Marley23
Sorry that My conspiracy joke led to this and I’ll drop it now. ( I hope this post won’t lead to a warning ).
FinnAgain
I’ve been lurking here over five years ( nearly 10? ). I have nothing against You and at first I thought that You are a Finn, which made Me to focus on Your posts more than others. Usually they are perfectly fine and, yes, I shouldn’t said meltdown, but I thought that thread was out of Your character so it just stuck to My mind. I think You’ve became more serious as years have gone by ( maybe I’m wrong ) and pretty touchy on subjects like this.
So like I’ve said I believe it’s a coincidence. I didn’t expect it would’ve been taken as a serious accusation 'cause Your username doesn’t offend Me a bit and I could have taken that Myself. So sorry for My stupid joke and I hope We’re Ok.
Steken
I still don’t understand why they are not the same thing ( at all ), but never mind, We don’t want any warnings here.
Derleth
Yes, You are right, I used ‘they’ ( ‘de’ ) instead of ‘it’ ( ‘den’ ), but ‘är’ translates both ‘is’ and ‘are’. One mistake, not two. Somewhat on the subject: It seems that people here in Finland have overemphasized the prevalence and longevity of that real saying in Sweden, so in a way I have been a sucker for a conspiracy theory Myself ( maybe the Swedes love Us after all, alas, they’re not anymore afraid ). It is just so sweet to believe that they are thinking Us as big and manly ruffians and now I’m actually a little disappointed. I hope that Russians still remember the Winter War, Our national self-esteem depends on that more than You could ever understand. As a small nation between two bigger ones We need to believe it. We are important and terrifying, they have to take Us into their calculations, damn it!
black aspirin
I think You ( and SenorBeef ) are into something. It seems to be addictive, maybe it releases some chemicals in the brains like sports or other things that put You on the edge. And one has to get it more and more, no matter what it is as long as it makes that rush. It would make an interesting study to see what happens in the brains of a conspiracy theorist while he is getting some material ( supportive or otherwise ).
But unfortunately no-one is going to find a conspiracy theorist that lets a scientist scan his head.
The August 2012 issue of Scientific American had this interesting article on the topic. Good article; however, I was disappointed that there was no mention of my favorite theory (heh heh) on the subject: CTs are just racism.
I think this actually very insightful. My friend frequently says that he wishes he could “unlearn” what he knows, that he could flick a switch and turn off his CT thinking (my phrase, not his). He knows that, on many levels, his obsession has ruined his life.
When I suggest that there are a variety of methods he could use to redirect his thinking, I can see him panic. His CT activities are his drug of choice and he really, really doesn’t want to give it up. Like the drunk who says in the morning that he’ll stop and picks up a quart of gin on his way home that night.
A mammal that lays eggs is not exactly plausible, either. Yet it exists.
I don’t consider myself a CT, but I lean towards some conspiracy claims. Why? Precisely BECAUSE I know so much about science.
Stop and think–and I mean really think. A great deal of modern physics would be dismissed out of hand by any rational person if it weren’t so thoroughly proven. Why? Because it’s strange, it’s weird, and it flies in the face of all common sense and day-to-day experience.
Western scientists scoffed at the claims of “unreliable” natives who told stories of large apes, platypuses, etc–until the day that those animals were “discovered.”
When dealing with this sort of thing, my motto is Haldane’s famous quote–“My own suspicion is that the Universe is not only queerer than we suppose, but queerer than we can suppose.”
If settled science can be so strange and wild, what else might be strange and wild, yet true?
And, in fact, rather some time after they were discovered! The first reports were dismissed as moonshinery, and the first actual physical samples were viewed with grave suspicion, as highly likely to be fakes.
All very well and good, true and valid.
But… C’mon. Chemtrails? Birthers and Truthers? The Apollo landing was a hoax? Let’s have a few standards of evidence!
The next weird thing in science will be odd, abstruse, outré…but it will have some real physical evidence backing it up. And, yes, the establishment will resist it for about a decade, and then come around and accept it, eventually with some real enthusiasm. Shame on science for being perhaps a little too conservative, but that’s the nature of the “null hypothesis.” It’s always the default, and requires significant evidence to be discarded.
I think Truthers also enjoy a sense of self/group pity from being the only ones who truly understand the “real” horrors of 9-11. The more they’re persecuted for “just asking questions”, the tighter they bind together against the masses who refuse to see the light.
One of the most disgusting behaviors to me is when they argue that they’re only carrying on for the victims of 9-11, implying that those who disagree with them don’t care as much for them as Truthers do, even if their opponents lost friends or family in the attacks. Penn and Teller’s “B.S.!” episode on CTs has footage of such an argument at ground zero. It’s painful to watch the Truthers basically spit in the face of those who lost loved ones in the attacks. The only explanation for such obnoxious behavior must be based more on emotion than intellect, and I think that viewing themselves as an oppressed minority explains a lot. I don’t know where i heard it but the phrase “victims by proxy” has stuck with me as a pretty accurate description of many Truthers.
They remind me a lot of the street corner evangelists I often see here in Florida. I doubt they expect to make any lasting impact yelling at young people entering a nightclub. Instead, I think they’re mostly there to prove to themselves and their peers how committed to the cause they are. Inviting more abuse by being outrageous is all the better. Confrontation, not conversion, is the purpose for their activities.
The word belief is what pretty much makes conspiracy theorists and those who think CTers are paranoid pretty much the same. Its like a religious debate, who believes what, and what belief is better. A belief is just an idea. There’s no evidence either way.
One believes that things are not what they seem and one believes that things are exactly as they seem. It all hinges on the word belief. Who actually KNOWs something is a different matter. Like one watching atheists and the religious arguing over their beliefs about God. one does not believe and the other does but neither provides evidence.
Then there’s a word called evidence. Does a CTer have evidence that something peculiar is going on? Even circumstantial evidence. Then maybe its worth a listen. If a non-CTer has evidence other wise, hey same thing. If its just based on belief then we go back to what is essentially a quarrel over belief systems. Zealots fighting over secular matters.
I remember the Iran Contra conspiracy. Then suddenly there was a trial and it wasn’t so much of a conspiracy anymore.
Of course the government lies to us, otherwise how would our lame and useless political leaders get into office. Unless we are all just collectively dumb and prone to believe lies. That would be all of us not just CTers.
9/11: Whom would I trust as a credible source of information concerning the meltdown of thousands of steel beams. An metallurgist, perhaps? A demolition expert. Both are sciences. Or Dick Cheney who can’t seem to be trusted with simple firearms. Two are involved are actual scientist and the other is a politician–who is prone to telling a fib or two.
That does not mean I have to believe the metallurgist or the demolition expert. It simply means they are a more credible source.
A good rule of thumb about conspiracy’s-follow the money trail. If someone can profit greatly from hiding an event or manufacturing one, that is a good determining factor. It also blurs the lines between Conspiracy Theorists and non- Conspiracy Theorists.
This is very true, its very nearly like assuming a new religion, someone who is psychologically programming themselves because they get something out of it. Like victims get attention.
I found people who claim to be habitually abducted by ET’s to be interesting. Then I realized while some had credible stories to relate, evidence even, a great deal of them were in victim mode and were getting a lot of attention and sympathy they otherwise would not be able to generate.
WE do get addicted to our thoughts, to the point of self destruction.
There’s a pattern among people who believe predicted dates. The world will end, a ufo will land. Others filling their heads with their own wishful thinking. Then when the dates pass without incident, they re-set a new date, the new date is accepted, and things carry on till the new date fails to provide the expected event. I’ve observed this happening over and over and over again. Trust me I am the one who is de-cried as hateful and paranoid for pointing out the obvious.
Your friend has it much better than those who are blind auto robot mode, they at least have the desire to break a destructive pattern. Those in robot victim mode do not because they are getting something out of it.
Whether CTers, political extremists on either side (or sometimes those who think they’re middle of the road but are merely politically mundane, if not ignorant, also on either side), I keep finding a common thread: Ignorance.
Not stupidity. Just ignorance. Lacking in facts, understanding, or both.
Find someone over the age of seventy who lived through the Kennedy assassination as an adult and the original theories about a conspiracy to kill him don’t seem quite as absurd.
We didn’t have the scientific data at the time to examine what happened so closely. We didn’t hear the shots until years later. We didn’t see all of the film until much later too. The idea of “the magic bullet” wasn’t disproven originally. There is little left to wonder about now, but even Robert Kennedy believed that his brother was murdered by someone powerful. The early demise of Jack Ruby before he could be tried for Oswald’s death was also suspicious. Even the Congressional investigation was reopened.
So the idea of a lone gunman seemed questionable at the time to even reasonable people. They just didn’t have all of the information.
Many people believed that Nixon could not possibly be involved in Watergate. But that theory of a conspiracy held by others turned out to be golden.
I thought very early that there was a conspiracy to get us into the war in Iraq. The fact that Nixon was such a liar and a corrupt man left us a little more open to the possibility that we were being had by Bush, Cheney & Co.
Most things that I see listed by “Truthers” as things that are conspiratorial I just don’t buy into. I do know that there are many things that are kept from us. My first cousin was in Naval Intelligence. He never told me anything concrete, but he did speak in metaphors sometimes about events that had happened. We knew not to question further or to repeat anything. And he never crossed the line enough for us to have much idea of what he was talking about.
Good skeptics keep open minds, but not after all the of evidence points to one answer.
BTW, my dad used to laugh at people who could not accept that there really was a landing on the moon, yet they could take for granted the “miracle” of television viewing in general.
While you and others poke fun at folks herein called “CT’s” I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to what I consider the foundation for all “conspiracy theories”. If we consider JFK’s carefully chosen words in his April 27, 1961 speech at the Waldorf/Astoria, NY; one can easily assign suspicion toward any media talking point, or “conventional wisdom”.
The same “conventional wisdom” defines this speech as Kennedy’s rant against communism. Communism, which I would like to point out, historically has been established using armies killing in broad daylight.
Therefore even the host for this place here on the internet could well be one of the many components conscripted by the “monolithic ruthless conspiracy” opposing our free nation state around the world.
I’ll do more than reference that speech, I’ll cut and paste a transcript of it right here for everyone to review:
**“The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.”
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.
Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”
“No President should fear public scrutinity of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.
I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers– I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.
Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed– and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First (emphasized) Amendment– the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution– not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants”–but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.
This means greater coverage and analysis of international news– for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security…
“And so it is to the printing press–to the recorder of mans deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news– that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.”**
end quote.
I would like to assign credit to JFK having “inside knowledge”, that the “conspiracy” is not a “theory” at all, but rather exactly as he described it.
My research into why he chose the word “monolithic” has me conclude a warmongering purpose for the House of Rothschild to purchase Reuters back in the 1800’s. That particular warmongering clan had outlasted generations up to that point, and has basically disappeared and dropped off the world stage ever since.
Just so everyone knows, I made my own webpage collecting all the CT stuff I found interesting.
I have never seen a ghost or a UFO so those topics do not interest me.
But 9/11/2001 is interesting so I embedded videos and quoted text for that venue as with all the other material I personally found interesting.
Yep-it’s perfectly clear that his speech was about a conspiracy by “The House Of Rothschild”(love their candies, btw) to purchase a news organization way back in the 1800’s, because that was all he ever talked about in his speeches. You could barely get through a Kennedy press conference without him bringing up the Rothschilds and the state of the free press back in the 1800’s.
I think pretty much everyone already assumed something along those lines.
Lemme tell you what I’ve never seen: a more tortured leap in logic than claiming that that speech (which was pretty evidently referring to communism, as seen by the west), referred to any specific secret society or a secret society in general. I mean, for fuck’s sake, the speech starts out bemoaning that Marx went the way he did, and continues to talk about soviet diplomats misunderstanding the role of the press in the US. Seriously, take a look! Did you ever read the speech in full? You didn’t even have the common decency to make it clear that you were citing excerpts. “I’ll cut and paste a transcript of it right here for everyone to review” is an egregious mistake on your part; what you posted is a series of excerpts, not a transcript.
The idea that communism acted largely out in the open is a cute attempt at an excuse, but do you have a single solitary clue about the intelligence communities in the US and the USSR? I mean, I’m no scholar, but even I know that there was a hell of a lot of cloak-and-dagger going on, and that information coming from behind the iron curtain was controlled very strictly by the Soviet government. Which makes perfect sense when you interpret the speech like that. What doesn’t make sense is a president talking about a secret society (which, for the record, has never been shown to exist in the first place) in the middle of a speech cued off against communism and highlighting the difference between secrecy in the west and the east, and appealing to the press to take a more refined, warlike take on reporting due to the cold war!
Let’s fill in one of your “excerpts”, shall we?
You:
The speech, full paragraph:
Unless this “secret society” is the size of a country and therefore actually comparable to a democracy, this makes no sense. It does, however, make perfect sense in the context of the Cold War. Which it references directly.
Look pal, I don’t know how this happened. The lack of research that has to go into a post like this… I honestly don’t know. Did you just read the abridged speech from a CT website and then never check the source? Never listen to the original speech (audio recordings are all over the place, dude)? If so, that’s incredibly irresponsible of you. I can think of one other explanation, but I’d rather not explore that. So… Here’s the question. Will you admit that what you posted was a truncated series of excerpts which should have been more clearly denoted as such, and that the speech, in context, both of itself and of the history surrounding it, does not support your hypothesis? After all, as Kennedy said: “An error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.”
I’m going to put the disclaimer printed in the link you provided in your source of disinformation from the Miller Center in Virginia:
“President Kennedy speaks at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York City before the American Newspaper Publishers Association. Kennedy asks the press for their cooperation in fighting Communism by applying the same standards for publishing sensitive materials in the current Cold War that they would apply in an officially declared war.
This transcript contains the published text of the speech, not the actual words spoken. There may be some differences between the transcript and the audio/video content.”
end quote
You can rewrite history and believe in those who are helping to rewrite it if you so wish. I’ve seen quite a lot of it, like the efforts to dismiss Andrew Jackson who finally killed this bank in 1833.
The transcript I provided was verbatim as he spoke his carefully chosen words, and there are no differences in the audio content, unlike your establishment source.
My “tortured leap” in logic has us all being lied to for generations, and the House of Rothschild in charge here and abroad.