Why do we flat out reject CT's? [Conspiracy Theories]

Great Debates
341

There’s the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand. The assassin was just a poor Serbian; however, he was aided by Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic who was a member of the Black Hand. Just a poor assassin with a grudge or an assassin with a Colonel in the Serbian army who is a member of a secret society behind him. June 28, 1914. Then World War I.

There was Colonel Dragutin Dimitrijevic (At the lowest level is governments) then there was the Black Hand (at a higher level is the Illuminati) and then there was someone behind World War I (at the highest level is someone - known to no one - manipulating the Illuminati for their own design).

Suppose that we did not know that Dragutin Dimitrijevic was the plotter and I posted:

and you replied:

You would be wrong.

342

No. You have no evidence for that, and there’s a huge amount of evidence that there were straightforward political machinations at work here. They were trying to create a Greater Serbia. Plots and plans like that have been going on for a long time, and there’s no need to bring in any higher orchestrating power.

Assassins tend to be secretive and have clandestine organizations. But there’s no evidence for anything beyond that, and lots of evidence that is all there is. The perpetrators were caught, tried, convicted, and punished. The details of the case are thoroughly researched and documented. At no point is there any involvement of the Illuminati. The Black Hand is pretty much what it was intended to be, a clandestine organization of Serbian military. That organizations like that exist (and some members were involved in the assassination) doesn’t give much support to your argument, vague as it appears to be.

You are seeing the word with the filter of there being secret organizations controlling everything, and then trying to fit the facts into that world view. It doesn’t make sense unless you first demonstrate that these far-reaching powerful secret organizations exist. The fact that people sometimes keep secrets is not evidence of anything.

343

I am seeing the world with the filter of there being secret organisations controlling countries, and then trying to find evidence for that world view.

Assuming the Vatican, Israel, or Saudi Arabia isn’t secretly controlling the rest of the world, there’s North Korea with Kim Jong-un, there’s the United Kingdom with the Queen and there’s Japan with the Emperor. Do you believe that Kim Jong-un, the Queen, and the Emperor have *any less *power than the President of the United States? I view the world through countries because that is how the world, politically, is divided.

[QUOTE=The New York Times, June 22, 2012]
Mr. Breivik maintains that the militant network really exists, a contention that prosecutors say is absurd.
[/QUOTE]

344

Yes.

345

Vastly less power than the POTUS. The Queen of the UK and Emperor of Japan are figureheads; the Governor of CA probably has more impact on world events than either of them. Kim Jong-un is the dictatorial leader of a nearly failed state with a few nuclear warheads. That’s not even close to the power of the POTUS. His secret order for control is the government, and its not secret.

Who is Mr. Breivik? What precisely is he claiming? And what evidence has he presented?

What evidence would convince you that there are no secret cabals controling world events? If you can’t supply some examples then you aren’t approaching this with a clear mind.

346

He’s the sicko who shot up a bunch of kids at a summer political camp in Norway.

He claims membership in a secret organization of Knights Templar who were trying to maintain some kind of Norwegian racial purity.

Of course, that simply provides a worse example.

This is a secret cabal that is dumb enough to leak their secret to a guy who writes a manifesto. They’re also dumb enough to let this obviously stupid, potentially insane guy shoot up a bunch of people openly, rather than make it look like an accident. And so powerless they can’t shut him up before he gets caught, much less prevent the press from releasing the manifesto revealing their existence.

It’s about the dumbest, most powerless secret cabal imaginable, if Breivik is an example of one of their foot soldiers. Kind of like the drunken Elk’s lodge of cabals.

347

Jerry Brown does not have more impact on world events than either François Hollande or Angela Merkel, however.

348

That no one has more impact on world events than the President of the United States.

349

Yes. What is your point? It is a proven historical fact that somebody was behind Princip. It is not a proven fact that anybody was behind Dimitrejevic, therefore the burden of proof is on anyone who says there was. You did not provide such proof, you merely speculated (in an open-ended way, without even offering a hypothesis as to who might have been behind Dimitrejevic), and you called for speculation, and I speculated. My speculation makes more sense than yours, by Occam’s Razor as originally stated – “It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer.”

See burden of proof and null hypothesis.

350

That is true. However, it is a complete non-sequitor.

What do you think this statement demonstrates? That the presidents of major world powers have a lot of influence on world affairs? That’s pretty much a tautology. If that’s the point you wanted to make why did you bring up the easily refutable point about the Queen, Emperor, and dictator? You really need to step back and try to articulate your point much better because you’re doing a pretty poor job of it so far.

There are powerful people and nations in the world. There have always been powerful leaders and nations. There has never been any evidence for secretive, far reaching cabals that control world events for their own agenda. None. You haven’t presented any in this thread. You haven’t even presented anything that would make you look for any. Unless you have something even slightly concrete to build upon you’re just rambling about shadows.

351

OK, can you name someone who has more impact than the POTUS today? Be specific, and define impact.

352

That Barack Obama has more impact on world events than either François Hollande or Angela Merkel.

Foundation X.

Larry Page and Sergey Brin are good candidates. Some people yesterday learned about Alan Turing and a few days ago probably couldn’t have told you anything about him. What’s on Google today matters. Not convinced? What about Mendax? You might know him better as Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks who released US diplomatic cables in 2010 and is currently seeking assylum. What happens to Julian Assange matters.

What someone on Wall Street does today matters. And they are very secretive on Wall Street. JP Morgan was famous for not having a name - only the street address - on his office building. Why would a company be so secretive as to only have the address on envelopes and letters? Still not convinced? Who controls Wall Street? Probably someone like Jullian Assange, Sergey Brin, or Larry Page. And who is above them?

353

So? No other head of government or political leader does. No corporate CEO does. Not even the Pope does.

354

That is to be expected, and demonstrates nothing.

Links to a Youtube video aren’t evidence. Please sum up before I bother to watch anything, which I pretty much already know are just ramblings.

No, they are not. This is why no one takes this seriously. Wiki is a cool tool, but if it disappeared tomorrow very little would change in the world.

Not really, no it doesn’t. He’s a footnote to history.

Those guys don’t control anything on Wall Street. That’s patently absurd. Wall Street is controlled by the major corporations - we know who their owners and boards of directors are, they are accountable via various US and worldwide financial controls, and there’s nothing mysterious.

So you have no proof, nothing that even rises to the level of a suggestive question. You have unsupported and easily refuted supposition. I’m not surprised since you whole premise has been smoke and mirrors.

There are no secret cabals controlling anything. You don’t understand how world affairs work. Your world view is wrong.

355

Watch the YouTube video. It is under 10 minutes and the time spend watching it will aid in the discussion.

It’s also in a Guardian article, which explains that a member of The House of Lords, speaking on a spending review, claims “he was asked by a leading FSA regulated institution to investigate a mysterious organisation that wanted to invest substantial sums into the UK’s economic reconstruction” and that “he secured a meeting for representatives of Foundation X with the leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde”.

So the chairman of a “very emminent City firm” informed Lord James of Blackheath of the request by Foundation X. Blackheath came to the conclusion that they are completely genuine and sincere. He explains that they seek the economic recovery of the global economy. He further explains that they are expecting only to be contacted by somebody “equal to head of state status or somebody who has an international security rating equal to the top six people in the world”. Blackheath concludes: “These things can be done if wished but we have to have - a senior member of the government has to accept the invivation to a phone call to the chairman of the company concerned, Foundation X.”

History is written in, among other things, diplomatic cables.

What about The 2010 Flash Crash?

356

Kozmik, you have provided a long series of hand-waving posts that say nothing. When asked why you believe in this nonsense, you can do no better than to say that it is remotely possible.

This is not your blog to throw out nonsense for weeks at a time. Provide a serious, consistent, coherent thesis of what you believe is happening supported by actual evidence that your conclusions are more than simply a love of smoke and mirrors, or I am going to shut this thread down.

[ /Moderating ]

357

Ok. In my next post I will.

In the meantime, could you please tell me what is wrong with citing a speech given by a member of The House of Lords in British Parliament.

358

Was by Heinlein? Because if so, I know what one you’re talking about, although I don’t remember the title, but if not, I want to read that one.

359

There is nothing wrong with citing a speech by anyone. Of course, since everyone named by Lord James has denied his claims regarding them and since his claims for gold bullion apparently exceed the actual total amount mined throughout history, (never mind that a great many countries such as the U.S. have their own stocks of bullion reserves that would reduce the possible amount available to his secret foundation), we might be free to dismiss his claims as those of a man possibly entering senility or being bamboozled by frauds. I note that his speech was delivered over 18 months ago and that nothing seems to have come of it.

At any rate, I made no objection to your citation of the speech, only noting that you have jumped from topic to topic without providing any context that would actually link any of your odd claims.

360

Evidence. Ok. However, in presenting my evidence, I want a reply from both Marley23 and tomndebb as to the validity of the evidence presented. I also want to thank Telemark and I look forward to his reply also.

I understand how world affairs work. Conspiracy theories are the limits of my understanding of world affairs and politics.

Yes. There was a meeting that was described in this speech given on the floor of British Parliament, 1 Nov 2010 : Column 1538.

I take heart at what was said near the end of the speech:

So I will also draw my remarks to a conclusion.

A “strange organization”, in the words of Lord James of Blackheath, wished to make a “great deal of money” available to assist the recovery of the UK economy. This strange organization was introduced to Blackheath by an eminent City of London firm and the chairman of this firm wanted to know whether Foundation X is legitimate. Blackheath goes to the Leader of the House of Lords, Lord Strathclyde, and he said to Blackheath, “Why you? You’re not important enough to have the answer to a question like that.” However, Blackheath believes that Foundation X is genuine and sincere and that “it directly wishes to make the United Kingdom one of the principal points that it will use to disseminate its extraordinarily great wealth into the world at this present moment, as part of an attempt to seek the recovery of the global economy”.

[QUOTE=Lord James of Blackheath (evidence)]
Then I brought one of the senior executives from Foundation X to meet my noble friend Lord Strathclyde.
[/QUOTE]

Blackheath explains that they have an “amazing obsession with security” (sounds familiar) and that

[QUOTE=Lord James of Blackheath (evidence)]
They expect to be contacted only by someone equal to head of state status or someone with an international security rating equal to the top six people in the world.
[/QUOTE]
:confused: Serious question: What does that mean? Assume I know nothing about world affairs and politics.

No:

[QUOTE=Lord James of Blackheath]
My noble friend Lord Strathclyde came up with a very different argument. He said that this cannot be right because these people said at the meeting with him that they were **still effectively on the gold standard from back in the 1920s and that their entire currency holdings throughout the world, which were very large, were backed by bullion. My noble friend Lord Strathclyde came back and said to me that he had an analyst working on it and that this had to be stuff and nonsense. He said that they had come up with a figure for the amount of bullion that would be needed to cover their currency reserves, as claimed, which would be more than the entire value of bullion that had ever been mined in the history of the world.
[/QUOTE]

Now it turns on a question.

This is getting into GQ terrority:

[QUOTE=Lord James of Blackheath]
I am sorry but my noble friend Lord Strathclyde is wrong; his analysts are wrong. He had tapped into the sources that are available and there is only one definitive source for the amount of bullion that has ever been taken from the earth’s crust. That was a National Geographic magazine article 12 years ago. Whatever figure it was that was quoted was then quoted again on six other sites on the internet-on Google. Everyone is quoting one original source; there is no other confirming authority.** But if you tap into the Vatican accounts-of the Vatican bank-you come up with a claim of total bullion - The total value of the Vatican bank reserves would claim to be more than the entire value of gold ever mined in the history of the world.
[/QUOTE]

What in what issue was the National Geographic article? Is Blackheath correct about everyone quoting one original source? And what about Blackheath’s claim that the total value of the Vatican bank reserves would claim to be more than the entire value of gold ever mined in the history of the world?

Back to GD:

[QUOTE=Lord James of Blackheath]
These things can be done, if wished, but a senior member of the Government has to accept the invitation to a phone call to the chairman of foundation X-and then we can get into business.
[/QUOTE]
:confused: Again, serious question: What does this mean?

Is Foundation X legitimate?

What Blackheath said about the recovery of the global economy points to these being serious people. I admit my humble ignorance concerning the 2007 - 2012 global financial crisis.

The 2007 - 2012 global financial crisis is nothing less than fantastic.

Yes. Which is why I’m stopping my digging here. What will I find?