Conspiracy Theories

[AndyDufresne]

Best part in that video:

Jonathan Kay was asked if he ever convinced a conspiracy theorist that the particular conspiracy was nonsense or not credible. Jonathan said no, never--except for this one time which was beside the point. Jonathan mentioned how the conspiracy theorist would simply find more reasons that would encompass a greater scope of the issues in question---until of course almost everyone (the media, the government, the politicians, etc.) are 'in on it' while only the CT knows the truth.

Mmmh, it is a pretty good part. My favorite parts usually involve the exasperated David Frum, who sometimes looks like "What the hell did I sign up to do?"


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Curious. But not really.


--Andy

Yeah, well you're just a Patsie, so of course you'd say that. And I'm one of those technical government/private contractor guys who spreads misinformation that confirms your own bias. Of course, Webster Tarpley is crazy. Of course, he is. Of course...

AND THE ILLUMINATI KNOW WHERE YOU SLEEP--and for long, typically within the range of 6-10 hours per day.

[saxitoxin]

For those of you who have 2 hours to kill, check out this Book TV video from CSPAN - a popular conspiracy theorist is on a panel / debate with an academic researcher who looks into conspiracy theories. David Frum moderates it (or tries). The audience is pretty hostile to the academic researcher as well, they seem to mostly in the camp of the popular conspiracy theorist.

It was pretty enjoyable and laughable when I stumbled upon it one afternoon on actual CSPAN, and this topic reminded me of it so I dug out a youtube video of it I found.

Watch at least some of it. Ha.




--Andy

Can you give us lazy swedes a recap?

Tarpley is an interesting fellow. I thought it was funny they kept referring to him as "Mr. Tarpley" when he has a doctorate in History from Princeton IIRC. That doesn't mean he's right, of course, but it's also curious when his credentials are seemingly downplayed as though to minimize the credence with which people would take him.

His views on FDR made me 'WAT'. He admired his social welfare programs, but overlooked the political usefulness of such moves, and then skipped over that whole part about FDR wanting and intentionally irritating the Axis in order to get into a war.

Best part in that video:

Jonathan Kay was asked if he ever convinced a conspiracy theorist that the particular conspiracy was nonsense or not credible. Jonathan said no, never--except for this one time which was beside the point. Jonathan mentioned how the conspiracy theorist would simply find more reasons that would encompass a greater scope of the issues in question---until of course almost everyone (the media, the government, the politicians, etc.) are 'in on it' while only the CT knows the truth.

I didn't actually watch the video. IIRC Dr. Tarpley is Lyndon LaRouche's designated successor and FDR plays somewhere in LaRouchian thought according to Wikipedia -

Supporters of LaRouche call him a political leader in the tradition of Franklin D. Roosevelt, and LaRouche frequently refers to FDR as a model president.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_LaRouche

¡¡¡THE GRAIN CARTEL!!!

[BigBallinStalin]

It was a very interesting video. Tarpley's delivery and consistently cool manner complemented his ability to persaude; whereas, Jonathan and the moderator simply made smirky remarks and ridiculed the audience which believed in the various conspiracy theories. Granted Jonathan likely spent considerable care in addressing conspiracy theories and their positions in his book, his presentation and manner of speaking was lackluster.

But should some positions be taken seriously? Some are concerned that lending someone an ear grants some modicum of credence to their position--regardless of how bonkers it is. If I was the moderator, I'd have acted completely neutral and given any side the time of day, but if I was Jonathan, it's more difficult to say how he should've behaved.

[AndyDufresne]

It was a very interesting video. Tarpley's delivery and consistently cool manner complemented his ability to persaude; whereas, Jonathan and the moderator simply made smirky remarks and ridiculed the audience which believed in the various conspiracy theories. Granted Jonathan likely spent considerable care in addressing conspiracy theories and their positions in his book, his presentation and manner of speaking was lackluster.

But should some positions be taken seriously? Some are concerned that lending someone an ear grants some modicum of credence to their position--regardless of how bonkers it is. If I was the moderator, I'd have acted completely neutral and given any side the time of day, but if I was Jonathan, it's more difficult to say how he should've behaved.

Yeah, I agree with your remarks.


--Andy

[warmonger1981]

Here is a video on youtube that goes over all kinds of conspiracy theories from the freemasons to the U.N. it is pretty long about 2.5 hours. It has a lot of shit in it. Its called. NWO: Secret Societies and Biblical Prophecy Vol.1 It has about 800,000 views. The name of the video is sort of misleading as it really doesn't talk to much about Bible prophecy until the last 30 minutes. Even then the guy doesn't say much about the Bible. But he talks alot about all kinds of secret cults and societies. I cant paste the video otherwise I would.

[BigBallinStalin]

Here is a video on youtube that goes over all kinds of conspiracy theories from the freemasons to the U.N. it is pretty long about 2.5 hours. It has a lot of shit in it. Its called. NWO: Secret Societies and Biblical Prophecy Vol.1 It has about 800,000 views. The name of the video is sort of misleading as it really doesn't talk to much about Bible prophecy until the last 30 minutes. Even then the guy doesn't say much about the Bible. But he talks alot about all kinds of secret cults and societies. I cant paste the video otherwise I would.

We understand. The Society of St. Paul would destroy you if you posted it here.

[warmonger1981]

I will crush St.Paul as I am the conspiracy master. Societies are no match for my truth of knowing a lot about a little. Why is the CIA and FBI at my door?