Am I A "Conspiracy Theorist"?

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: grandpa No he didn't. He merely engaged in a sweeping dismissal, and the premise was not even accurate. Grandpa h.

Well, at least you see what you are up against.


Those that label us deniers are, in fact, the real deniers. But only openly, because they know that we are correct, but they are fightng for the other side.


This is a perfect example of why I say it's to late to work within the system. Objective truth must be resored before any rational discussion can occur.

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Milton Those that label us deniers are, in fact, the real deniers. But only openly, because they know that we are correct, but they are fightng for the other side.

Milton... we disagree constantly, but I do respect you as an individual (at least as much as anyone can in this environment) but I have to level with you. The statement you have made here is based in the attitude that is nearly the sole reason why you and your movement are not taken seriously.

You imply that those of us that disagree with the 9/11 truth movement know we are wrong and continue to argue regardless because we have taken sides against you. In essence that makes us part of the conspiracy. Not only is this patently insulting since you are dismissing us as part of a conspiracy to murder thousands of our fellow countrymen, but it is not based in any objective or subjective logic.

Do you really believe that we know we are wrong and are continuing to argue with you because we have chosen "our side"? Do you really think of us as that sociopathic / psychopathic that we would willingly support a government that murdered thousands of its own people? Why must we be apart of this? You don't think it's possible we actually disagree with you on factual grounds?

How can you expect to have a dialog with people you believe are evil and merely trying to subvert your goals?

I bring your attention to this because it's not just you that seems to display this attitude but many of the others who share your viewpoint. It's saddening.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa No he didn't. He merely engaged in a sweeping dismissal, and the premise was not even accurate. Grandpa h.

First, I'm a "she", not a "he". Second, explain how my dismissal is sweeping and how my premise is inaccurate.

[Orangutan]

I'd agree that presuming anyone who disagrees is "on the other side" is a tad hasty - but it must also be said that deliberately infiltrating organisations of all types, posting on blogs and forums, writing letters to editors and other such things ARE standard procedure for government propaganda systems. And not just in America.

I have also noticed that "conspiracy theory!" is thrown with the same lack of actual debate or research as the all too common "anti semite!" slur.

The very moment you suggest the government may be something other than on the side of "Amerikuh!" out come the usual "Conspiracy theory!!" nutjobs. No, not those looking into the theory, those who refuse to look merely because it is a theory and cannot be proven beyond any possible doubt.

Sometimes it helps to use your brain rather than demanding "proof".

If you want to go down that path bear in mind nothing can be "proven" true, even in science, only falsified. As such in science the accepted truth as best we can figure out is referred to as "the theory" as opposed to "a theory".

Regarding the federal reserve and world banking, various people in a position to know and influence such things have openly stated their intentions and it's pretty much beyond dispute. The only interesting theory left is "Why is peeps so dumb they don't react to this?"

Regarding 9/11, there is a conspiracy theory - that 19 Arabs (none of them from Iraq) conspired together to attack various places, that they just happened to get incredibly lucky and most of it went to plan, helped considerably by 'war game' operations that provided the perfect cover. You know, faux operations to prepare for the attack that couldn't possibly be imagined, at the exact same time as the unimaginable event was actually happening.

A further theory is that the US government knew of the attack and allowed it to happen, as it perfectly fitted with their on-the-record desire for exactly such a "new Pearl Harbor" event (which was also allowed to happen, and that's no "theory" as such). Do you have to be a loony kook to give such a theory credibility? Not at all, it's a perfectly reasonable assessment based on government in general, this government in particular and world history. You'd have to be a bit loony to NOT consider that very likely.

Nice to be back by the way

*waves*

O.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Orangutan I'd agree that presuming anyone who disagrees is "on the other side" is a tad hasty - but it must also be said that deliberately infiltrating organisations of all types, posting on blogs and forums, writing letters to editors and other such things ARE standard procedure for government propaganda systems. And not just in America. I have also noticed that "conspiracy theory!" is thrown with the same lack of actual debate or research as the all too common "anti semite!" slur. The very moment you suggest the government may be something other than on the side of "Amerikuh!" out come the usual "Conspiracy theory!!" nutjobs. No, not those looking into the theory, those who refuse to look merely because it is a theory and cannot be proven beyond any possible doubt. Sometimes it helps to use your brain rather than demanding "proof". If you want to go down that path bear in mind nothing can be "proven" true, even in science, only falsified. As such in science the accepted truth as best we can figure out is referred to as "the theory" as opposed to "a theory". Regarding the federal reserve and world banking, various people in a position to know and influence such things have openly stated their intentions and it's pretty much beyond dispute. The only interesting theory left is "Why is peeps so dumb they don't react to this?" Regarding 9/11, there is a conspiracy theory - that 19 Arabs (none of them from Iraq) conspired together to attack various places, that they just happened to get incredibly lucky and most of it went to plan, helped considerably by 'war game' operations that provided the perfect cover. You know, faux operations to prepare for the attack that couldn't possibly be imagined, at the exact same time as the unimaginable event was actually happening. A further theory is that the US government knew of the attack and allowed it to happen, as it perfectly fitted with their on-the-record desire for exactly such a "new Pearl Harbor" event (which was also allowed to happen, and that's no "theory" as such). Do you have to be a loony kook to give such a theory credibility? Not at all, it's a perfectly reasonable assessment based on government in general, this government in particular and world history. You'd have to be a bit loony to NOT consider that very likely. Nice to be back by the way *waves* O.

My favorite part of this is:

Sometimes it helps to use your brain rather than demanding "proof".

Personally, I believe needing evidence or "proof" to support a theory is direct evidence that you prefer to use your brain, but maybe that is just me being silly.

[Orangutan]

You liked that bit? I have more!

Demanding proof is somewhat lazy, as it shows you cannot be bothered to think and instead demand that someone else supply your thinking for you.

"Gimme a forgone conclusion!" you squeak, like a petulant child.

Why, is thinking too difficult for you?

Jumping to conclusions is to be avoided for sure but demanding someone else supply your conclusions is somewhat selfish and not really in the spirit of debate.

If I say "I suspect I have mice in my house" then sure, it's easy to demand a fresh mouse corpse as proof. Instead consider asking "What makes you think that?" and then assess the info on its own merits. Then you get to learn about scratching noises, mouse crap, chewed floorboards and missing cheese. You're at liberty to point out that actually mice don't like cheese and consider a different possibility but just demanding a dead mouse as proof doesn't add to the debate nor dimish the scratching, missing cheese etc. It just shows you're a lazy close-minded selfish sneering git with an attitude problem.


O.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Orangutan You liked that bit? I have more! Demanding proof is somewhat lazy, as it shows you cannot be bothered to think and instead demand that someone else supply your thinking for you. "Gimme a forgone conclusion!" you squeak, like a petulant child. Why, is thinking too difficult for you? Jumping to conclusions is to be avoided for sure but demanding someone else supply your conclusions is somewhat selfish and not really in the spirit of debate. If I say "I suspect I have mice in my house" then sure, it's easy to demand a fresh mouse corpse as proof. Instead consider asking "What makes you think that?" and then assess the info on its own merits. Then you get to learn about scratching noises, mouse crap, chewed floorboards and missing cheese. You're at liberty to point out that actually mice don't like cheese and consider a different possibility but just demanding a dead mouse as proof doesn't add to the debate nor dimish the scratching, missing cheese etc. It just shows you're a lazy close-minded selfish sneering git with an attitude problem. O.

One could say that it is equally lazy to make an assertion and refuse to support it. It shows you to be a dictatorial sneering git who expects their every pronouncement to be viewed as glittering gold rather than speculation that deserves to be bathed in the illuminating light of inquiry. But, then...why would I want to be that insulting to a fellow poster?

[Orangutan]

Who's refusing to support it? Look back through the thread, right at the opening:

Notice how my view was totally dismissed, regardless of the evidence cited (most of it was even from what are called "mainstream sources"). Why?

THAT is the issue, not people who just pass an opinion with zero reasoning behind it but those who demand "proof" with no real attempt to engage the reasoning that is indeed offered.


O.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Orangutan Who's refusing to support it? Look back through the thread, right at the opening: THAT is the issue, not people who just pass an opinion with zero reasoning behind it but those who demand "proof" with no real attempt to engage the reasoning that is indeed offered. O.

Then I would suggest that you read my post, which you dismissed out of hand, in it's entirety as well. Grandpa states over and over that anarchy is the only logical answer to what ails mankind and claims that all government is wrongly coercive. If he is going to make that claim, he needs to support that claim. Just as I need to support my assertion that he is wrong. I do not whine when he asks me to support my claims. Can I conclusively prove beyond all ability to doubt that my claims are correct? Nope. And making the very large leap (for the sake of this point) that he is correct and government causes all the ills he believes it does, could he ever prove it beyond all capacity for doubt? Nope. That is not, and has never been, the standard any resonable person would demand he reach. But, if you are going to make that claim, you better be able to pull out something more substantial than "Government exists. Government enforces. War exists. War is wrong. War exists because government exists." He has done little beyond that when it comes to his "evil coercive government" claims. He also better be able to show that allowing intelectual property laws to be written and enforced causes greater harm than good. He better be able to show that Burger King ads don't just make people think they would rather have a Whopper than a Big Mac,he needs to show that they are specifically designed to make people lose their ability to reason and lead to the domination of the populace by nefarious evil-doers bent on world destruction. If you claim it, you have the burden of proof. If I make a counter-claim, I have to support my assertion. Neither gets a free ride. It is not lazy to ask someone to support their claims. It is lazy to expect others to carry the water for you when you are the one making the claim. Post the link, quote the source, make the arguement in your own words. Do I have to post a supporting link if I claim cows give milk? No. Reasonable people know the difference between what is commonly known and accepted and what needs supporting evidence. Just be reasonable. In the end, it is about winning the debate with the masses. If you want anarchy to become the standard, you have to convince people. If you want people to believe that our government was behind or allowed the terrorist attacks on 9/11, you have to convince them. Truth, in the end, is almost beside the point. I believe with all my being that it is true that we would be better off if people were not willing to allow others to think for them. I think that can pretty much be proven to a reasonable standard. So, lets say it is true. But the truth of the statement has no effect on people's willingness to do the work required to think for themselves. Truth becomes beside the point because I can not convince the majority of people to do the work. In the end, what matters is what you can effect. If you want to effect opinion, you have to convince. If you want to convince, you have to support.

[Orangutan]

Seems to me you're taking it personally, me I'm just responding to the thread as it is (if only as I haven't been here for awhile and am not interested in other's squabbles).

The particular poster in who started this may or may not back up what he says but the question, or issue, is why do so many people, maybe you, maybe not, just ejaculate "conspiracy theory!" without looking at the facts or arguments presented?

I've seen it myself time after time on forums and blog comments all over the place. It also gets damn tiring having to keep on and on dragging out the same damn links because every damn time you mention something you get someone going "You got a source for that?". That's happened to me on a different forum, the same 3 or 4 people will insist on a source or proof of something they know damn well you sourced or proved months ago.

When it comes to government conspiracies (of which there are plenty, or do you wish to deny the existence of the CIA and other such secretive services?) it sometimes seems only an official government statement of guilt would be accepted by certain people. Dig the irony.

So my points are aimed at the basic issue or concept, not you, not the OP, just the concept.

Why DO people switch their brain off and just repeat the words "Conspiracy theory!" as though that somehow constitutes a coherent argument?


O.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Milton... we disagree constantly, but I do respect you as an individual (at least as much as anyone can in this environment) but I have to level with you. The statement you have made here is based in the attitude that is nearly the sole reason why you and your movement are not taken seriously.

Not taken seriously by people who seem to want the type of plausible deniability only available to the completely ignorant.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 You imply that those of us that disagree with the 9/11 truth movement know we are wrong and continue to argue regardless because we have taken sides against you. In essence that makes us part of the conspiracy. Not only is this patently insulting since you are dismissing us as part of a conspiracy to murder thousands of our fellow countrymen, but it is not based in any objective or subjective logic.

Then what is your motivation? You have no more evidence than I do. You merely support the opposing theory, which is the least likely of the avaiable theories that are floating around.


If anybody is believing the fantastic, or the unbelievable, it is your side. Yet you cling to the story told thirty minutes after the plane impacted the first tower, vitually unchanged. ( Not that it could change with the lack of investigation. )

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Do you really believe that we know we are wrong and are continuing to argue with you because we have chosen "our side"?

Either that, or you are having you opinion supplied by the people supplying the official story. The official story is to full of holes.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Do you really think of us as that sociopathic / psychopathic that we would willingly support a government that murdered thousands of its own people?

Either that, or you are scared of what the truth may be, and like I said above, seek the type of plausible denaibilty that is only available to those totally ignorant of the truth.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Why must we be apart of this? You don't think it's possible we actually disagree with you on factual grounds?

I'm not advancing any theory of my own, ( well, perhaps one ) only asking questions, and making seemingly obvious observations. When I'm criticised for that, I do truly question your allegiance.


What, it gets under your skin so much that somebody else could e critical of the story, and dare to question it?

Quote by: Chaossaber314 How can you expect to have a dialog with people you believe are evil and merely trying to subvert your goals?

Truly, I wasn't here to talk to that demographic, but I didn't want to be totally rude.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I bring your attention to this because it's not just you that seems to display this attitude but many of the others who share your viewpoint. It's saddening.

I make my comments here because I really don't care what you think, but hope to appeal to other critical minds.


I'm not fishing for sheeple friends pally, I'm guaging public opinion, measuring the ratio of critical thinkers, and looking for other information. Unfortunately, a great many of the people I was here to talk to departed in the last exodus.

[lsbskins1]

Well, when you call me a "sneering git", I tend to take that a little personally. Now, just because you did not say "lsbskins, you sneering git, quit asking for people to provide proof for their assertions" does not mean that you did not call me a sneering git. Being one who asks for support for assertions, I quite reasonably took offense.

And no, I do not deny that the CIA exists, nor do I deny that they have engaged in consiratorial activities, and still do every day. What I deny is that that translates into proof that they were behind 9/11. It does not establish that fact anymore than the fact that Jesse James robbed banks establishes the fact that he was responsible for every bank robbery during the time of his active career. That is where 9/11 therory fails. Think about it like a detective. Say Jane Doe is murdered. We know that 90ish % of murder victims are killed by someone they know. It is rational to begin looking at people Jane knew, but it is not logical to dismiss evidence of a stranger homicide because stranger homicides are not the rule. ALL facts are important. Conspiracy theorists tend to glam on to the facts (the CIA has been involved in conspiracies in the past) that support their theory, and ignore facts (the CIA tends to involve itself in acts of conspiracy in furtherence of what is sees as beneficial foriegn policy goals against citizens of foreign countries or citizens of the US it views as subversive, and not against masses of innocent US citizens) that tend to poke holes in their theory. Not really an example of true critical thinking, if you ask me. True critical thinking allows the theorist to adandon the theory when facts demand he abandon it.

[grandpa]

Quote by: lsbskins1 First, I'm a "she", not a "he". Second, explain how my dismissal is sweeping and how my premise is inaccurate.

Sorry about that. I'll try to note that in the future.

It was sweeping because you apparently didn't look into the evidence in the link in my first post, or the United Fruit Company, or what Edward Bernays (the "forefather of public relations" -- an inside man, in other words) himself said about the nature of the political system.

My original post was a "not to worry" one, because plenty of information was already avilable in the link (and, of course, elsewhere). Much of that information indicated a link between the corporate backgrounds of these politicians and their policy-decisions. In fact, I'd argue common sense would indicate the likelihood of those links.

Your premise appears to be that this system is in no way conspiratorial. That's a bogus premise. Any massive international organization which rules over people is going to have plans -- "conspiracies" in other words. A cursory glimpse into the nature of our system reveals this as fact, not as fiction. It's hardly a crazy point of view, and it's barely even philosophical. I'm not talking about "the sound of one hand clapping" here or if a tree makes a sound when it falls and no one hears it. This is concrete stuff and not just rhetorical. Your premise, on the other hand, is rhetorical and incoherent, as well as inaccurate.

Grandpa h.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: grandpa It was sweeping becaus eyou apparently didn't look into the evidence in the link in my first post, or the United Fruit Company, or what Edward Bernays (the "forefather of public relations" -- an inside man, in other words) himself said about the nature of the political system.

How do you know this?

Maybe she did (and I did) and we don't see a conspiracy. What you've provided is barely proof of an oligarchy and certainly wasn't proof of a conspiracy, i.e., parties acting in concert to achieve a specific (nefarious) goal.

There are two types of thinking in this area. Your type of person looks at coincidences and similarities and says "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!" My type looks at it and sees nothing more. You're simply more willing to make a leap of thinking on less evidence, e.g. you're more credulous to "evidence", more willing to accept a lower standard of evidence as "proving" a certain point.

Much of that information indicated a link between the corporate backgrounds of these politicians and their policy-decisions. In fact, I'd argue common sense would indicate the likelihood of those links.

Every policy decision involves the background of the person making it - there's no way to separate the two. Where you stand depends on where you sit. That does not equate to a conspiracy.

Your premise appears to be that this system is in no way conspiratorial. That's a bogus premise. Any massive international organization which rules over people is going to have plans -- "conspiracies" in other words.

A "plan" is not the same thing as a "conspiracy".

The system that you speak of has instances of nepotism, spoils, and oligarchy. However, that indicates nothing more than nepotism, spoils, and oligarchy.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 How do you know this? Maybe she did (and I did) and we don't see a conspiracy.

Well, what is a conspiracy?

"An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act." That describes government activity quite generally.

Grandpa h.

[Domino]

There are two types of thinking in this area. Your type of person looks at coincidences and similarities and says "ZOMG CONSPIRACY!" My type looks at it and sees nothing more. You're simply more willing to make a leap of thinking on less evidence, e.g. you're more credulous to "evidence", more willing to accept a lower standard of evidence as "proving" a certain point.

It's amazing how often people sort themselves by this dichotomy, and feel honor-bound to support their side. Two groups of people, both calling each other crazy, leaving no room in the conversation for us folk who keep an open mind where evidence fails.

Now, it's hard to prove the lack of a conspiracy. If it is your bent to investigate, you will, eventually, on the vast majority of possible conspiracies, have to give up. It is the fate of the healthy paranoid to be rarely satisfied. However, while I can understand disinterest from those who have no wish to investigate, fervent denial is hard for me to understand, and is, frankly, suspect.

The fervent belief that conspiracies never happen seems to be the greatest conspiracy theory of all: from the death of Caesar to the fall of Enron, there must have been a mighty effort to insert detailed conspiracies into the historical record. It would, surely, require a vast number of people keeping a common secret: that, in fact, no one ever conspired toward any of these ends. We can only speculate as to why this cadre would want people to think any of these things had been accomplished by some inconceivable cadre...

Conspiracies happen. Good conspiracies leave no evidence. Ideal conspiracies are simply the work of like-minded individuals, each working toward a common goal, without ever establishing the commonality of said goal. Even bad conspiracies can accomplish their goals, leaving inconclusive evidence. It takes a truly terrible conspiracy to be caught red-handed, and those are rare, indeed.

Given a set of facts that indicate the possibility, but by no means certainty, of a conspiracy, anyone who always claims a definite conspiracy is obviously out of touch with reality; anyone who always denies the possibility of a conspiracy is also out of touch with reality. Sane, intelligent people will both suspend judgment and exercise caution (and they do it pretty easily, at that).

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: grandpa Sorry about that. I'll try to note that in the future. It was sweeping because you apparently didn't look into the evidence in the link in my first post, or the United Fruit Company, or what Edward Bernays (the "forefather of public relations" -- an inside man, in other words) himself said about the nature of the political system. My original post was a "not to worry" one, because plenty of information was already avilable in the link (and, of course, elsewhere). Much of that information indicated a link between the corporate backgrounds of these politicians and their policy-decisions. In fact, I'd argue common sense would indicate the likelihood of those links. Your premise appears to be that this system is in no way conspiratorial. That's a bogus premise. Any massive international organization which rules over people is going to have plans -- "conspiracies" in other words. A cursory glimpse into the nature of our system reveals this as fact, not as fiction. It's hardly a crazy point of view, and it's barely even philosophical. I'm not talking about "the sound of one hand clapping" here or if a tree makes a sound when it falls and no one hears it. This is concrete stuff and not just rhetorical. Your premise, on the other hand, is rhetorical and incoherent, as well as inaccurate. Grandpa h.

You always seem to make the mistake of assuming that if you say something is white and I say, "No, it's not white" , that that means I am saying it is black. I am not. I am saying the world is more gray. If I remember from past posts, you are fairly young and this is a natural condition of thinking when you are young. Things are right or they are wrong, you are with me or against me, you are part of the rebellion or you are part of the establishment, you are smart or you are stupid. Things seem to be all in opposition. Let me attempt to make some things a little more clear than it seems I have made them. I do not claim that the CIA has never done bad things. I am well aware, without links, of it's shady dealings in the world. I do not claim that government is not capable of mighty evil and wrong. I do not need links to know this, I read Histories for fun and pleasure, not the latest Romance, Mystery or Science Fiction novels. What I am saying is that despite these truths, government is not the cause of the problem. Just as a knife can be used to cut a loaf of bread or can be used to cut your neighbors throat, government is a tool that can be used to advantage or to harm and it is a tool that in the great scheme of things, brings us more advantage than harm. No link, no fact, no pronouncement you have made has shown me that I am incorrect in this assesment. But, you are obviously free to keep trying.

[Morality Games]

One of the maxims of my life is that you should do what you can with what cards are in the deck. Their truth-value aside, outlooks like anarchism, libertarianism, and communism are not in the cards, and I don't consider them as valid reference points for how I should 'be' here-and-now (the present context of the world) on basis of that alone. That is because something that isn't in the cards can only lead to unproductive labor, unnecessary conflict, and bitter disappointment.

On an equally important note, and in line with what Isbskins1 is saying, there is the question of how realistic such ideologies are. I find that ideologies generally encourage mentalities which are very this-or-that (good or evil, light or dark) in style, and that manner of analysis almost never produces anything except logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy which leads to actions that are foul, foul, foul.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: Morality Games One of the maxims of my life is that you should do what you can with what cards are in the deck. Their truth-value aside, outlooks like anarchism, libertarianism, and communism are not in the cards, and I don't consider them as valid reference points for how I should 'be' here-and-now (the present context of the world) on basis of that alone. That is because something that isn't in the cards can only lead to unproductive labor, unnecessary conflict, and bitter disappointment. On an equally important note, and in line with what Isbskins1 is saying, there is the question of how realistic such ideologies are. I find that ideologies generally encourage mentalities which are very this-or-that (good or evil, light or dark) in style, and that manner of analysis almost never produces anything except logical fallacy, logical fallacy, logical fallacy which leads to actions that are foul, foul, foul.

Right, but then you're probably just playing some kind of moral game on us to justify the most pernicious, and destructive philosophies.


You sir, have made a poor choice of a forum name if you intended to be taken seriously on matters as important as this.

[Orangutan]

Well, when you call me a "sneering git", I tend to take that a little personally

If the hat fits, wear it but as someone who hasn't posted here for ages and is an occasional visitor, how can I be personal about anything? I don't know you but if you ARE someone who just sneers "conspiracy theory!" as an argument without actually debating the background and info, then yes, you'd be a sneering git with a closed mind. By definition, no?

Morality Games, your name appears to suit your mentality well, as you seem to consider morality merely a game to be played? You can take that personally if you like, as I'm directly addressing your stated view.

I strongly disagree with this point:

That is because something that isn't in the cards can only lead to unproductive labor, unnecessary conflict, and bitter disappointment

I do not recall the exact quote but Maggie Mead put it something like this: Never doubt the ability of a small but determined and vocal group of men to change the world, indeed it is the only thing that ever has".

Another classic is "It's the squeaky wheel that gets the oil", ie in the face of mass apathy ("crap happens, just deal with your own life") the noisey minority often gains power vastly out of proportion to either their numbers or intellect - and indeed they tend to produce the most damaging of "conspiracy theories"!

Some examples:

Feminism - the notion that all men are evil battering rapists who conspire in the Great Brotherhood to Oppress Women and all women are indeed Oppressed Victims of the Great & Evil Patriarchy (G&EP) is a loony-toon mindset yet also the current "official" standard of education, the basis of new laws and regulations, the mindset of the media and generally accepted as the Great Truth. Yet real world experience, the actual scientific literature and so on say if anything the opposite, Western society has always been more lenient towards women while extending them protections and privilidges no man dare expect.

Speak to virtually anyone a suitable distance or time-lag away from a womyn's course and few would agree with that loony mindset - yet it's the dominant and powerful position, backed by law, social convention etc. Why? A relatively small group of nutjobs that wish to impose Social Marxism upon the West and do indeed conspire in said aim.

Israel - The "3rd rail" of American politics. Even the slightest hint that you may not 100% agree with the Israeli's righteous God-Given (GG) prerogative to murder Palestinians at near-random while reducing their access to basic facilities etc etc etc etc etc etc etc immediately sparks a charge of "Anti-Semite!"

A number of studies suggest that most American Jews do not support Israeli policies let alone the general US population but you'd never know it due to the heavy censorship and outright fear instilled in any who'd speak out. Even Jews who speak out get instantly labelled "Jew Hater", as though disliking other people's policies means you hate yourself.

Why? A relatively small number of nutjobs and pragmatic politicians who've figured out the perfect system - give money and support to Israel on a national basis, get money and support from Israel on a personal campaign basis.

Another? OK, soy and corn growers in the US, they receive huge subsidies which in turn gives them the financial leverage and lobbying to continue getting said huge subsidies originally paid due to food shortages after WW1 and