Conquer Club

No, I'm not interested in propaganda literature, thanks though.

nietzsche wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:I have to agree. Anyone who accepts the pap that is dished out to the masses is a fool of the most common stripe. Even the most bizarre conspiracy theories make more sense than the traditional tripe that most citizen types embrace as gospel.


Honibaz

Sadly, the idea that believers in conspiracy theories are nuts is the best ally of the perpetrators.

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Sure, it's valuable not to blindly accept the government's story.
However blindly rejecting it cause "government's are evil" is just as bad and stinks of those goth kids who are all so "special" that they have to dress and act all the same to establish how much of a freethinker they are.

You have to judge them independently and most conspiracy theories are fuckin insane. Vaccines causing autism? Chemtrails ? C'mon.

Btw. Welcome back bk

I wonder if some of the wider spread ridiculous theories are put out intentionally to distract some people who are on to something, and convince others that to question something like vaccine is just silly.

Might as well read the 9/11 commission report as total truth.

_sabotage_ wrote:No, I'm not interested in propaganda literature, thanks though.

I see you have led yourself to an informed, unbiased approach.

As I am sure you have as well.

Have you read the laws of physics? They might help you to understand that an object cannot fall at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, and yet they were broken three times in New York that day.

_sabotage_ wrote:As I am sure you have as well.

Have you read the laws of physics? They might help you to understand that an object cannot fall at free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance, and yet they were broken three times in New York that day.

I've read the Looming Tower and will be getting into the second one sometime soon.

So, about that unbiased and totally objective approach of yours. Do you feel that your conclusions are true--considering that you seem to be completely neglecting the literature from individuals who have worked within the government?

Yes, I feel that the laws of physics can't be broken by propaganda. That WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 could not have fallen they way they did based on what we have been told. It is physically impossible. That a plane measuring double the size of the hole it creates is impossible. These are called facts, and you can write as much as you like, but facts are hard to spin.

nietzsche wrote:

b.k. barunt wrote:I have to agree. Anyone who accepts the pap that is dished out to the masses is a fool of the most common stripe. Even the most bizarre conspiracy theories make more sense than the traditional tripe that most citizen types embrace as gospel.


Honibaz

Sadly, the idea that believers in conspiracy theories are nuts is the best ally of the perpetrators.

--Andy

How about the illuminati card game made in 1982 and revised in 1991. It shows the twin towers exploding by a terrorist attack. Did the makers of the game know what the future holds as most of the cards are strategies being used? How about that for conspiracy. I'm not saying I believe in that crap but it is kind of creepy.

_sabotage_ wrote:Yes, I feel that the laws of physics can't be broken by propaganda. That WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 could not have fallen they way they did based on what we have been told. It is physically impossible. That a plane measuring double the size of the hole it creates is impossible. These are called facts, and you can write as much as you like, but facts are hard to spin.

So, your position is this:

1. Laws of physics
2. 9-11? Conspiracy!


What are your underlying assumptions?

1. Government is incompetent with many things--except for pulling off large-scale conspiracy theories.
2. The tens of thousands within government are great at keeping secrets.
3. The media and the many freelancers are incapable of revealing the truth behind the conspiracy theory.
4. Only a select group which refuses to read any sources but their own know the facts.
5. And somehow something countered the usual incentives faced by the FBI, CIA, NSA, DoD, etc. They became were all aligned and on-board with the conspiracy, so that they would fail to conduct their normal operations in countering a terrorist attack.

Sounds like an imaginative string of assumptions here. And #4 is very self-serving!

Jusr because thousands of employees are incompetent doesn't mean a handful of people in the government are. The government is good at one thing and thats fucking the public. Really good at stripping away your rights is one thing they are good at. Fear is almost as persuasive aps hope. Hoe comes from fear.

1. I don't believe that the government is incompetent, I just believe that their competence revolves around their own interests, and that their interests aren't tied to the peoples.
2. Didn't need tens of thousands, needed a few. All they had to do was let a threat take form and add a few touches.
3. The NYTimes released info on the 6 warnings Bush received, and yet this thread states that anyone who thinks Bush had advanced knowledge is a conspiracist.
4. It's not a select few, it's millions of people and many major media has reported great doubts on the official story internationally, though seldom in the US.
5. CIA provided Bush with six warnings, FBI reports that they were impeded from doing their job, DoD were the folks saying it was a hoax to deflect attention from Saddam.

And yes, my position remains that until the laws of physics are changed to fit the scenario, then reality will just have to do.

warmonger1981 wrote:How about the illuminati card game made in 1982 and revised in 1991. It shows the twin towers exploding by a terrorist attack. Did the makers of the game know what the future holds as most of the cards are strategies being used? How about that for conspiracy. I'm not saying I believe in that crap but it is kind of creepy.

If Steve Jackson was that clever he'd be rich.

_sabotage_ wrote:LBJ killed JFK.

LBJ took the IRT down to 4th street USA/ when he got there what did he see? The youth of America on LSD. -- James Rado and Jerome Ragini

_sabotage_ wrote:1. I don't believe that the government is incompetent, I just believe that their competence revolves around their own interests, and that their interests aren't tied to the peoples.
2. Didn't need tens of thousands, needed a few. All they had to do was let a threat take form and add a few touches.
3. The NYTimes released info on the 6 warnings Bush received, and yet this thread states that anyone who thinks Bush had advanced knowledge is a conspiracist.
4. It's not a select few, it's millions of people and many major media has reported great doubts on the official story internationally, though seldom in the US.
5. CIA provided Bush with six warnings, FBI reports that they were impeded from doing their job, DoD were the folks saying it was a hoax to deflect attention from Saddam.

And yes, my position remains that until the laws of physics are changed to fit the scenario, then reality will just have to do.

If I only led creationist books and refused to read science books--cuz they're propaganda, then the "evidence" of creationism would seem strong, wouldn't it?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

nietzsche wrote:You are all missing the point.

The key here is why people like conspiracy theories, what do they remind them.

Have you read the Hero with a thousand faces?

I recall seeing that book in the movie Big Fish. That's the extent of my knowledge about it.


Are you saying that conspiracy theorists (CTs) view themselves as the hero who will bring back the booty to others?

What role do CTs play in Campbell's monomyth?

I'm saying that all of us have a innate tendency to believe in a myth. It's a story in the back of our minds all the time. I believe (I have no proof or scholar article) that it's somehow the origin of the tendecy we all have to believe in conspiracy theories.

There's not much mythic with conspiracy theories. It begins with, "No, X didn't happen; Y did."

(to be clear, there's a difference between Campbell's use of "myth"--as in, "epic quest," and your use of "myth"--i.e. "urban legend").

Nope, I meant it in the epic quest way.

I'm going to leave it there though, you are not ready

You really think that CTs view themselves as heroes?

I'm about halfway through the Hero of 1000 Faces right now, and I'm struggling to draw the connections between Campbell's ideas of myth and conspiracies. Myth is used to explore and explain ideas of the human conditions in hopes that others will learn lessons from them and apply them to life. It doesn't feel as if conspiracy theories have the same intent.

Big Ballin Stalin wrote:There's not much mythic with conspiracy theories. It begins with, "No, X didn't happen; Y did."

(to be clear, there's a difference between Campbell's use of "myth"--as in, "epic quest," and your use of "myth"--i.e. "urban legend").

nietzsche wrote:Nope, I meant it in the epic quest way.

I'm going to leave it there though, you are not ready

Crazyirishman wrote:I'm about halfway through the Hero of 1000 Faces right now, and I'm struggling to draw the connections between Campbell's ideas of myth and conspiracies. Myth is used to explore and explain ideas of the human conditions in hopes that others will learn lessons from them and apply them to life. It doesn't feel as if conspiracy theories have the same intent.

nietzsche wrote:I'm saying that all of us have a innate tendency to believe in a myth. It's a story in the back of our minds all the time. I believe (I have no proof or scholar article) that it's somehow the origin of the tendecy we all have to believe in conspiracy theories.

It's as if you guys never read a poem, as if you never venture a little farther of what matter-of-fact, logic, left-brain says.

There's a connection between Campbell's Hero and Jung's archetypes. They are talking of the same universal human psyche. Not all humans must believe in conspiracy theories but the great majority do. Is Campbell's "myth" perfectly delineated? Could there be a little more deep down there? Could some of the myth imagery be both used to like hero stories and believe in conspiracy theories?

If I had faked a source, faked a wikipedia entry and made you believe it came from a scholar, you guys wouldn't doubt it for a second, even without knowing the scholar, you would've just needed he was in some prestigious western university. You would just learn it and qoute it.

nietzsche wrote:
It's as if you guys never read a poem, as if you never venture a little farther of what matter-of-fact, logic, left-brain says.

There's a connection between Campbell's Hero and Jung's archetypes. They are talking of the same universal human psyche. Not all humans must believe in conspiracy theories but the great majority do. Is Campbell's "myth" perfectly delineated? Could there be a little more deep down there? Could some of the myth imagery be both used to like hero stories and believe in conspiracy theories?

If I had faked a source, faked a wikipedia entry and made you believe it came from a scholar, you guys wouldn't doubt it for a second, even without knowing the scholar, you would've just needed he was in some prestigious western university. You would just learn it and qoute it.

Whoa, that's a little harsh. I completely agree with you that there's a connection between Campbell's and Jung's work, I mean Campbell says it himself in the book. And of course there's some 'deep down there' stuff in his ideas just like any other critical thought oriented writing. Just because you find a source for something doesn't mean I'm going to think and blindly accept that: *derp! a guy with a PhD from *insert name of western university" said it so it must be true."

What I said was that for me myth and conspiracy seem to have different purposes, so I was struggling to find the connection between the two. Its easier for me to learn a lesson about the human condition from Oedipus or the Iliad and Odyssey than it is for me to learn a lesson from 'Obama was born in Kenya", "The government was behind 9/11" and the Illuminati.

Crazyirishman wrote:

nietzsche wrote:
It's as if you guys never read a poem, as if you never venture a little farther of what matter-of-fact, logic, left-brain says.

There's a connection between Campbell's Hero and Jung's archetypes. They are talking of the same universal human psyche. Not all humans must believe in conspiracy theories but the great majority do. Is Campbell's "myth" perfectly delineated? Could there be a little more deep down there? Could some of the myth imagery be both used to like hero stories and believe in conspiracy theories?

If I had faked a source, faked a wikipedia entry and made you believe it came from a scholar, you guys wouldn't doubt it for a second, even without knowing the scholar, you would've just needed he was in some prestigious western university. You would just learn it and qoute it.

Whoa, that's a little harsh. I completely agree with you that there's a connection between Campbell's and Jung's work, I mean Campbell says it himself in the book. And of course there's some 'deep down there' stuff in his ideas just like any other critical thought oriented writing. Just because you find a source for something doesn't mean I'm going to think and blindly accept that: *derp! a guy with a PhD from *insert name of western university" said it so it must be true."

What I said was that for me myth and conspiracy seem to have different purposes, so I was struggling to find the connection between the two. Its easier for me to learn a lesson about the human condition from Oedipus or the Iliad and Odyssey than it is for me to learn a lesson from 'Obama was born in Kenya", "The government was behind 9/11" and the Illuminati.

My bad. I was unnecessarily harsh.

I agree with you.

But I was not talking about any specific conspiracy theory though. I do believe there are conspiracies for some stuff, some bigger, some larger. Perhaps a definition of conspiracy would be helpful here.

I think we tend to believe, deep down, there's something more to our reality and we sort of know a bit in our subconcious and we transfer or translate that into what those in power do. As if they were the ones hiding something from us, when it's not necessarily the case. What is hidden we must find inside ourselves.

That's what I think it's in our psyche, similar to what Campbell and Jung propose. And perhaps the hero path is the one we would use to find the "hidden truth"?

BigBallinStalin wrote:

_sabotage_ wrote:1. I don't believe that the government is incompetent, I just believe that their competence revolves around their own interests, and that their interests aren't tied to the peoples.
2. Didn't need tens of thousands, needed a few. All they had to do was let a threat take form and add a few touches.
3. The NYTimes released info on the 6 warnings Bush received, and yet this thread states that anyone who thinks Bush had advanced knowledge is a conspiracist.
4. It's not a select few, it's millions of people and many major media has reported great doubts on the official story internationally, though seldom in the US.
5. CIA provided Bush with six warnings, FBI reports that they were impeded from doing their job, DoD were the folks saying it was a hoax to deflect attention from Saddam.

And yes, my position remains that until the laws of physics are changed to fit the scenario, then reality will just have to do.

If I only led creationist books and refused to read science books--cuz they're propaganda, then the "evidence" of creationism would seem strong, wouldn't it?

Have you read The New Pearl Harbour? How about Shock Doctrine? I never said I haven't read any books about the official account, I just choose not to read any more. Have you read any of the literature pointing to an inside job?

Again, this thread holds the simple premise that Bush having advanced knowledge is a conspiracy theory, and yet him receiving six warnings has been verified. So what's your take, you seem to enjoy taking a dig at mine.

_sabotage_ wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

_sabotage_ wrote:1. I don't believe that the government is incompetent, I just believe that their competence revolves around their own interests, and that their interests aren't tied to the peoples.
2. Didn't need tens of thousands, needed a few. All they had to do was let a threat take form and add a few touches.
3. The NYTimes released info on the 6 warnings Bush received, and yet this thread states that anyone who thinks Bush had advanced knowledge is a conspiracist.
4. It's not a select few, it's millions of people and many major media has reported great doubts on the official story internationally, though seldom in the US.
5. CIA provided Bush with six warnings, FBI reports that they were impeded from doing their job, DoD were the folks saying it was a hoax to deflect attention from Saddam.

And yes, my position remains that until the laws of physics are changed to fit the scenario, then reality will just have to do.

If I only led creationist books and refused to read science books--cuz they're propaganda, then the "evidence" of creationism would seem strong, wouldn't it?

Have you read The New Pearl Harbour? How about Shock Doctrine? I never said I haven't read any books about the official account, I just choose not to read any more. Have you read any of the literature pointing to an inside job?

Again, this thread holds the simple premise that Bush having advanced knowledge is a conspiracy theory, and yet him receiving six warnings has been verified. So what's your take, you seem to enjoy taking a dig at mine.

The underlined reminds me of the problem with The Day of Deceit, which makes similar claims about FDR being aware of an attack on Pearl Harbor and allowing it to happen. I'm not too interested in this conversation, so I'll make it short. Basically, there's a time-lag in intelligence reports--from the moment the intelligence (and not the raw information) is produced and when the relevant decision-makers actually read it--or some watered-down version. Then there's a range of reports which state contradictory claims, so there's an uncertainty about what may happen. But the conspiracy theorist can ignore this uncertainty and that time-gap at the time of the decision-maker by only referring to 20% of that range of intelligence reports. They can make it seem like the decision-maker knew what would happen because the CT simply failed to mention the other 80% of the reports and their conflicting warnings/concerns.

So, if either Shock Doctrine or The New Pearl Harbour make the underlined claim, then my above concerns are valid. This would require cross-referencing the various intelligence reports which were made available to the president at that time. Hopefully, the FOIA and that process would allow for such a time-consuming endeavor. I would not be surprised if either book did similar research to The Day of Deceit's, thus have failed in supporting the claim that Bush received six warnings. Perhaps, Bush received six warnings, but each one was vague, and the authors neglected to mention the other 20 or so warnings pointing to other places other than NY and were referring to different means (trucks, instead of airplanes). Maybe you can comment on these concerns of mine, and how those books handle that issue.

Anyone who doesn't believe that few people with massive amounts of money and power don't want go dominate the globe are ignorant. They probably also believe in Santa clause and Christopher Columbus discovering America. Some people seem to be so smart that they can solve a real tough math problem but cant change a tire on a car or are too blind to read the warning signs. Nah that cant happen or people wouldn't do that. Bullshit most people are either dumb or are too scared to get out of their safe zone. This world is made up by layers of legal limbo jumbo to keep the masses in check.

My gut just tells me Occam's razor for these. Yeah, anything is possible but the size of the shadow of doubt has to be considered.

Despite being fairly broad-minded, I can't think of any conspiracy theories I believe in. JFK? Roswell? FDR and Pearl Harbor? Maybe, I suppose, but I won't believe 'em unless I see some hard evidence.

But hey, people do vote more than once in the same election, behavior that's not limited to one particular political ideology. =)

Republican who tried to vote twice: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/0 ... 68999.html

Democrat who voted at the polls and sent in an absentee ballot: http://www.wcpo.com/dpp/news/region_cen ... speaks-out