more I would liken it to posting a David Icke article about why conspiracy theories are valid. It reads like a total smear job. That's why I quoted the "satanic" line. Just throwing that word into that sentence totally changes the way an uniformed reader would perceive the topic.

For me, the fact that this is the journalism you find when you try to read up on the topic from a credible (to some) source is just feeding the fire. The vilification of people that question is disheartening.

I like to hear more than one side to a story, but it seems if the other side is outside of corporate (and in Canada moreso than the US, public) media, I'm classed as a nut job. There is a reason there is different news and opinions broadcast by people that don't have to answer to a board of directors, share holders, and advertisers, and those who do. It seems since 9/11, anyone that thinks for themselves is 'guilty by association' with the Icke - reptilian - types.

The whole notion of 'conspiracy theorists', and the image associated with them/us just drives me nuts. People pretending they know what's going on in the world, ridiculing other people for pretending to know what's going on in the world...on BOTH sides. ie: "It is a pity when simple open-mindedness is construed as a sinister attempt to promote a particular ideology no matter what the cost". (from the linked article...right after it calls the CFR 'an organization considering all options to promote peace' :rolleyes: )

edit: just saw your last post...you're generalizing based on your experiences with a couple people, that's part of what I'm talking about in this post.

DriftingByTheStorm · February 2008

Drowned Out wrote:

edit: just saw your last post...you're generalizing based on your experiences with a couple people, that's part of what I'm talking about in this post.

I like the self-defeating cycle where frustrated "conspiracy theorists" have to start yelling information while screaming "read this! its proof!" because the readers REFUSE to actualy digest information and would much rather focus on their opponents superficial faults ... like their writing style or personal disposition.

Then, in response to the CTers more forceful post, the reader comes back and starts talking about the "hard headed" nature of the CT poster, totaly ignoring or trivializing the content in favor of bringing up the faults in the presentation.

Thus the cycle begins anew with the CT proponent getting more agitated and incindiary trying to get the reader to focus on the actual content.

Case in point, as OutOfBreath how much of the information posted or linked he actualy seriously looks at.

I can only surmise that it must be a dismally small percentage.

And OOB or not, that is the general level of investigative work done by those that spew anti-CT vitrol.

The linked AJ Show audio clip in my above post is a PERFECT example.

Alex starts the broadcast begging his listeners to help him find some quote on "the family is a disease" that he read in an older college textbook for a social work curriculum course. He asks for this because some jackass on youtube made a video ranting about how Alex Jones is crazy, saying he promotes "Bush talks to Aliens, and sees UFOs" type theories and makes up things about social workers calling the family a disease.

The video is total uneducated hackjob slander, and Alex ceremoniously proves the guy a fucking ass by acutaly getting the source on the exact quote the guy said he made up.

Bottom line, it gets realy tiresome when people who understand even less about the workings of the things they claim don't exist start harping at people and making them feel "crazy" for believing in things which they have researched and have come to the very real conclusion DO in fact exist.

No one will ever fucking rule the world in some sick satanic wetdream ... but the reality of this universe can actualy come quite close to that more speilberg-ian nightmare. A dozen or more extremely rich and influential men can set push policies, fund institutions, and manipulate global monitary and political structure to eventualy create something nearly as bad as a true statanic-hitler-esque conspiratorial evil reptile demon bloodsucker tyrant.

Owning the government (okay, at least renting the whitehouse), the money supply, much of the land, most of the major industry, all of the media and setting the policy for most of the federal government, the educational system, the financial system SURELY constitutes some form of conspiratorial power, right?

I mean, come ON!

OutOfBreath · February 2008

Drowned Out wrote:

An entire section of the second page was dedicated to the CFR.

Read the last sentence of each paragraph in that section of the article (whadaya call that again? the conclusive statement?)

And that's not the interesting part about the article the way I see it-

It is beyond ridicule or bias....the more I read it the more I would liken it to posting a David Icke article about why conspiracy theories are valid. It reads like a total smear job. That's why I quoted the "satanic" line. Just throwing that word into that sentence totally changes the way an uniformed reader would perceive the topic.

That is also to indicate the line of reasoning those advocating the total conspiracy view seems to be following.

For me, the fact that this is the journalism you find when you try to read up on the topic from a credible (to some) source is just feeding the fire. The vilification of people that question is disheartening.

People that question, fine. People with answers derived from just as questionable sources, not fine.

I like to hear more than one side to a story, but it seems if the other side is outside of corporate (and in Canada moreso than the US, public) media, I'm classed as a nut job. There is a reason there is different news and opinions broadcast by people that don't have to answer to a board of directors, share holders, and advertisers, and those who do. It seems since 9/11, anyone that thinks for themselves is 'guilty by association' with the Icke - reptilian - types.

And that's not right, and that's not my point, or the way I read it, even the original article's point. Questions are all good.

The whole notion of 'conspiracy theorists', and the image associated with them/us just drives me nuts. People pretending they know what's going on in the world, ridiculing other people for pretending to know what's going on in the world...on BOTH sides. ie: "It is a pity when simple open-mindedness is construed as a sinister attempt to promote a particular ideology no matter what the cost". (from the linked article...right after it calls the CFR 'an organization considering all options to promote peace' :rolleyes: )

Again, I am not slagging questioning nor that conspiracies happen. It's the GRAND all-encompassing conspiracy with the heavy right-wing slant I'm having a hard time stomaching.

edit: just saw your last post...you're generalizing based on your experiences with a couple people, that's part of what I'm talking about in this post.

They triggered it, yes. But my problem is with all those grand conspiracy folks. Not with people claiming corruption and conspiracies happen, because they do. The worldwide unanimous and almost allknowing organization orchestrating the whole thing is what's ridiculous and highly unlikely. Or to put it another way, bad shit happens, but it's when it's all tied together to a single source and added a good slice of obvious agenda they lose me.

But it may well be that what you're talking about is not this crowd but those that generally question.

I still dont need much more than the basic concept of class struggle, knowledge of how networks operate among people, and a basic understanding of institutions to explain a lot of what one sees. This can all happen without an evil organization behind it drawing strings. That's all I'm saying.

Peace
Dan

DriftingByTheStorm · February 2008

OutOfBreath wrote:

This can all happen without an evil organization behind it drawing strings. That's all I'm saying.

It CAN, yes.
But it DOES NOT.

What part of the history of the CFR, Trilateral, United Nations, Federal Reserve, Bilderberg etc etc etc etc etc do you not understand to be conducted, run, funded, orchestrated, and implemented by the SAME small group of likeminded GLOBALIST filth pedlers?

You have admitted quotes from people like Rockefeller saying they ARE guilty of subverting the best interests of the Unites States in favor of the furtherance of plans for a more "global" government, and privately thanking certain media institutions for respecting the privacy of the CFR in its quest to achieve world government.

That is pretty fucking straight forward.
And history seems to back it up.
Like i said in my above post,
i highly doubt you have truly looked in to much of any of it. If you had, you would see it is glaringly obvious.

If you can't, maybe you need to read "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" and try to figure out why you CAN'T understand it -- because, Norway or not, the globalists have the same model for EVERY educational system ... hell, they got it from Prussia to begin with.

OutOfBreath · February 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

I like the self-defeating cycle where frustrated "conspiracy theorists" have to start yelling information while screaming "read this! its proof!" because the readers REFUSE to actualy digest information and would much rather focus on their opponents superficial faults ... like their writing style or personal disposition.

Real information NOT from totally obvious biased sources with agendas would be welcome.

Case in point, as OutOfBreath how much of the information posted or linked he actualy seriously looks at.

Actually, I read through most of what is posted here. Youtube clips I tend to skip, as they are too time-consuming. I did however watch the AJ clip you posted not long ago, and I did respond. And you were hard pressed to back with fact the slant it was given by AJ. I also researched on AJ to find out who he was (and that he is not the same as the pulitzer winner) and what his game was.

No one will ever fucking rule the world in some sick satanic wetdream ... but the reality of this universe can actualy come quite close to that more speilberg-ian nightmare. A dozen or more extremely rich and influential men can set push policies, fund institutions, and manipulate global monitary and political structure to eventualy create something nearly as bad as a true statanic-hitler-esque conspiratorial evil reptile demon bloodsucker tyrant.

Owning the government (okay, at least renting the whitehouse), the money supply, much of the land, most of the major industry, all of the media and setting the policy for most of the federal government, the educational system, the financial system SURELY constitutes some form of conspiratorial power, right?

I mean, come ON!

Power can and are certainly abused. And of course theoretically it CAN happen. It's likeliness however is significantly smaller. And people like for instance AJ do themselves no favours by tying into it everything bad they can think of. All social and political trends and realities are likewise not the sole result of this little unit of men.

Money rules, that is capitalism in a nutshell. The big capitalists do have too much power, I agree to that. It is some ways from that to global police state, which I dont even see the point in for the elite either. They get what they want now, why would they create a police regime that would only instigate resentment and eventual revolt by the citizens? The current relatively free system of democracy, commodification and consumerism works to their advantage as it is. They dont need a super-secret conspiracy. The class struggle of the world is blatantly out in the open. So if you want to change something, it's there for you.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath · February 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

It CAN, yes.
But it DOES NOT.

What part of the history of the CFR, Trilateral, United Nations, Federal Reserve, Bilderberg etc etc etc etc etc do you not understand to be conducted, run, funded, orchestrated, and implemented by the SAME small group of likeminded GLOBALIST filth pedlers?

You have admitted quotes from people like Rockefeller saying they ARE guilty of subverting the best interests of the Unites States in favor of the furtherance of plans for a more "global" government, and privately thanking certain media institutions for respecting the privacy of the CFR in its quest to achieve world government.

That is pretty fucking straight forward.
And history seems to back it up.
Like i said in my above post,
i highly doubt you have truly looked in to much of any of it. If you had, you would see it is glaringly obvious.

If you can't, maybe you need to read "The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America" and try to figure out why you CAN'T understand it -- because, Norway or not, the globalists have the same model for EVERY educational system ... hell, they got it from Prussia to begin with.

Breathe dude.

That capitalists support internationalist ideas is no surprise or secret. Arguably that makes them against US interests, but traditionally, internationalist ideas for trade and whatnot have favoured the US and it's elite.

Lists of influential, rich and powerful people being involved in the same international institutions or meetings does not equal conspiring. Btw, look how well the UN manages to do anything with all that elite gathered in one place.

I see what you see, I dont give it the interpretation and spin that you do. That's the difference.

Peace
Dan

michaelcassio · February 2008

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Case in point, as OutOfBreath how much of the information posted or linked he actualy seriously looks at.

I can only surmise that it must be a dismally small percentage.

You accuse OutOfBreath of not looking at information posted or linked. However, in one of your previous posts (#11) you stated in response to OutOfBreath's previously posted article:

"I may at some point venture past the first page of this article, but he lost me even before the summary of his first point..."

So are you not reading everything posted either? I respect your right to argue your opinion, but don't point the finger at other people when you're guilty of the same thing. This would be hyprocritical.

Good long read about conspiracy theories

Comments

Categories