Alan Watt.

mckenna45

He explained the use of fear to drive a society in a specific direction, could not find a fault with this. The fact that all energy is basically under the control of a few companies, the use of a one sided media. Possibly even his reference to the fact that most people trust government, and the use of experts who people feel they cannot contradict.

zippy 99

Diogenes wrote: »

Thats ironic considering how often conspiracy theorists refer to those who disagree with them as sheeple

At least that term has sum humanistic element and is generally a call for people to think for themselves.

The goverment talk about the 'flock' in the 'hive' in all seriousness.

bonkey

Zippy99 wrote:

These things are done slowly so as not to 'spook the flock'

Bonkey wrote:

"flock".

Zippy99 wrote:

Don't use such a term.

We are not animals

Maybe you should consider who introduced the term to this thread (as illustrated above) before targetting your outrage.
All I did was follow your lead, including the use of quotes.

bonkey

zippy 99 wrote: »

The goverment talk about the 'flock' in the 'hive' in all seriousness.

Do you have evidence?

zippy 99

bonkey wrote: »

Maybe you should consider who introduced the term to this thread (as illustrated above) before targetting your outrage.
All I did was follow your lead, including the use of quotes.

If only you would follow my lead in other ways.

bonkey

zippy 99 wrote: »

If only you would follow my lead in other ways.

I'd prefer to think for myself rather than follow anyone's lead, thanks.

I re-used your term because I had a suspicion that someone on your side of the argument would find it outrageous that the public be referred to as 'flock'. As with many such things, I suspected the objection would only occur when someone they fundamentally disagreed with used the term, as opposed to someone on their side, so to speak.

zippy 99

bonkey wrote: »

I'd prefer to think for myself rather than follow anyone's lead, thanks.

I re-used your term because I had a suspicion that someone on your side of the argument would find it outrageous that the public be referred to as 'flock'. As with many such things, I suspected the objection would only occur when someone they fundamentally disagreed with used the term, as opposed to someone on their side, so to speak.

I used it merely to highlight how us plebeians are viewed in the minds of the elite.

meglome

mckenna45 wrote: »

He explained the use of fear to drive a society in a specific direction, could not find a fault with this.

I didn't recall Irish society being ripe with fear. Maybe you can show me where the fear is?

mckenna45 wrote: »

The fact that all energy is basically under the control of a few companies,

Most energy used to be controlled by one state company. But a lot of countries have deregulated their energy supply. So now there are more companies controlling energy supply not less.

mckenna45 wrote: »

the use of a one sided media.

Media has always had an agenda. They target particular parts of society for their sales and they slant the information to that audience. But not every media organisation is Fox news. I wouldn't have said RTE is exactly one sided, a bit conservative yes but not one sided.

mckenna45 wrote: »

Possibly even his reference to the fact that most people trust government,

Or we can just listen to people who are even more one sided than any government. Who casually use misinterpretation and outright lies to further their own agenda. Many of which make money from it. Who play to people's paranoia in their so called search for truth, when nothing could be further from the truth.

mckenna45 wrote: »

and the use of experts who people feel they cannot contradict.

Maybe as they are experts? I can say I'm the King of Spain but if I can't back that statement up that it means nothing. People can say whatever they like but to call it fact I want to see actual evidence. Maybe some of the evidence supplied by experts I won't understand as I'm not technical enough but so far I haven't seen any conspiracy, just lots of hype. The problem with the CT sites is they seems to be a total bunch of paranoid fanboys who are not interested in the truth at all, even though they loudly proclaim they are the only ones interested in truth.

mckenna45

Society is run on fear. The oldest trick in the book, its the commies, its the men with towels on their heads, its the germans, its the gooks, its the japs.There is always someone.As for experts, the reason things are explained in a complicated manner is just so that you do not understand.

meglome

mckenna45 wrote: »

Society is run on fear. The oldest trick in the book, its the commies, its the men with towels on their heads, its the germans, its the gooks, its the japs.There is always someone.As for experts, the reason things are explained in a complicated manner is just so that you do not understand.

In Ireland? I don't recall ever hearing any of that. I mustn't be listening.

And why do I get the feeling that you're someone else who posts on here already, bound to be a conspiracy really. :rolleyes:

mckenna45

meglome wrote: »

In Ireland? I don't recall ever hearing any of that. I mustn't be listening.

And why do I get the feeling that you're someone else who posts on here already, bound to be a conspiracy really. :rolleyes:

Maybe you have not been de shoed, de belted, patted down, searched and looked up and down at the airport lately. It must be my white skin, that always gives the game away

humanji

So you're saying that if there was no security in airports, there'd never be a problem aboard planes?

meglome

mckenna45 wrote: »

Maybe you have not been de shoed, de belted, patted down, searched and looked up and down at the airport lately. It must be my white skin, that always gives the game away

Right... I'm really happy that is done at airports. It stops any lunatic getting on the plane with a weapon. It is a FACT that people have got on planes with weapons and hijacked those planes. It has happened many times over the years. I really don't want it to happen to me. If you want to go through such an experience good luck you, I'd just like to make sure I'm not on that plane as well. BTW you're talking ****e.

mckenna45

I take it you are refering to a spate of hijackings that I have never heard of. Here is some breaking news, as mentioned before i believe, there are NO terrorists.

Diogenes

mckenna45 wrote: »

Maybe you have not been de shoed, de belted, patted down, searched and looked up and down at the airport lately. It must be my white skin, that always gives the game away

And that terrorizes you? Most of us find it an irritant.

As to this point;

As for experts, the reason things are explained in a complicated manner is just so that you do not understand.

Is just anti intellectualism. It must be difficult being you, assuming that things are all straightforward and easy, it's just the people explaining them to you are making them difficult and complicated.

How about an alternative, certain things are difficult and complicated, they take years of study to understand, and are hard to explain to a lay person. However if you educate yourself and concentrate you can follow what these "experts" say with relative ease.

humanji

mckenna45 wrote: »

I take it you are refering to a spate of hijackings that I have never heard of. Here is some breaking news, as mentioned before i believe, there are NO terrorists.

You've never, in your life, heard of a plane being hijacked? Seriously, or are you just being obtuse?

bonkey

mckenna45, in the thread about a cashless society wrote:

is it a threat to freedom or like me do you believe that it will help combat terrorism.

mckenna45, in this thread wrote:

as mentioned before i believe, there are NO terrorists.

So, if I have this straight...you believe that a move to a cashless society will help combat terrorism, but that there are no terrorists.

Interesting. Can you explain that? Surely a terrorist is required for terrorism to exist?

humanji

Sorry Bonkey, Casey is gone for good this time, methinks

meglome

humanji wrote: »

Sorry Bonkey, Casey is gone for good this time, methinks

Yeah thought that might be the case alright. I'd love to think he was just taking the weewee even though it would be a bit annoying. But I fear he really means all that crap. No hijackings he he he... I mean there is so much info out here on many hijackings. I'm sorry but to say they didn't happen is just mental, or maybe delusional.

Is he actually posting from this country?

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

Care to provide some examples then Kernel? Because from the brilliant job our now banned new friend did, all I can see is some wild speculation drawn from some incredibly spurious and dubious "facts".

The transcipt from his coast to coast interview aptly shows the man's theories, and his research.

http://www.cuttingthroughthematrix.com/transcripts/George_Noory_Interview_with_Alan_Watt.html

Diogenes wrote: »

I'm sorry Pascal was banned, I was dying to find out how the Freemasons created the mafia, or how he knew Arthur C Clarke was a Mason.

Well, he's banned now, so I guess you could try doing some research to answer those questions yourself.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

The transcipt from his coast to coast interview aptly shows the man's theories, and his research.

Is it too much to ask someone here to make the case that they have been convinced by, in their own words, using sources like this as references?

Indeed, re-reading the start of this thread is like a sample-case of viral marketing....everything possible is done to make sure that those pushing the goodness of Watt say absolutely nothing about what it is that he's said, or what makes him good, until such times as someone can prove they've listened to the guy....at which point, getting stuck into the detail of his comments is being dismissed as off-topic.

Offalycool

Tuesday, 21 September, 1999, 11:39 GMT 12:39 UK
NHS 'cavalier' over organ consent
Bristol Royal Infirmary
Doctors retained the organs of children who died
The NHS was "cavalier" in its attitude towards seeking consent to retain tissues of patients who have died, the public inquiry into the Bristol heart babies scandal has been told.

But Mr Hugh Ross, chief executive of the United Bristol Healthcare Trust, also told the public inquiry that doctors at the hospital had done nothing wrong in retaining children's heart and other organs after they died in complex heart operations at the unit.

The Bristol Heart Babies
A week before the multi-million pound investigation began in March, the Bristol Heart Children's Action Group claimed the Trust had systematically retained children's hearts and other organs without the parents' knowledge.

The group believes as many as 180 children could have been buried with organs missing after complex cardiac operations and the Inquiry is to hear from a number of distressed parents about how they learned the truth.But he admitted the NHS generally had been cavalier when seeking consent to retain tissues after post-mortem examinations.

Mr Ross, the Trust's chief from 1995, said the law was unclear on the retention of tissue and had been the subject of debate for years.

'Too slow to change'

He said: "If I think back over a number of years it would not be unfair to say that the NHS handled this issue in a somewhat cavalier manner in the distant past.

"I think the practice has been far too slow to change and, although there was discussion over the years, the practice has not moved as fast as it might have done. Informed consent was not the order of the day which clearly it should have been."

Mr Ross said parental consent was not required if a coroner ordered a post mortem, but it was needed if a hospital carried out the post mortem and later retained organs for research or teaching purposes.

He said he had ordered a review of practice in Bristol, leading to new guidelines on consent, and he maintained the guidelines reinforced good current practice in his hospitals.

He added: "It was recognised that NHS practice was right for review and ripe for overhaul and now in all our dealings with patients and relatives we increasingly try to give much better information about what it is we intend to do for the patients' benefit."

Doctors struck off

The public inquiry follows a long-running General Medical Council probe into the scandal.

The GMC investigation examined 53 Bristol Royal Infirmary operations in which 29 patients died and four were left brain injured.

It ruled that surgeon James Wisheart and Dr John Roylance, the Trust's former chief executive, should be struck off.

A second surgeon Janardan Dhasmana was banned from operating on children for three years.

Mr Ross told the Inquiry he believed there were 179 cases of retention of hearts, lungs or other tissue during the period under investigation.

Old story here but relevant. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/background_briefings/the_bristol_heart_babies/392437.stm

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

Is it too much to ask someone here to make the case that they have been convinced by, in their own words, using sources like this as references?

I would love to have the time to do this Bonkey, but I don't. If I was to apply this method to all posts in Conspiracy Theories, with accurate referencing and discussions taken to their logical conclusions, then I would be better off writing a book than posting. I had toyed with the idea of focusing on one topic and carrying out this method, but again, to go back to all my books, research, reference etc. would simply take time I don't have at my disposal.

I posted the link to his coast to coast transcipt as I believe he has a valid and well researched hypothesis, which consists of interlinked ideas and is coherent and plausible, but must be taken and discussed as a whole. I don't know if I accept the links he makes with freemasonry to many of the organisations/agendas, but it's certainly more than possible. And freemasonry is something of a speciality of his.

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote: »

I posted the link to his coast to coast transcipt as I believe he has a valid and well researched hypothesis, which consists of interlinked ideas and is coherent and plausible, but must be taken and discussed as a whole.

Coherent and plausible?

Alan: Well that's just it. These people in their own inner religion believe that they are gods and that's one of the amazing things from the ancient times to modern. In the high esoteric religion they truly believe they have attained godhood.

Tell me this: when he says this, do you accept it at face value? He says it, therefore it's true?

George: So letting the millions of illegal immigrants into the United States was done on purpose basically?

Alan: Yes it was, yes. This was written about in the 1840s by Karl Marx.

Coherent and plausible?

What about falsifiable?

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

I would love to have the time to do this Bonkey, but I don't.

It wasn't a comment targetted purely at you.

I find it interesting that there is a strong correlation between those willing to delve into the detail in a discussion and those who disagree with the credibility of the core "conspiracy" hypotheses of the various topics being discussed here

Even when you find those willing to discuss to a certain degree, its almost inevitable that sooner-or-later they decide that whoever it is who's disagreeing with them has some hidden agenda, rather than simply a differing opinion and a wish to discuss the merits of both sides....at which point, they not only stop discussing the topic at hand, but seem to have some aversion to engaging the same person on a different topic.....preferring instead to offer reasons why that person isn't genuinely interested in discussion!!! This, disappointingly, also seems to manifest itself in the increased usage of terms like "pseudo-skeptic" and "debunker" (where debunker is meant somehow as an insulting, or as an implication of ulterior motive).

Now, having said all that, it would be hypocritical of me to jump to conclusions as to why I think people do this...so I won't. I've said it often enough before, but I'll repeat it again - I'm not going to guess at motive to anyone's actions here. You say you've no time to engage in detailed discussion, and thats good enough for me.

I just find it disappointing that there seems to be no shortage of people willing to offer linkage to stuff they believe, but are then unwilling to engage in discussion on the very material they felt important enough to share...for whatever reason. I don't believe they can all have the same reason as you, given that we've more than once hear accusations that posters like me are stifling the discussion that would otherwise exist.

Offalycool

bonkey wrote: »

I just find it disappointing that there seems to be no shortage of people willing to offer linkage to stuff they believe, but are then unwilling to engage in discussion on the very material they felt important enough to share...

I must admit that I have not actively engaged in discussion much with the material I have posted. I am not particularly concerned with Alan Watt, I don't know who the guy is. I am concerned with the issue of opt out organ donation. I wish I could believe in a world were this system would not be abused but I don't. Companied and governments like to think they are interested in what's best for the world. Believe me I hear this crap all the time in the multinational I work in, and on the news every evening. The reality is the government and the multinational is only interested in what's best for them.

Companies talk of there holey mission and so on. but if you attended a multinationals 5 year stratagic plan, it quickly dawns on you they are really wound up over cutting costs (and yes this means employees) while at the same time improving quality, not necessarily objectives that work together; never mind the well-being of the community at large. However well intended such a project as opt out organ donation might start out, I see in being drawn into a bloody mess (excuse the pun).

Accusation and sandal. Not only that but abuse will result from the ever growing need to perform more extreme medical research in order to profit in a market saturated with products that basically do the same thing. We may gain wonderful knowledge in the future, but please not at the expense of victims.

The only sensible and moral approach to the one possession a human should be entitled to call his own is hands off. Let the person decide to donate.

oscarBravo

Offalycool wrote: »

The only sensible and moral approach to the one possession a human should be entitled to call his own is hands off. Let the person decide to donate.

Dead people don't have possessions. I would consider it immoral to be buried intact, knowing that other people could borrow spares I didn't need anymore.

Kernel

bonkey wrote: »

Even when you find those willing to discuss to a certain degree, its almost inevitable that sooner-or-later they decide that whoever it is who's disagreeing with them has some hidden agenda, rather than simply a differing opinion and a wish to discuss the merits of both sides....at which point, they not only stop discussing the topic at hand, but seem to have some aversion to engaging the same person on a different topic.....preferring instead to offer reasons why that person isn't genuinely interested in discussion!!! This, disappointingly, also seems to manifest itself in the increased usage of terms like "pseudo-skeptic" and "debunker" (where debunker is meant somehow as an insulting, or as an implication of ulterior motive).

I think this was as a result of the emergence of a large group who I would class as pseudo-skeptics throwing the balance of the forum. Genuine skeptics are necessary for a forum such as this, and indeed any good conspiracy theorist has a degree of skepticism. It is too time consuming to have to defend your position against so many people, who will never accept anything outside of the 'official' explanation. The argument boils down to beliefs in the end. The balance is better served on a dedicated site, like abovetopsecret, since their is a healthy level of skepticism which explores a theory before attacking it. The most prolific posters here do not seem to believe in any conspiracy theory (disregarding Watergate etc. which are fact rather than theory).

I look at the available circumstantial evidence and hard evidence, I come to an outcome or belief based on this, along with my knowledge (mistrust?) of corporations and government. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, who knows? But I believe a conspiracy is behind 9/11, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, aspartame, AIDS etc etc. I don't trust the motives of the US military industrial complex interwoven with lobbyists, corporations, government etc.

bonkey wrote: »

You say you've no time to engage in detailed discussion, and thats good enough for me.

Not to the level required here. Recently I was discussing Gay Mitchell's proposed (and rational) EU legislation/regulations regarding the training camps run in the Czech Republic and elsewhere, which are known to be used by armed criminal gangs in Ireland. The debate went on for a while, when I found myself engaged with pro-gun lobbyists with a clear agenda, who didn't seem to listen to my side of the argument. I could have continued repeating my argument ad hominem, but it would have been a waste of my time (which I don't have an abundance of), so I just withdrew.

bonkey wrote:

I just find it disappointing that there seems to be no shortage of people willing to offer linkage to stuff they believe, but are then unwilling to engage in discussion on the very material they felt important enough to share...for whatever reason.

I think the reason for this is because it's quicker and easier to post a conspiracy topic for the information of those interested in such a topic, rather than then having to defend each detail of the topic (some points of which you may not particularly be au fait with anyway) against multiple posters. If the skeptics (and pseudo-skeptics) here actually indicated a belief in certain theories, or a higher degree of open-mindedness, I think that they would get more of a response - since people wouldn't feel they were wasting their breath.

oscarbravo wrote:

Tell me this: when he says this, do you accept it at face value? He says it, therefore it's true?

No, but it is plausible. I think his point there, or my interpretation of it, is simply the attitude of the elites to the masses, which history amply demonstrates. The elites being god-like and the masses being likened to cattle who exist purely for exploitation. Don't you think this attitude exists in the upper-classes? Don't you think it exists even in the corporate-capitalist system where the few control the majority of the wealth, and actively seek to exploit employees labour/wage and use them as a market for their products? The system of debt causes further problems and indications as to this attitude.

Why do you believe that the piece about Karl Marx was false btw?

oscarbravo wrote:

Dead people don't have possessions. I would consider it immoral to be buried intact, knowing that other people could borrow spares I didn't need anymore.

I happen to agree, however, choice is the important part here. Others may find aspects of your lifestyle immoral, does that mean the government has a right to legislate against that right? Perhaps if it is the genuine consensus of the masses, but where's the referendum?

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote: »

No, but it is plausible. I think his point there, or my interpretation of it, is simply the attitude of the elites to the masses, which history amply demonstrates. The elites being god-like and the masses being likened to cattle who exist purely for exploitation. Don't you think this attitude exists in the upper-classes?

I don't know anyone I'd describe as upper class, and I don't think I care how they feel about the "masses".

Kernel wrote: »

Don't you think it exists even in the corporate-capitalist system where the few control the majority of the wealth, and actively seek to exploit employees labour/wage and use them as a market for their products?

I am a part of the "corporate-capitalist system", being a business owner. I haven't come across the attitude you describe among any of my colleagues.

It's barely possible that there are some at the top echelons of capitalism who feel that way - although I doubt too many would describe themselves as gods, even in conversation among themselves - but would a smidgin of evidence for this assertion be too much to ask for?

Kernel wrote: »

The system of debt causes further problems and indications as to this attitude.

The system of debt is how money works. I had this conversation in another thread with someone else - how exactly do you propose an economy should function without debt?

Kernel wrote: »

Why do you believe that the piece about Karl Marx was false btw?

Of all the things Marx was, I don't think prescient was one of them. How could he have known about late 20th- and early 21st-century illegal immigration to the US?

Kernel wrote: »

I happen to agree, however, choice is the important part here.

Opt-out still gives choice. Basically you're weighing the fact that people die needlessly for want of organs against the possibility that just maybe some dead person, when they were alive, didn't want to donate their organs but didn't bother to say so.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

I think this was as a result of the emergence of a large group who I would class as pseudo-skeptics

... who will never accept anything outside of the 'official' explanation. [/quote]

I can't think of a single poster here who meets that description, to be quite honest.

I can think of several - myself included - who won't accept anything without sufficient evidence which withstands scrutiny, which does not rely on emotional appeals or appeals to some "gut-feeling" or an appeal to a balance-of-probability with no establishment of said probabilities. This approach pretty-much meets the textbook definition of skeptic. There is nothing pseudo about it.

You may be correct in believing that there are people here who - if presented with such evidence - would still refuse to accept it.....but I would hasten to add that this is again just a belief with no evidence to support it, and so should be rejected at present by anyone taking a skeptical approach to the idea.

The argument boils down to beliefs in the end.

If that's your position, then I would argue that you will need to rely on the argument that critical analysis, the scientific method, and other established forms of reasoning are no different to any other belief - that they are as valid as just picking an answer out of the air and believing it with all your heart.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but that doesn't make all beliefs equally valid.

The most prolific posters here do not seem to believe in any conspiracy theory

Speaking only for myself, I can say that I don't believe in any of the conspiracies presented thus far. That doesn't mean that there aren't conspiracies that I believe are possible. For example, in the recent thread about Naomi Klein, I started writing a post about how I suspect that part of the Bush Administration's strategy for the Iraq war is to effectively bankrupt the US government. I didn't post it because I need to go back and refresh my memory on some of the information which has fuelled this suspicion.

But lets be clear - for me, it is a suspicion, not something I believe. A plausible argument can be made for it, but its not the only possible interpretation of the information. Thus, I do not believe it, but I would find it a very interesting topic to discuss. I would neither be on the side of someone arguing that it was impossible, nor on someone taking it to be truth and then going further and making additional assumptions as to what additional agendas bankrupting America serve.

I look at the available circumstantial evidence and hard evidence, I come to an outcome or belief based on this, along with my knowledge (mistrust?) of corporations and government. I could be wrong, you could be wrong, who knows?

THe distinction is that I don't come to a belief until I have a certain level of surity. Thats why I'd consider myself a skeptic.

Gravity could stop working any second now, but I'm almost entirely certain that it won't. Invisible dragons could be responsible for the collapse of the WTC, but again, I'm almost entirely certain that they weren't. If someone shows me evidence that gravity isn't what I understand it to be, I'll reconsider my position based on my evaluation of that evidence. If they show me evidence that invisible dragons exist...I'll reconsider my position, again based on my evaluation of the evidence.

What I will not do, however, is decide that because something sounds plausible, or doesn't sound too implausible that I have reasonable grounds to believe in it. That would be discarding skepticism, because its not about plausibility. Its about falsifiability and evidence.

But I believe a conspiracy is behind 9/11, JFK, Bobby Kennedy, aspartame, AIDS etc etc.

I'm more curious as to what you believe a conspiracy isn't behind, to be honest.

I don't trust the motives of the US military industrial complex interwoven with lobbyists, corporations, government etc.

Nor do I, but well-established realities such as simple human greed, incompetence, opportunism etc. offer equally valid reasons for a lack of trust.

I think the reason for this is because it's quicker and easier to post a conspiracy topic for the information of those interested in such a topic, rather than then having to defend each detail of the topic (some points of which you may not particularly be au fait with anyway) against multiple posters.

One of the reasons I'm hoping Miju will follow up on his "debate idea". I'll take anyone on one-on-one and I'm guessing that some of the other skeptics here would do likewise. I suspect (see, there's that word again) that we'll run into the same problem, though...a lack of willingness to discuss detail, either dismissing it as unimportant, or insisting that there's nothing to discuss because the believer believes.

(Simple example - look at Zippy's thread in Feedback, insisting that the stuff he posted about is all fact, despite the very article he posted saying that there's a lack of evidence). He has no basis to conclude that its fact, and has shown no willingness to explain why its fact. It appears that he just wants to state his case, and dismiss any alternate interpretation as wrong because it says something other than what he believe.

If the skeptics (and pseudo-skeptics) here actually indicated a belief in certain theories, or a higher degree of open-mindedness, I think that they would get more of a response - since people wouldn't feel they were wasting their breath.

Here's a thought....why not start a thread and ask them to do just that. Take the ball out of our court, where we complain that you guys won't stand up for your beliefs, and instead ask us to do exactly what you're complaining that we don't do.