Am I A "Conspiracy Theorist"?

[grandpa]

Here's my opinion:
If you look at the evidence, there is plenty reason we should not donate our angry energies on immigrants or "minorities" as the media often suggests, but on the real exploiters who primarily exist in government. It's a personal view which some may not like, but something else keeps getting in my way: This label of "conspiracy theory." No matter what I may say, I occasionally get this label attached to me.

But here's an obvious example where I cited a large amount of evidence to justify my claim that our government is substantially run by corporate interests:
The Sociological Implications of Rollerball

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

My theory is that many use the term "conspiracy theory" for a simple reason: They prefer making sweeping accusations and ad hominems over actually engaging in a substantive debate. Obviously, I regard the term rather contemptuously. If I say ruling elites throughout history have been one of the root causes of poverty, is it conpsiracy fact or conspiracy fiction? To me, it seems like an apt description of the global economy. In fact, you can read headlines even in the mainstream press indicating as much, as hinted at already.

Here's another thing: some accused of engaging in "conspiracy theory" may be simply disorganized talkers. For example, they might have had compelling evidence at one point but maybe they lose the source (this unfortunately happens to me sometimes when I find a compelling, well-sourced article online that eventually gets erased -- or maybe the source switches from being free to one where you have to pay for it, thus making it less accessible). Obviously, in such cases, the arguer shouldn't really be blamed too sharply.

Yet another thing: Why are so many people hesitant to examine claims themselves? Certainly, the internet has a wealth of information, as does the local library. It seems that if more were willing to research into claims that the term "conspiracy theory" would be less common.

I think all of these things should be considered when assessing my views, or those of anyone else. Thank you, and please discuss.

Grandpa h.

[Compugasm]

Quote by: grandpa ...to justify my claim that our government is substantially run by corporate interests...

Didn't you bring up RIAA in another thread? PMRC, FCC, MPAA. Right there is all the proof you need. Those four organizations control 100% of all media transmitted and produced in America. Obviously the MPAA doesn't "produce" anything. But as the gatekeeper, they control and protect the system.

Quote by: grandpa If I say ruling elites throughout history have been one of the root causes of poverty, is it conpsiracy fact or conspiracy fiction?

Fact.

[Muckraker]

I agree that labeling someone as a conspiracy theorist is primarily used to discredit them without addressing any of their points.

A person that did research and noted that the rolling blackouts in California may have been caused on purpose by greedy companies would have been labeled as a conspiracy theorist no matter how much evidence they presented.

Labeling them as such groups them in with people that think we never landed on the moon, that the US blew up the twin towers, and that the government is trying to cover up the existence of Big Foot. And that grouping discredits their position simply by association.

I agree with your linked topic that corporate interests are ultimately in control and that the welfare of the people may not always be at the heart of political and corporate matters. When large quantities of money are involved, a whole slew of "conspiratorial" ideas suddenly come very plausible.

[Roxdog]

It is a largely meaningless buzzphrase employed by intellectual hacks. The end.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Compugasm Didn't you bring up RIAA in another thread? PMRC, FCC, MPAA.

I certainly did mention them. Quite simply, I have trouble with this concept of "owning ideas." It's not even true that you have to exlusively own an idea to benefit from it, including making money. Also, the other organizations you list have connections to teh religious right. For example, people in the PMRC had/have connections to people like Reverend Donald Wildmon, the same guy who got Mighty Mouse banned because in one episode he sniffed a bouquet of flowers and some of it went up his nose, thus somehow promoting cocaine abuse.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: Roxdog It is a largely meaningless buzzphrase employed by intellectual hacks. The end.

The thread is done already? I kind of hope not.

Grandpa h.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: grandpa If I say ruling elites throughout history have been one of the root causes of poverty, is it conpsiracy fact or conspiracy fiction?

But that's not a conspiracy. It might be an oligarchy.

A conspiracy requires acting in concert to achieve a certain goal. You can't prove that the "ruling elites" have acted in concert to achieve the goal of putting others in poverty. What they act in is self interest, the poverty of others is an unfortunate side effect.

Before you can talk about conspiracy theories you need to know what a conspiracy is.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tivodan1116 But that's not a conspiracy. It might be an oligarchy. A conspiracy requires acting in concert to achieve a certain goal. You can't prove that the "ruling elites" have acted in concert to achieve the goal of putting others in poverty. What they act in is self interest, the poverty of others is an unfortunate side effect. Before you can talk about conspiracy theories you need to know what a conspiracy is.

Only because people like yourself refuse to believe facts, and have to have every well established fact linked to an internet database that records that fact. It's almost like you bring zero knowledge into every topic, and have to be lead down the path of enlightenment by the hand.


It's a well established fact that certain monied interests created the International Banks as a way to control laws, and thus fortunes. But you don't believe that, do you?

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: Milton Bradley Only because people like yourself refuse to believe facts,

I don't refuse to believe facts. I just don't usually get presented with many when I'm talking to conspiracy theorists. What they call "facts" are almost always wild guesses or outright fabrications.

and have to have every well established fact linked to an internet database that records that fact.

LOL... You mean I require evidence of the veracity of a statement before I accept that statement as true????????????? OMG!!! How can I be so demanding as to ask that things be verified before I accept them as true???

It's almost like you bring zero knowledge into every topic, and have to be lead down the path of enlightenment by the hand.

I bring zero preconceptions. I demand evidence. Sorry I'm not wholly credulous to every ridiculous idea that comes down the pike...

It's a well established fact that certain monied interests created the International Banks as a way to control laws, and thus fortunes. But you don't believe that, do you?

I should believe it merely because you say it??? I suppose it's too much to ask for proof? A link to something? Anything?

If you can't provide evidence to support a statement - guess what? It's not a "well-established fact".

[grandpa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I don't refuse to believe facts. I just don't usually get presented with many when I'm talking to conspiracy theorists.

Well, in my original post I provided a link to another thread. There I provided lots of sources.

Grandpa h.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: grandpa Well, in my original post I provided a link to another thread. There I provided lots of sources. Grandpa h.

There is no (read: zero) evidence in that post of a conspiracy. What you've posted is evidence that various people in the administration held various important positions in the private sector, which is no different than any other administration for the past 100 years. That is evidence of an oligarchy, but not a conspiracy.

conspire - Definition from the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

1 a: to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement. b: scheme 2: to act in harmony toward a common end.

To prove a conspiracy, you need to have evidence that two or more people worked together towards a common end. You provided no proof that they "conspired" towards any particular end.

You are suggesting a conspiracy without proof of such, ergo, you are a "conspiracy theorist" on this particular topic.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 There is no (read: zero) evidence in that post of a conspiracy. What you've posted is evidence that various people in the administration held various important positions in the private sector, which is no different than any other administration for the past 100 years.

Really? Did you read the link? These people are collaborating towards all kinds of ends that tend to benefit the wealthy and already-powerful, as are the oil companies when they fund these moronic anti-environmentalist "Think Tanks," as I discussed recently in another thread. What I'm doing is called looking at the evidence and putting two and two together. How much more evidence do you need of conspiracy? In fact, the very system of which we speak is a vast assortment of conspiracies, attempts to control and regulate the population. And it happens to benefit the rich greatly. Any sane person could consider "oligarchy" and "conspiracy" as the same thing. It's conspiracy fact, not theory. The fact that such people have ruled for at least a hundred years only makes it more believable.

Given the obvious historical background, it's perfectly reasonable to think a non-monopoly private organization won't enjoy the same level of legislative support as a monopoly. And sure enough, that's what I tend to find.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Consider also the following report on the United Fruit Company, infamous in Latin America:

United Fruit defined the modern multinational corporation at its most effective — and, as it turned out, its most pernicious. At home, it cultivated clubby ties with those in power and helped pioneer the modern arts of public relations and marketing. (After a midcentury makeover by the “father of public relations,” Edward Bernays, the company started pushing a cartoon character named Señorita Chiquita Banana.) Abroad, it coddled dictators while using a mix of paternalism and violence to control its workers....“United Fruit had possibly launched more exercises in ‘regime change’ on the banana’s behalf than had even been carried out in the name of oil.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/bo...de7&ei=5087%0A

Edward Bernays, the man mentioned in the article, said the following in his impactful book titled Propaganda:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits
and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic
society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society
constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of
our country.

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes are formed, our
ideas suggested largely by men we have never heard of. This is a
logical result of the way in which our democratic society is
organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner
if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. . . .

"Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it
remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in
the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our
ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of
persons . . . who understand the mental processes and social patterns
of the masses.
It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who
harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the
world. . .

"No serious sociologist believes any longer that the voice of the
people expresses any divine or especially wise and lofty idea. The
voice of the people expresses the mind of the people, and that mind is
made up for it by the group leaders in whom it believes and by those
persons who understand the manipulation of public opinion. . . .

"Whether in the problem of getting elected to office or in the problem
of interpreting and popularizing new issues, or in the problem of
making the day-to-day administration of public affairs a vital part of
the community life, the use of propaganda, carefully adjusted to the
mentality of the masses, is an essential adjunct of political life."

Theory or fact?

Grandpa h.

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: tivodan1116 I bring zero preconceptions. I demand evidence. Sorry I'm not wholly credulous to every ridiculous idea that comes down the pike...

So anybody that proclaims the Allies won WW II had better be prepared to document this statement for you. Right...

Quote by: tivodan1116 I should believe it merely because you say it??? I suppose it's too much to ask for proof? A link to something? Anything?

No, I'm talking about commonly accepted truths. ( Which, I understand, are becoming rarer, and rarer in this society. )

Quote by: tivodan1116 If you can't provide evidence to support a statement - guess what? It's not a "well-established fact".

It's not that he couldn't provide evidence to support it, the fact is, why should he?


Books have been written on the subject, and everybody else seems to be on the same page, accept you.

( The second link explain how information published in the book cited at the first link was suppressed. )

Amazon.com: Tragedy & Hope: A History of the World in Our Time: Carroll Quigley: Books

John Hancock Institute for International Financeâ„¢

This quote from the second link...

"...[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. this system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.... "It must not be felt that these heads of the world's chief central banks were themselves substantive powers in world finance. They were not. Rather, they were the technicians and agents of the dominant investment bankers of their own countries, who had raised them up and were perfectly capable of throwing them down. The substantive financial powers of the world were in the hands of these investment bankers (also called 'international' or 'merchant' bankers) who remained largely behind the scenes in their own unincorporated private banks. These formed a system of international cooperation and national dominance which was more private, more powerful, and more secret than that of their agents in the central banks. this dominance of investment bankers was based on their control over the flows of credit and investment funds in their own countries and throughout the world. They could dominate the financial and industrial systems of their own countries by their influence over the flow of current funds though bank loans, the discount rate, and the re-discounting of commercial debts; they could dominate governments by their own control over current government loans and the play of the international exchanges. Almost all of this power was exercised by the personal influence and prestige of men who had demonstrated their ability in the past to bring off successful financial coupes, to keep their word, to remain cool in a crisis, and to share their winning opportunities with their associates."

[Milton Bradley]

This is the kind of information every "free" person should know, and be angry about.


I keep waiting, thinking some of you are going to wake up to the tyranny, but few seem to really grasp the totality of their disenfranchisement.

[HelioPrime]

Quote by: grandpa Really? Did you read the link? These people are collaborating towards all kinds of ends that tend to benefit the wealthy and already-powerful, as are the oil companies when they fund these moronic anti-environmentalist "Think Tanks," as I discussed recently in another thread. What I'm doing is called looking at the evidence and putting two and two together. How much more evidence do you need of conspiracy? In fact, the very system of which we speak is a vast assortment of conspiracies, attempts to control and regulate the population. And it happens to benefit the rich greatly. Any sane person could consider "oligarchy" and "conspiracy" as the same thing. It's conspiracy fact, not theory. The fact that such people have ruled for at least a hundred years only makes it more believable. Given the obvious historical background, it's perfectly reasonable to think a non-monopoly private organization won't enjoy the same level of legislative support as a monopoly. And sure enough, that's what I tend to find. Grandpa h.

I think you still have to prove where these people are collaborating and to what ends.

The evidence shows that most Bush officials come from industry but that might make sense given the fact as members of various boards or organizations they might gain experience in the fields required of them when taking a position under Bush.

Every president has brought people into their administration from various fields. Yet nobody has exposed any information to prove that these people are working to some goal as directed by their industry organizations.

[lsbskins1]

Ok, here I come into this one...

If I start a business that aims to sell, say, apples... and I hire someone to write an add for me, I have just entered into your definition of a conspiracy. I want to be paid for my apples and I want to sell as many apples as I possibly can. By hiring someone to write an add, I have not "propogandized" the populace. You have to make realistic distinctions. I agree that there are examples of unlawful, conspiratorial practices at play in the world today, but every patent is not a crime, every marketing agency is not a criminal organization and every government does not have as it's purpose the enslavement of it's citizens. If you want to be seen as something other than a "conspiracy theorist", stop talking like one.

[tivodan1116]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Ok, here I come into this one... If I start a business that aims to sell, say, apples... and I hire someone to write an add for me, I have just entered into your definition of a conspiracy. I want to be paid for my apples and I want to sell as many apples as I possibly can. By hiring someone to write an add, I have not "propogandized" the populace. You have to make realistic distinctions. I agree that there are examples of unlawful, conspiratorial practices at play in the world today, but every patent is not a crime, every marketing agency is not a criminal organization and every government does not have as it's purpose the enslavement of it's citizens. If you want to be seen as something other than a "conspiracy theorist", stop talking like one.

THANK YOU. You hit the nail on the head.

Finally, a voice of reason. No need for me to keep posting in this thread.

[grandpa]

Quote by: HelioPrime I think you still have to prove where these people are collaborating and to what ends. The evidence shows that most Bush officials come from industry but that might make sense given the fact as members of various boards or organizations they might gain experience in the fields required of them when taking a position under Bush.

Apparently, some are immune to getting the picture no matter how clear it is. These aren't the arguments of the "9/11 truth movement" or some "UFO watcher." But there are those who can dismiss anything I say, no matter how compelling the trends I note are. Go back to the original post. What kind kind of policies are the people listed typically proposing. Well, it's usually those which would benefit their industries, or large corporations. Consider what I just noted about Bernays and United Fruit. Given the evidence I've presented thus far, it's revealing that my conclusions wouldn't be evident to anyone reading them.

Perhaps you're all just "haters," to use some modern parlance.

Grandpa h.

[grandpa]

Quote by: tivodan1116 THANK YOU. You hit the nail on the head.

No he didn't. He merely engaged in a sweeping dismissal, and the premise was not even accurate.

Grandpa h.