Is there a CT you guys believe in?

buddyonair

I am new to this board. I am a member for about two weeks now. I have seen discussions about many CT. There is one thing which all of them have in common.
Everytime somebody comes up with a new story he gets crushed. :pac:
My question is: Are you guys against CT in general or we haven't spoken about the real good ones yet? Can a CT really be good?

Is there a CT you guys think is worth talking about or is everything just crap?

I'll bet this question is already asked one time. Sorry for any inconvenience. :cool:

Kama

Heyas Buddy. Nice question, I can't answer it, but sure thats never stopped me mouthing off about stuff for a while...

There is one thing which all of them have in common.
Everytime somebody comes up with a new story he gets crushed.

Its a malignant cabal thwarting the Truth! Or a rationalist critique of paranoid drivel. That or the rationalists are unwitting tools inciting paranoia through their ceaseless repression! Hmm.

There's rarely a 'new story' most come across are quite old, but get represented in slightly different ways. The classics all contained the Jews, which stood partially as a reduction for International Finance, and likely stemmed from attempts to understand early modernization, with the Jewish people as a scapegoat group. Hint: Scapegoating is key to CT. When you read one, see who it blames, and why.

Are you guys against CT in general or we haven't spoken about the real good ones yet?

I'm quite for it. Having a bullsh1t detector is one of the best intellectual investments you can make in life, and a good dose of CT tends to expose you to a lot of bullsh1t and incredibly shoddy argumentation and logic (also grammar) than almost anything else. It also imo encourages a certain amount of flexibility of thought, seeing other people who are *incredibly* inflexible about their beliefs.

Course, there's a lot of variety within what we call conspiracy theory, which is why I'm usually annoyed when someone says 'thats just conspiracy theory'. Al Qaeda and 911 is a conspiracy theory, for example; it proposes that there is a Islamic fundamentalist international conspiracy dedicated to the overthrow of the Western world. Most 'sensible' people believe this. Its still, technically, a conspiracy theory. Similarly, international communism was partly a conspiracy. Ireland had successive conspiracies to attempt to overthrow British rule, and so forth. There are plenty of documented conspiracies, but these aren't usually what people mean when they say 'conspiracy theory'. :rolleyes:

Can a CT really be good?

Good fun, definitely! Usually, the idea is that CT is bad because it tends to pathological or just bad logics, is self-confirming and contains Strange Loops. For example, in Holocaust denial, its common to state that the numbers are faked, by (of course) the Jews. Often this results in anyone contradicting them being accused of being Jewish, in a no-win loop situation.

Strictly and scientifically, a conspiracy theory would be good when it made testable hypotheses, where you could try and confirm or deny that something happened. For example, in 911 Truth, a lot of people wanted the 'crime scene' preserved as evidence for this reason. AT this point, it joins the genteel club of 'history'.

Is there a CT you guys think is worth talking about or is everything just crap?

I'm more interested in the closer-to-day variety than teh alienz; alienz are funs though... vote fraud in Florida was an obvious conspiracy. The spy system Echelon used be considered CT, but is now legitimate. The politer term for CT is 'deep politics'; you're trying to look at the actions of intelligence agencies etc. Libertas on Lisbon looks like an interesting example on this: military intelligence goons throw critical European election. And so forth.


I regard a lot of CT to be about paranoia, attributing blame, and peoples feelings of powerlessness, in the world, which is why so much of it is about some omnipotent group who know and do everything. Its often said to be about simplification; the world is incredibly complex, so reducing it to a simple 'Cheney runs everything' structure is more appealing.

Its also about perspective; if you are looking at something from outside it looks very different to from inside. Posted on these lines re Bilderberg, but its a general point. Hope that went some way to answering you; but then I'm not a regular on this board, so...

In closing, RObert ANton WIlson was at an early CT conference, and he said at the end:

'I agree with what you guys are saying, but when you think the power elite is someone else, I think its me and my friends'.

Read that as you will. Hail Eris.

meglome

Buddy it's no reflection on you personally. I'm all for having fun with conspiracy theories. But the constant scare that 'the man' is gonna get you is pretty tiresome, I keep my eyes open but I'm just simply not paranoid by nature. I don't doubt there are conspiracy's but people seem to latch on to almost any world event and build a conspiracy behind it. Since they're spreading a colossal amount of muck I imagine they'll get one right eventually which will perpetuate the muck spreading, unfortunately. Take 911, after nearly 7 years not one of the points raised as 'smoking guns' by the CT's has actually been shown to be a smoking gun. I imagine not many of us would trust the American government per se but the 'truth' movement is much worse if we're taking this on the basis of provable lying.

For me Kama summed it up

Kama wrote:

I regard a lot of CT to be about paranoia, attributing blame, and peoples feelings of powerlessness, in the world, which is why so much of it is about some omnipotent group who know and do everything. Its often said to be about simplification; the world is incredibly complex, so reducing it to a simple 'Cheney runs everything' structure is more appealing.

buddyonair

Kama, thanks for your great post.

Just like meglome says, you sum it up the best I have seen!!! :pac:

CHD

I think conspiracy theories are a conspiracy

buddyonair

CHD wrote: »

I think conspiracy theories are a conspiracy

TRUE! :P

Kama

I think conspiracy theories are a conspiracy

You're just saying that to muddy the water! Moar Disinfo! Shill for the Powers that Be!

First heard that one 15+ years ago; it was that the CIA made conspiracy theory to distract dissident groups from actual politics, wind em up in paranoid loops, and generally drive 'em nuts.

Tho following on in a loony loop, wonder how many conspiracy theorists start conspiring? Would being into CT, seeing as that would be how you think stuff gets done basically, mean you'd then conspire in response? I kinda assume so.

meglome

Kama wrote: »

You're just saying that to muddy the water! Moar Disinfo! Shill for the Powers that Be!

First heard that one 15+ years ago; it was that the CIA made conspiracy theory to distract dissident groups from actual politics, wind em up in paranoid loops, and generally drive 'em nuts.

Tho following on in a loony loop, wonder how many conspiracy theorists start conspiring? Would being into CT, seeing as that would be how you think stuff gets done basically, mean you'd then conspire in response? I kinda assume so.

Well I'd imagine that one of these days something really bad is going to be caused by a bunch of CT's trying to get 'the man' before 'the man' gets him/them. Though the Oklahoma city bombing covers that already... oh but wait that's a conspiracy too :rolleyes:

Kama

Gotta fight fire with fire!

(Never understood that, surely you fight fire with water?)

Tony Broke

I really believe that there was indeed life on Mars way way back.

Discovery channel had a great doctumentary on a few weeks ago" life after people " and it details what would happen if the human population of the planet became extinct. It showed the eventual fading away of just about every man made object on the planet without man to maintain them. If I remember right the sphinx and the hoover dam were the last remaining objects in this theory, but even the sphinx, and the hoover Dam came crumbling down in the end.Yes this is all theory but based in fact as they visited abandoned areas that had no longer been kept up and documented what had already happened to these tructures with in only a forty year and hundred year periods.

You then look at Mars much differently.

Which could resemble what earth could look like sometime in the future.

Do you really think we would find something recognizable after so much time has past?

The only way we are going to know for sure is to send a team of archeologists to the planet to excavate beneath the soil to do the real investigation, this is where you might find cities beneath volcanic lava flows, much like many past cities here on earth, or maybe the tunnels of earth, small rodents, snakes, fosilized roots of trees, maybe just microbes or something similar to any of these. This is where the true proof would be, not in objects lying on the surface that could just as well be remnants of a crashed probe from earth.

Like the pyramids were almost completely covered by sand and the sphinx only had it's head sticking out unitl in modern times " I mean within the last 200 years " that we dug it out to see their current state. yes, there were some parts of them sticking out but not a whole lot.

I would assume that the same would be true fro structures found on Mars, where they would not be descernable until dug out, which is why we would realy need an archeology mission sent to mars, wether it be robot rovers or humans does not make that much different, but I believe it needs to be done.

Jack Sheehan

I believe in some petty, small minded conspiracy theories such as voter disenfranchisement in Florida circa 2000 etc. but not in the big chemtrails, 9/11 new world order sense, no.

Kama

Pretty much with you there...the very annoying thing is things like that often get called 'conspiracy theory', which is rhetorically convenient to say the least...

rexusdiablos

Kama wrote: »

Gotta fight fire with fire!

(Never understood that, surely you fight fire with water?)

Well, think about it...

If a threatening entity attacks your home rendering it a mad inferno how would you fight it?

Defensivley: You'd quench the fire with water.
Offensivley: You'd set their abode ablaze.

The offensive behavior exhibits fighting and thusly fire is fought with fire.

DubTony

meglome wrote: »

Well I'd imagine that one of these days something really bad is going to be caused by a bunch of CT's trying to get 'the man' before 'the man' gets him/them. Though the Oklahoma city bombing covers that already... oh but wait that's a conspiracy too :rolleyes:

The problem with that conspiracy is that McVeigh was after the wrong "man". He thought the man was the US Government.

DOH!

Everyone knows it's David Rockefeller.

Kama

If we are being literal, fire is fought with fire; when forests are at risk of burning down, selective burns create a 'dead zone' so the fire can't spread.

If the question is how do you fight a man with fire, there's all sorts of answers

rexusdiablos

Kama wrote: »

If we are being literal, fire is fought with fire; when forests are at risk of burning down, selective burns create a 'dead zone' so the fire can't spread.

If the question is how do you fight a man with fire, there's all sorts of answers

I know, all definition are of course contextual.

studiorat

Problem with CT's is if they turn out to be true, it's too late.

rexusdiablos

studiorat wrote: »

Problem with CT's is if they turn out to be true, it's too late.

Don't flame but whats a CT in laymans terms?

studiorat

rexusdiablos wrote: »

Don't flame but whats a CT in laymans terms?

concpirisy teorys

Kama

Coincidence Theory...I mean Conspiracy Theory

rexusdiablos

Kama wrote: »

Conspiracy Theory

Spelling police; but thanks.

studiorat

This is one I've seen a few times seems plausible...

http://www.labour.ie/press/listing/122183214937816.html