Conspiracy Theories as Examples of Pure Dogma

[SDuderstadt]

Conspiracy Theories as Examples of Pure Dogma

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dogma may be defined as established opinion, a doctrine put forth without evidence, or as a body of doctrines supported authoritatively by a church. But when you consider a combination of all three--an established opinion without evidence, supported by the authority of supernatural beliefs--you have a summation of everything that the JREF is opposed to. As it so happens, religion is the largest central distributor of dogma, but you can find it within other circles of opinion as well.

Theology is defined as "faith justified by reason." But this is another way of saying "A conclusion in search of a justification." This was the dominant philosophical approach of the dark ages, and it was this habit that kept them in the dark. Beliefs were fortified and communicated, supported only by citations of other beliefs, forming a circle of opinion with no means of objective correction. Theology remained a circle jerk, somewhat like partisan bloggers, who reinforce their mutual preconceptions by echoing them back and forth, referencing each other, accepting only what evidence confirms their beliefs and ignoring the rest (when they reference evidence at all.) This is the modus operendi of dogmatists, and it can become a prison which is difficult escape. This is what made science impossible in the dark ages, and it was only when a central dogmatic authority of the Catholic Church was shattered that science and philosophy could flourish.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=100231

[noise]

1. There is also authoritarianism

Don't question the state. The state is always right. Lee Hamilton is truth. Only an unpatriotic conspiracy nut would dare question Zelikow's investigation. Why? Zelikow is truth.

[SDuderstadt]

2. I suggest you read the whole thing and....

apply it to your post.

[noise]

3. What does he have to say about state dogma?

Is the state infallible? Is only the conduct of the conspiracy theorists up for review? That sounds like a double standard.

No, that doesn't mean I disagree with his points.

[Ghost in the Machine]

4. I suggest you print it out...

and apply it to your backside....


That's about all it's good for

[Grateful for Hope]

6. What you said!

Words of wisdom!

[Laurier]

5. Excellent article.

That's an excellent article. Thanks.

[LARED]

7. Very good article

CT'ers won't get it, and I have already coined the name "9/11 Church of Invincible Ignorance" or 911CII to describe the keeper of 9/11 dogma.

I also think 9/11 dogma is different than theological dogma. Theologically based dogmas are in the end based on a faith. Adherents will admit this if they are intellectually honest and intellectually capable. On the other hand it seems nearly all 9/11 Ct'ers actually believe science and material evidence is on their side, but it's being manipulated. They steadfastly insist faith has nothing to do with their beliefs

[HamdenRice]

8. If Kean and Hamilton themselves no longer believe the 9/11 Commission Report

was full and complete, and wrote in the NY Times that their investigation was obstructed, doesn't it take basically a form of religious faith to continue to "believe in" the infallibility of the report? Isn't OCTabot fundamentalism a form of religious faith? Don't you have unshakeable faith in the inerrancy of a holy text that has been proven in the empirical world to be wrong?

If, therefore, being an OCTer is a form of religious dogma, can we not legitimately name this religion, "OCTabarnacalism"?

[LARED]

9. Can you name anyone that believes in the infallibilty

of the 9/11 report?

I'll be waiting.

[SDuderstadt]

10. There you go again, Hamden....

I'm pretty sure most people can spot what you're doing right away but, for those that might not be able to, I'll point it out. Your tactic is to attempt to discredit critics of the "truth movement" by marginalizing them as gullible, unthinking naifs who just buy whatever the government tells them.

The reason your ploy falls flat on its face is because it's a variant of a strawman. If it's not, then kindly produce:

1) Anyone here who has ever (let alone "continues to") "believe(d) in" the infallibility of the (9/11 Commission) report. I mean, after all, if your assertion is true, it should be easy to point to someone here who has claimed it is infallible. Good luck.

2) Similarly, I'd love for you to provide us with the name of anyone here who has "unshakeable faith in the inerrancy" of the 9/11 CR. I don't think you'll find anyone on that count, either. In fact, I know you won't.

3) Any proof that anyone here is an "OCTabarnacle", adhering to the "official story" as a matter of faith or "religious dogma".


See, this is why "debating" you is so pointless. When confronted with debate on the facts, you retreat into your strawman fantasy and have the debate all by yourself. If you want to debate on the facts, fine. If you don't (which I think is likely), you'll continue to have this debate by yourself.

[hack89]

12. I have stated that the 911 CR was a political white wash

many times. The NIST reports are a different matter. One is politics, the other science and engineering.

[LARED]

13. I have complete faith you will engage in

stupid rhetorical tricks at every change. Most times they are quite good, but you're definitely slipping on this attempt.

[noise]

28. Evidently the author is implying that Kean/Hamilton/Zelikow acted in good faith

whereas skeptics of the 9/11 report are guilty of cognitive distortions. AFAICT, the author implies that those who question 9/11 have no reason to do so. Why are skeptics considered conspiracy theorists for daring to question state dogma?

[LARED]

29. I don't think CT'ers and skeptics are the same thing

why do you?

[noise]

36. Skeptic=patriotic debunker?

Conspiracy theorist has an authoritarian connotation. It is a term used to ridicule those who dare to challenge state dogma.

[SDuderstadt]

37. Are you denying there is such a thing as a "conspiracy theorist"? n/t

[noise]

39. No

The concern is when all questions that challenge the official account are considered unpatriotic tin foil hat conspiracy nuttery.

[SDuderstadt]

40. And please point to anyone here who is guilty of that....

that should be simple.

[Grateful for Hope]

42. Again, true.

There are many posters here who lump anyone who questions into the "truther", "twoofer", "CT" categories.

And, certainly the media was and is complicit in carrying the message that anyone who dares to question the official story is unpatriotic and/or a "CT nut".

Heck, I remember when the SC gave us Bush. The media immediately afterwards spinned about "healing" and "coming together" as it to head off any legitimate dissention. It was nauseating...and, thank goodness the owners of this site saw through this and started DU.

All anyone has to do is search this forum to see examples of my first paragraph.

[SDuderstadt]

44. It's simply not true that there was no dissension allowed by the media re: Bush v Gore

As far as your claim that "anyone" who questions is lumped into the "truther" category, you might want to review the posts and note that we "debunkers" mostly take issue with posters who cannot seem to get simple facts correct, continue to disseminate roundly debunked theories (I call this "rebunking"), post outlandish theories such as DEW, No-planes, mini-nukes or slander good career civil servants and well-regarded scientists for no other reason than they are employed by the government. I sincerely challenge you to find much in the way of posts that label someone a "truther" who merely asks questions.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/sunstein/chapter9.html

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/election/july-dec00/legal_12-11.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN2443345820080424?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22&sp=true

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE4D61E39F937A35754C0A9679C8B63

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/11/se.01.html

[Grateful for Hope]

45. "Just asking questions"

Search on it. Enlighten yourself.

"It's simply not true that there was no dissension allowed by the media" -- who said this? Perhaps you might read my post again. "As if to head off" does not mean "no dissention was allowed". There was a concerted effort to head off dissention. Surprised you don't remember this being the solid Dem that you are.

[SDuderstadt]

46. Concerted effort by whom?

Fox news? Hope, there was PLENTY of dissension in the media about Bush v Gore. I certainly hope you're not questioning my credentials as a solid dem.

[Grateful for Hope]

47. Who me?

Never! You have made it abundantly clear in more than several posts that you are a Dem. How could anyone question that?

Plenty of dissension in the media, huh? Much like all the dissension that occurred after the 2004 election when the media hyped Bush's "mandate". Sure there was plenty of dissension. Funny thing, but, I sure don't remember the media being enraged at the SC at all. I DO remember being personally enraged, and, I do remember many of my acquaintences being enraged. But then, I am not very likely to defend the media.

[SDuderstadt]

48. Did you actually look for dissension in the media?

I already gave you 5-6 links.

I have a simple question for you. Do you think it's possible for a skeptic/9/11 debunker to be a solid dem?

[Grateful for Hope]

49. Absolutely

Dems are noted for their open-mindedness and questioning attitudes. There are certainly plenty of skeptics who question the official story, so, I don't see why there can't be skeptics who don't.

The media -- lately I am seeing some indications that some of the media outlets are doing a bit of investigative journalism (imagine that) in respect to Palin, although not as much as what is being done here on DU. Back in 2000, we generally did not see this. Imagine if the media uncovered as much about George Bush as they have uncovered about Palin. It would have been very refreshing. Instead, we got talking points and cheerleading -- particularly after the SC decision. Again, it was nauseating.

[SDuderstadt]

51. I'm sorry, I just don't think of the media as monolithic....

it is, of course, a problem that so much ownership of the media is concentrated in the hands of five major corporations and I would heartily endorse rememdies to address that. But even within those entities, there is a wide variety of viewpoints and commentary. The interesting thing is when I speak to some of my conservative acquaintances, they're still trumpeting the "liberal media" meme. Personally, I am quite aware of what appears to me to be a minor conservative bias, however,I look at a lot of sources and try to stay away from overt biases in reporting, even ones I agree with.

Notwithstanding the need for ownership reform (I am, as well, leaning in the direction of restoring the "Fairness Doctrine", I just don't feel the media is as monolithic as many people believe.

[Flatulo]

60. Should the media be enraged? Or should they objectively report the news.

Remember, almost exactly half the country felt that GWB should have been president both in '00 and again in '04. Notwithstanding shenanighans in Ohio and elsewhere that came to light later, the election was very close.

Given the information that was available at the time, I don't think the media had a strong case to denounce GWB as having stolen either election.

Editorial writers have a license to rant. News reporters should stick to the facts.

By the way, just for the record, I am not a registered democrat and never have been affiliated with any political party. I have voted for republicans at the local level if they were good candidates, as I oppose single-party rule as we have here in Mass. I have not supported Repubs at the national level though.

I believe that twp-party government is a good thing, so even if I could push a button and eliminate the Republican party, I would not do it.

Tension is healthy.

[Grateful for Hope]

61. In 2000

It was not a "normal" election. The SC got involved, and, despite the fact that Gore won the popular vote, and, there was not a complete recount of Florida, the SC "awarded" the presidency to idiot child.

Under the circumstances, Yes, I do think that there should have been outrage on the part of some journalists, who are, after all, citizens first, and journalists (or, perhaps more accurately, pundits) second.

Given the last eight years, it seems I was right to be horrified at what happened in 2000. Should something similar happen in November, I hope that America will not sit back and take it this time.

[Flatulo]

67. This could cut both ways... can you imagine a dozen Fox News Channels

with all their talking heads proclaiming the brilliance and foresight of 'Dear Leader' and his wise decision to invade Iraq to liberate the poor heathens?

No thanks. I lament the passing of the 'straight news' days (Kronkite, Huntley-Brinkley), but I think the media should focus as much as possible on reporting the facts as objectively as they can, given that some bias inevitably slips into even the decision on which 'facts' to report.

[AZCat]

62. Maybe you should be using a different media.

Me, I read The Nation, Mother Jones, The New Yorker, and listen to Democracy Now. There was plenty of dissension after both the 2000 and the 2004 elections. Who cares what the bubble-gum television networks say? It's all regurgitated pablum anyway.

[SDuderstadt]

63. I tried to point this out...

to no avail. I'm not sure some people understand the difference between hard news (into which the reporter's own personal feelings should not intude) and opinion, in which it is expected that the journalist will reveal their take on things. I don't know about anyone else, but I prefer that hard news not be delivered in the manner of Fox News, which is pure RW ideology masquerading as hard news that they pretend is unbiased. When the bias favors my liberal politics, I'm still unhappy because I still prefer hard news.

[AZCat]

65. All hard news reporting has an inherent bias...

because what stories someone chooses to cover incorporates a bias. If I decide to report primarily on events that happen in the United States, I have to make room by truncating or eliminating coverage of other news stories that might be just as important to certain people.

Not to mention the bias that comes from deciding which viewpoint one should cover. (i.e. who do you interview?)

[Grateful for Hope]

66. That is true, AZ

I was referring to the MSM...I should have been more specific.

And, the sad part about this is the fact that so many Americans ONLY listen to what the MSM tells them, unlike many of us who seek out alternative news sources.

[Grateful for Hope]

38. Bingo, noise

For instance, anyone who believes the totality of the official 9/11 story is, by definition, a conspiracy theorist since, if true, 9/11 was a conspiracy of the highest magnitude. But, hey, this is "state dogma", and, therefore "believers" are not labeled as such.

As many posters have pointed out in this forum, "conspiracy theorist" is nothing but a derogatory term applied to those who dare to question officially "sanctioned" accounts of events, including 9/11.

[SDuderstadt]

41. Read the piece again, Hope....

you obviously missed several key points.

[LARED]

59. What?

Conspiracy theorist has an authoritarian connotation

Says who?

It is a term used to ridicule those who dare to challenge state dogma.

You think the official story is state dogma? Which part of the official story is dogma? All of it, the 9/11 report. The NIST reports? What do you mean?

[noise]

64. Flawed investigation

IMO, there exists an authoritarian defense by the political/media establishment of the 9/11 Commission's findings despite serious flaws in their investigation. My concern is the double standard...why is one skeptic a conspiracy nut (9/11 CR skeptic) and another skeptic (9/11 truth skeptic) a person who believes in reason, America and apple pie?

IMO, the historical trend suggests a concerted effort by the political/media establishment to portray critics of official investigations as unpatriotic, irresponsible conspiracy nuts...ie...grassy knoll conspiracy theorists. Look at the magic bullet theory. IMO, that is outrageous garbage pushed on the public for one reason...to avoid dealing with the prospect of more than one shooter.

[SDuderstadt]

68. The "magic bullet" theory and people thinking of it that way....

resulted from Garrison amd many others failing to comprehend the actual science of the situation. If you look at JFK's and Connally's positions at the time of the shot, there's nowhere else the bullet COULD have gone, except to hit Connally as it did.


Google Dale Myers (sp) and study the simulation he put together.

[MrMickeysMom]

89. Unbelievable

Here, listen to this.... if it's too much for you, then I already know what your problem is.

http://www.blackopradio.com/archives2008.html

Go down a few inches (you know how to do that) and choose show #390 (unless you want to finish by listening to 391, which wouldn't hurt you. Oh, I know it's an original thought... but you can do it.

Don't give my that "uuhh... I don't listen to anything from Fletcher Prouty". That statement is probably true, so introduce yourself to one of the people who were inside the CIA when Kennedy was killed and then go read how many people have OBJECTIVELY gone over the time lines to find who did it, why the did it and so on.

[SDuderstadt]

90. "blackopradio"....

LOLOLOLOL.

You're not seriously suggesting Fletcher Prouty is a credible source, are you? Are you?

As far as the magig bullet, Dale Myers (sp) constructed a detailed computer recreation of the assassination from the Zapruder film as well as others. If you look at the position of Connally relative to JFK, after the bullet struck JFK, the only place it could have gone is into Connally. Try science, not some goofball CT.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

92. I'd be glad to debate science with you....

now all you have to do is produce some. That shouldn't be so hard.

P.S. It's only been roughly 45 years since the JFK assassination. Are you conspiracy buffs any closer to solving it?

[Flatulo]

11. Very good essay - thanks for posting.

[whatchamacallit]

18. Dude must you soil Arundhati Roy's image?

She wouldn't give you the time of day.

[Flatulo]

26. Just be grateful that you don't have to look at my mug for an avatar...

[whatchamacallit]

27. Ha, okay then, carry on.

[Octafish]

14. So, where are the Weapons of Mass Destruction?

Trust the Bush government. They wouldn't lie America into war.

[SDuderstadt]

15. Thanks for the irrelevant post....

I doubt seriously that any "debunker" here felt that there were, or that we'd find, WMD in Iraq. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that most, if not all, the "debunkers", myself included, opposed the invasion of Iraq.

The "truther" tactic of claiming or implying that "debunkers" must be Bush shills is wearing thin. For the record, I despise the Bush administration.

[Octafish]

23. Not irrelevant to me: Crooked Bush government conjoined 9/11 attacks and Iraq War.

Call me a "conspiracy theorist" or "paranoid," I don't care which. George Bush and members of his administration pushed the idea that Iraq and its supposed stockpiles of WMDs were a threat to the United States and its allies. Bush also embedded in the public mind the falsehood that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 attacks.

What is irrelevant is how you and "most, if not all" of the debunker community have to continually re-emphasize your animus toward Bush and your opposition to the invasion of Iraq. You don’t have to reiterate what’s supposed to be obvious, on DU or the Amazing Randi's JREF Forum.

[AZCat]

24. We shouldn't have to reiterate the obvious...

except that here in this sub-forum our political beliefs and our ethics are constantly questioned by those with whom we disagree. Just ten thirty minutes ago I responded to a post in this very thread that said something about the "Church of Bush".

[SDuderstadt]

50. And we wouldn't have to reiterate it if not....

for the nearly constant chorus of "bushbot", "OCTabot", "Bush shill", "neocon enabler" that we endure (certainly not from all truthers). I also agree with the points in your first paragraph, as Bush certainly did cynically exploit 9/11 for political purpose and gain. However, many "truthers" parlay this into unsupportable MIHOP and LIHOP scenarios. Do I believe Bush to be capable of either MIHOP or LIHOP? Actually, I do. I have just haven't seen any convincing, concrete evidence to that effect. If someone has it, I'm all ears.

[RC]

69. If you despise the Bush administration so much, then why

do you defend it's New Pearl Harbor, namely 9/11 so fanatically? After all it happened on bu$h's watch and that is exactly what they did for almost 2½ hours on 9/11/2001, watched and did nothing.

[SDuderstadt]

71. Answer your own damn question...

First of all, it's ludicrous to claim I "fanatically defend" anything about the Bush administration. Why don't I embrace your premise? Because there is no concrete evidence of it. If your premise was true, there would be certain evidence of it. Develop the hypothesis, then test it. When you don't find what you would expect to see in conjunction with it, you have to reformulate your hypothesis. It's ludicrous to claim they "watched and did nothing" for 2 1/2 hours on 9/11, when there are countless accounts concerning the FAA, DOD and a number of other relevant agencies and the flurry of activities that day, which you could discover if you'd research it, rather than rely on other people giving their take.

Do you bother to fact-check these conspiracy theories? If you do, answer a very simple question. The "truth community" simultaneously claims it would not have taken that many "plotters" to pull it off, then concurrently ignore the tens of thousands of people from these entities that were involved in the response that day. Why aren't we hearing things from them? Why aren't they saying, "I wanted to do this, but my superior blocked me"? Answer that question.

Don't remotely accuse me of "fanatically defending" the Bush administration again.

[LARED]

16. The exact same place the

coherent rational 9/11 conspiracy theories are to be found. No where.

[Octafish]

25. Don't care much for that idea. It slimes people who just want to know the truth.

Here's a fact or two: Bush and Cheney stonewalled the creation of a Congressional investigation into the attacks of September 11. When Bush and Cheney were "asked" to testify, they did not do so under oath. And they testified at the same time.

Here's a theory based on those facts: By appearing together, they kept their story straight.

[William Seger]

34. "people who just want to know the truth"

... would be well advised to stay the hell away from the "truth movement." Obviously, it has a completely different agenda.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. And what did the 9/11 Commission conclude they were keeping their story straight about?

Do you know the answer to that, Octafish? I do.

[Octafish]

52. Gee. Did they give Bush and Cheney the benefit of the doubt, too?

Unless you were there, how do you know, boloboffin?

Bush and Cheney's declarations were unrecorded.

PS: I bet you know a lot, boloboffin.

[Bolo Boffin]

53. No, they did not.

There was a subject on which Bush and Cheney (with a weak assist from Rice) stood united against everyone else in the room and all available evidence. This is laid out in the 9/11 Commission Report.

I do know a lot. Especially when it comes to how much shit your normal posts are filled with on an everyday basis.

[Name removed]

55. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bolo Boffin]

56. Again your stellar research skills are on display, Octafish.

You managed to quote that part of my bio at Stripcreator that tells exactly what my job is, and yet you managed to misrepresent it.

LIVE VOICE WRITING is my job. It's right there. I have to "watch television" (when the feed is available, otherwise I'm just listening to audio) and "surf the Internet" (research the upcoming topics as best I can).

But you're right on one thing. I do learn a lot doing that.

Not only posting but DEMONSTRATING your posts are full of shit, I do that on my own time.

Now, back to the subject instead of your silly attacks on me. What was the subject that the 9/11 Commission busted the tag team of Bush-Cheney on? I know. Do you?

[Octafish]

58. Which part did I “misrepresent”? The part where you’re paid to surf the web?

You must be paid well. Your “stuff” is posted from the JREF Forum to Democratic Veterans to a couple of your own blogs and sites.

As far as the 9/11 Commission goes: Bush and Cheney attempted to link Saddam Hussein's intelligence organization and Al Qaeda. The Commission said there was no such linkage.

If that's not it, please enlighten me. Unlike you, I don't disparage others for not knowing something.

BTW: Which of my 16,963 posts are "full of shit"? The one where I congratulated you for getting mentioned on The Nation?

DUs own BoloBoffin mentioned in The Nation!

Yeah. You do know a lot. Complain a lot, too.

[Bolo Boffin]

70. Is it possible for you to discuss the subject and not me?

Your fascination with me is duly noted.

Hint: Shootdown order.

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Octafish]

73. Enough with the phony victim shit. Here's what I'm talking about...

I side with Mineta, as far as September 11 goes, not Cheney and his minions in government and media.

I also side with those people who think there was a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy, not J Edgar Hoover and his minions in government and media.

The Waters of Knowledge

versus

The Waters of Uncertainty

Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy

by E. Martin Schotz

EXCERPT…

When the Waters Were Changed

Once upon a time Khidr, the Teacher of Moses, called upon mankind with a warning. At a certain date, he said, all the water in the world which had not been specially hoarded, would disappear. It would then be renewed with dfferent water, which would drive men mad.

Only one man listened to the meaning of this advice. He collected water, went to a secure place where he stored it, and waited for the water to change its character.

On the appointed date the streams stopped running, the wells went dry, and the man who had listened, seeing this happening, went to his retreat and drank his preserved water.

When he saw, from his security, the waterfalls again beginning to flow, this man descended among the other sons of men. He found that they were thinking and talking in an entirely different way from before; yet they had no memory of what had happened, nor of having been warned. When he tried to talk to them, he realized that they thought that he was mad, and they showed hostility or compassion, not understanding.

At first he drank none of the new water, but went back to his concealment, to draw on his supplies, every day. Finally, however, he took the decision to drink the new water because he could not bear the loneliness of living, behaving and thinking in a different way from everyone else. He drank the new water, and became like the rest. Then he forgot all about his own store of special water, and his fellows began to look upon him as a madman who had miraculously been restored to sanity.

SOURCE:

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/schotz.html

There are a lot more differences between us, but that is obvious.

[Bolo Boffin]

74. So you think that everybody else in the room and all the evidence disputing Cheney and Bush really

is supporting Bush and Cheney against what Mineta said?

Is that your final answer?

Nice heroic stand on your JFK CT there. Whatever helps you get through the day.

[whatchamacallit]

17. The bleating of the of the flock from the Church of Bush

:boring:

[AZCat]

19. Hmmm. I don't think we have too many of them around here.

Perhaps you mistakenly posted this on the wrong forum? We're all Democrats here, and there aren't any members of the "Church of Bush" as far as I know.

[whatchamacallit]

20. I was hoping for one of those responses where an OCTer's head starts spinning and spewing pea soup

Damn! You're smarter than the rest aren't ya AZ...

[AZCat]

21. Sorry. I'll try again later.

It usually takes a few drinks for me to get good and creative. I'll post again after dinner (hopefully I won't have yet reached incoherence).

[whatchamacallit]

22. Roger ;-)

[HamdenRice]

30. "We're all Democrats here" -- huh?

The last OCTer to get his granite cookie turned out to be a Repug -- SweetPea.

[Realityhack]

31. Let's not play the who got tome stoned when game.

It is silly and pointless.
Calling people out as being of the 'cult of bush' is equally stupid.

[HamdenRice]

32. It's not the tombstoned game; it's the who's a Democrat game

The post to which I responded was technically not correct. Perhaps he should have said, we all at least claim to be Democrats here.

[Realityhack]

43. AZCat used the current tense...

so he is not technically incorrect.
As for the who's a dem game lets not play that either. Throwing that accusation at people because they do not think a particular CT is true or they think the NIST report is sound is just about the stupidest thing someone can do.

[HamdenRice]

54. It's still incorrect because it can't be proven

All you can say about any set of DU participants, here or on any forum, is that we all proclaim to be Democrats (otherwise we can be banned). So many people have been unmasked as repugs over the years that it is only logical to infer that some proportion of DUers now are also secretly repugs.

Heckety heck, for all the rest of you know, I could be a repug who has spent 4 years perfecting my cover!

:rofl:

Sweetpea was an example of that and was an OCTer, so it is a factual statement that at least one OCTer has been exposed to be a conservative repug.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Let us know when you find any more....

I know I'll be waiting with bated breath.

[AZCat]

33. That's correct.

But I think he was the exception, rather than the rule. Are you going to use him as an excuse to question my (or anyone else's) Democratic party membership?

[Andre II]

75. Hm

Simple question:

Are there any historical examples of so called conspiracy theories that turned out to be historical truth?

Oh, btw:
“The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.”
(Edgar Hoover)

[zipplewrath]

76. No, but the problem really is definition

One has to "define" conspiracy theory. Roughly, what you're asking is whether there is any historical example of people "discovering" or figuring out that some set of events was misrepresented, with the additional feature that those events were preplanned to be misrepresented.

"False flag" operations do exist, but they are not discovered by bloggers or book writers. They are discovered by other intelligence agencies. There are "unacknowledged" operations, which get discovered by their victims, such as Gary Powers. There are cover-ups, but these are actions after the fact, not prior to some event. The coverup is not part of the original planning but a reaction to unplanned events. Watergate is a good example. And lying in public is used to try to deceive the public.

The real problem with the traditional conspiracy theory, and why history does not really have alot of examples of it is that they are often too complicated, and involve too many actors. It is far easier to convince large populations that they must accept something, or even participate in it, than it is to "trick" them into thinking that one thing is happening when something else really is.

[Bassman66]

77. Here are some Conspiracy Theorists...

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States —in the fields of commerce and manufacturing—are afraid of somebody. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.” - Woodrow Wilson

"In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way." - Franklin D. Roosevelt

“A financial element in the large centers has owned the government since the days of Andrew Jackson.” - Franklin Roosevelt

“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” - David Rockefeller

“We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans.” - Bill Clinton

“Today, America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well-being granted to them by the world government.” - Henry Kissinger (Bilderburg Conference 1991 Evians, France)

“Naturally the common people don't want war…but after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship…all you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.” Herman Goering ( One of Hitler's top men, during the Nuremberg Trials)

The individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists. - Edgar J Hoover

We must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a World Government, patterned after our Own Government with a legislature, executive and judiciary and police. - Walter Cronkite

Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote: I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. - Woodrow Wilson

By the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions. You may find you can get away with Virtual Presidents, Virtual Prime Ministers, and Virtual Everything. - Bill Clinton

The easiest way to gain control of the population is to carry out acts of terror. The public will clamor for such laws if the personal security is threatened. - Joseph Stalin

The real rulers of Washington are Invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes. - Justice Felix Frankfurter - US Supreme Court Justice

The real menace of our Republic is the invisible Government which like a giant Octopus, sprawls its slimy legs over our cities, states, and nation. - John F. Hylan - Mayor NYC 1918-1925

"Give me control of a Nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Bauer (Rothschild)

"The meaning of peace is the absence of opposition to socialism." - Karl Marx

"The Trilateralist Commission is international ...(and)...is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing CONTROL of the political government of the United States. The Trilateralist Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize COTROL and consolidate the four centers of power: Political - Monetary - Intellectual - and Ecclesiastical." - Barry Goldwater , U.S. Senator AZ. "With No Apologies"

"We shall have World Government. Whether or not we like it. The only Question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent." - James Paul Warburg , Foreign agent for the Rothschild dynasty - Major Player in the Federal Reserve act scam / Feb. 17, 1950 speaking before the U.S. Senate.

"We are grateful to the Washington Post, the NY Times, Time Magazine, and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings, and respected their promises of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop OUR PLAN for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a World Government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual ELITE and World Bankers is surely preferable to the national auto - determination practiced in past centuries." - David Rockefeller CFR Kingpin, Founder of the Trilateral Commission, NOW Godfather / June 1991

"It is the SACRED principals enshrined in the UN Charter to which we will henceforth pledge our Allegiance." - President George Herbert Walker Bush - UN building, Feb. 1, 1992

"The age of Nations must end... The Government of nations has decided to order their separate sovereignties into ONE GOVERNMENT to which they surrender their arms." - United Nation's World Constitution

"The United Nations is the greatest fraud in all History! Its purpose is to destroy the United States ." - John Rankin , U.S. Congressman

"The Technetronic era involves the gradual appearance of a more CONTROLLED society. Such a society would be dominated by ELITE, unrestrained by traditional values." - Zbigniew Brezhinsky , Advisor to 5 U.S. Presidents - Executive Director Trilateral Commission. "Between two Ages"

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our Banking and Monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a Revolution before tomorrow morning." - Henry Ford

“Today America would be outraged if UN troops entered Los Angeles to restore order. Tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told that there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence. It is then that all people of the world will plead to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by the World Government.” - Henry Kissinger 1991 Bilderberg Conference.

“We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans” - Bill Clinton 1993

“The interests behind the Bush Administration, such as the CFR, the Trilateral Commission – founded by Brzezinski for David Rockefeller – and the Bilderberg Group have prepared for and are now moving to implement open world dictatorship within the next five years.” - Dr. Johannes Koeppl – former official of the German Ministry for Defense and adviser to NATO.

"Democracy tends to ignore, even deny, threats to its existence because it loathes doing what is needed to counter them," explained Revel. "It awakens only when the danger becomes deadly, imminent, and evident. By then, either there is too little time left for it to save itself, or the price of survival has become crushingly high." - Jean Francois Revel

"For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." - David Rockefeller, Memoirs , 2002

“Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It's just a piece of paper!” - George Bush

If people let government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson

“Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel . We, the Jewish people, control America , and the Americans know it.” - Reported said in Cabinet by Ariel Sharon , October 3, 2001

"I came to America because of the great, great freedom which I heard existed in this country. I made a mistake in selecting America as a land of freedom, a mistake I cannot repair in the balance of my lifetime." - Albert Einstein, 1947

"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson

"The U.S. must carry out some act somewhere in the world which shows its determination to continue to be a world power." - Henry Kissinger , post-Vietnam blues, as quoted in The Washington Post, April 1975

[SDuderstadt]

78. I find it simply amazing how you keep...

injecting RW propaganda into this message board. Did you bother to double-check those "quotes"? Do you have any verification that is what these people actually said? You do realize that inventing faux quotes is a RW propaganda technique, right? Do you think because you found those "quotes" on some website, that makes them real? Did you bother to trace the "quotes" back to the original source?

I'm guessing you didn't.

[salvorhardin]

79. "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans"

Please check your sources. It also helps to cite your sources. Bill Clinton's quote is abbreviated and taken out of context to suggest he doesn't value individual rights. The reality of what he was saying is much different.
Clinton's full quote, in context:

You know, you can't have – be so fixated on a desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles. It's something that I strongly support. You can't be so fixated on that that when you're unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation – no other nation – has permitted to exist. And at some point, you know, I still hope that the leadership of the National Rifle Association will go back to doing what it did when I was a boy and which made me want to be a lifetime member of it – (laughs) – because they put out valuable information about hunting and marksmanship and safe use of guns. But just to ignore the conditions we face today in a lot of our cities and other places in this country and the enormous threat to public safety is amazing.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_say_we_cant_be.html

How many other quotes on your list are spurious?

[SDuderstadt]

80. Bassman is always posting....

clipped and fabricated quotes because he doesn't do any fact-checking. One of the funniest things I've encountered here is a poster's (not Bassman) claim that David Rockefeller is worth "$11 trillion" and the poster doesn't remotely realize how absurd that was.

[salvorhardin]

81. Dupe. Self-delete. n/t

[salvorhardin]

82. Well, it looks like his big blob'o'spurious quotes is from a fundy Christian site

It's an almost verbatim copying of this page: http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/conspiracy_%20nuts_theories.htm

And...

Some teach that God commands Christians to love their enemies while He endlessly tortures His own enemies. We find teachings such as this totally inconsistent and not harmonious to God's characteristics and nature.
http://www.tentmaker.org/aboutus.html

Right... So much for that peaceful, loving god. They like the angry, vengeful god.

[Bassman66]

85. Did you like the Kissinger quote?

Look around.

[salvorhardin]

97. I was already familiar with that Kissinger quote and it's purported origin. Were you?

There are variations on the story, but they all boil down to an anonymous Swiss delegate to a 1992 Bilderberg meeting secretly recorded Kissinger. OK. Fine.

The Bilderbergers have delegates? That's funny, I thought they were a member based organization.
Which delegate?
Who first reported it?
Didn't they think to copy the tape?
Why isn't the audio publicly available?

If you can provide me with an original source citation I'd greatly appreciate it, but this Kissinger story is nothing but internet myth. No one knows where it came from. No one (sane) believes it.

[SDuderstadt]

98. I'll go you one better...

you can actually look at an attendee list year-by-year for the Bilderberg Conference. The year in question had no Swiss "delegates", so it's reasonable to assume this "quote" is a fabrication.

[salvorhardin]

99. Oh, no doubt it's a fabrication.

Likely cobbled up from Kissinger's other public remarks. But then what would you expect from people who buy into the whole NWO conspiracy theory, many of whom think Obama is being groomed for power by the Illuminati.

[Bassman66]

105. Billderberg - that used to never exist.

Anyone who believed it was a conspiracy theorist.

I love it when people defend Bilderberg.

Anyone got the minutes to the last meeting?

Just what do the world's rich and powerful talk about behind closed doors? Tennis?

Kissinger said it.

Kissinger is a bad man - Kissinger is a Rockefeller frontman.

There's no such thing as a conspiracy.

[SDuderstadt]

109. You've been duped again, Bassman...

that's what you get for posting supposed "quotes" from a fundamentalist christian website. Do you think because you read something somewhere, that makes it true and you don't need to fact-check it? In Logic, that's referred to as "false certainty".

[Bassman66]

110. Bilderberg 1992 was attended by at least 3 Swiss people. nt

[salvorhardin]

112. Who were they? What is your source?

You said:

Bilderberg 1992 was attended by at least 3 Swiss people.

Who were they? What is your source? Why do you believe your source is credible? Did you try to contact the three Swiss citizens in an attempt to vet the quote? IF not, why not?

[SDuderstadt]

116. Wrong again, Bassman

Here's the list of attendees from Switzerland and the years attended. As you can see, your claim is false.

Switzerland
Flavio Cotti (1994-1997), former President of the Swiss Confederation
Pascal Couchepin (2001, 2002, 2004, 2005), current President of the Swiss Confederation
Jean-Pascal Delamuraz (1995), former President of the Swiss Confederation
Max Petitpierre (1963, 1966), former President of the Swiss Confederation
Jacob Kellenberger (1993), former Swiss State Secretary of Foreign Affairs
Sigmund Widmer (1975), former Mayor of Zürich
Denis de Rougemont (1954, 1955, 1966)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Bilderberg_attendees#Switzerland


Do you ever fact-check ANYTHING?

[SDuderstadt]

122. No response, Bassman?

Why am I not surprised?

[SDuderstadt]

86. Why am I not surprised? n/t

[Bassman66]

84. Did you apologise yet about the Fed.

You've a real nerve talking about someones "fact-checking".

[SDuderstadt]

87. I'm done with this topic, Bassman....

your dishonesty and anti-semitism are duly noted.

[Bassman66]

93. Apologise!

Where have I been anti-semitic?

That's an outrageous accusation.

I have nothing against the Jewish people.

I do however have a problem with some indiviual Jews in the same way I have a problem with some individual Catholics, Protestants, Muslims.

Am I not allowed to criticise someone simply because they are Jewish?

Am I not allowed to point out the FACT that in the period before August 2008 the Fed was totally run by one ethnic group and that is unrepresentative and undemocratic.

Hell.. I wouldn't want the Fed purely run by 5 catholics or 5 muslims either!

Apologise!

[SDuderstadt]

94. I'm not apologizing for anything, Bassman...

And, it's funny that you deny your anti-semitism. Let me ask you a question. What made you look into their "ethnic backgrounds"?

[Bassman66]

95. Apologise.

Your attempts at smear are pathetic.

I looked into their ethnic backgrounds because I wanted to learn more about the Fed, I read that the Fed was run by a totally Jewish board, I didn't believe it and checked it out myself. It turned out to be TRUE (you said it wasn't, you said you had studied the Fed, and you were wrong).

That to me is dangerous, unrepresentative and undemocratic.

I have a problem with the fact there are no black Americans on the board (has there ever been?)

No bank fees without representation.

I would have the same problem if their was 5 catholics, protestants or buddhists running the Fed.

Your attempt to paint me as anti-semtic is cheap low shot, but I've learnt to expect that from certain posters in this forum.

[LARED]

96. That to me is dangerous, unrepresentative and undemocratic.

Really?

Why is it dangerous, unrepresentative and undemocratic that the Fed is comprised of Jews, or any single religion?

Three questions

Why is it dangerous?

Why is it undemocratic?

Why is it unrepresentative?

[LARED]

101. Crickets -nt

[Bassman66]

102. Because some of the most powerful positions in America...

...some the most important descisions that affect all of us...

...are in the hands of an unelected, unrepresentative ethnic minority.

That's dangerous, undemocratic and unrepersentative.

Would you be happy if 5 muslims ran the Fed?

[LARED]

106. That's fascinating

Are you making the case that 5 Protestants are an ethnic minority?

Are you making the case that 5 Catholics are an ethnic minority?

Are you making the case that 5 Muslims are an ethnic minority?

Are you making the case that 5 Jews are an ethnic minority?

What are you trying to say now?

First you say this

I would have the same problem if their was 5 catholics, protestants or buddhists running the Fed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=221999&mesg_id=223443

Then you complain about an ethnic majority making up the Fed's board. Last time I checked one's religion is not the same as ethnicity


Why not just fess up and admit your an anti-Zionist that believes there is a Zionist cabal that runs the world. I mean you're in good company as there are many CT'er that are your ideological brothers in this idiotic but common fantasy.

[LARED]

111. Crickets? Again? nt

[LARED]

107. On another issue

you seem to be advocating a position that powerful positions should be elected.

Should the President's cabinet be elected?

How about Federal Judges?

Or Military Commanders?

And if I understand your position correctly this selection process should consider religion and ethnicity to ensure diversity, not just the will of the people?

How do you reconcile your opposing views?

[Bassman66]

113. Yes - all of those should be accountable.

Real democracy is complex but not impossible.

[LARED]

120. How heavy are those goal posts?

First off let me applaud your stance that people should be held accountable. You're a regular revolutionary with that statement :sarcasm:

Again your thinking is hard to follow, Are you suggesting democracy is required for people to be held accountable. What does that have to do with all those Jews in the Fed you are so concerned about?

You're all over the map son, take a few deep breaths, clear out the booze and drugs from the old cerebellum, and get back to me when you can articulate a consistent position.

[salvorhardin]

115. The poster also believes that scientists should be elected

Or rather, that scientific research should be subject to vote

[LARED]

121. That's very bizarre - nt

[Behind the Aegis]

118. Bigotry, pure and simple.

Your nonsense is as idiotic and hate-filled as any right-winger.

You are so "worried" about some "unelected, unrepresentative ethnic minority" is no different than those who worry about gays. The only time to "worry" about their religion, ethnicity, or other status is if they were to use that as the method for working or to benefit their own.

Let me make this very simple for you...

A hate crime is committed when someone of a particular group is attacked for being a part of said group. I decided I need money and rob the first person I see as a fit victim. This person is a Muslim. Is there a hate crime? No. I chose the victim based on ease of attack and productive outcome. Now, if I needed money and decided I would wait for Thursday prayers at the local mosque around the corner? That would be a hate crime because I am purposely targeting a SPECIFIC group. Though both examples are about robbery, one is about solely about robbery, the other is about robbery of a particular group.

How does the above translate to your bigoted remarks?

You predicate your objections based on the persons religion, not their actions. I find it ironic you go to the same place that most who post anti-Semitism do, and that is to say "well, what if it were Muslims?" Chances are the person you are asking would still not care, nor ever bring it up; however, you and others like you would never make that an issue and, more than likely, would scream "Islamaphobia" if someone did make it an issue.

[LARED]

119. Where are you Bassman? nt

[SDuderstadt]

100. Bassman....I'm done after this post

As I have previously pointed out, Elizabeth Duke's nomination had been pending LONG before you made your goofy claim. By your OWN admission, one of the Governors has been withdrawn from the list of "American Jews". I readily acknowledged that I was wrong about others, however, your claim was that ALL of the Board of Governors are Jews. To disprove this, all I have to do is point to at least one who is not and your claim falls apart.

Beyond that, I'm curious as to where you read that the Fed was "run by a totally Jewish board". What is the source for that? I'd bet you'd be embarrassed to disclose it as there's a high probability it originates from some goofball website lamenting the "evil Jewish bankers who dominate the world". Why don't you disclose where you read it so we all can see? More importantly, what the fuck difference does it make even if your claim was true (even though it isn't)? Do you honestly think "Jewish bankers" would govern a central bank differently? Is that what you're saying or implying? Are you claiming that the present board is not eminently qualified? Do you think we should inject ethnic make-up into the confirmation process? Why did the Senate confirm "all those Jews"? Are they in on some sort of plot? You get my drift.

What I find most offensive about you, is that you (and certain others) are continuously posting RW propaganda here as if it is the truth. It doesn't seem to make any difference at all to you what the source is, so, if what you agree with comes from a fundamentalist christian website, that's okay in your mind. If something agrees with your "new world order/the Fed is at the root of all our economic problems/the Bilderbergers (or CFR, Illuminati, etal) control everything" mindset, you don't seem to care it originates from some RW wacko. Further, when challenged on it, you (and others) reply with something like "what difference does it make where it comes from if it's the truth?". That's why we're subjected to a onslaught of nonsense from the likes of Webster Tarpley (LaRouchite) or people like Griffin (whose truly laughable book on the Federal Reserve is regarded with derision by those who actually know the history of the Federal Reserve Act and the Federal Reserve). Why don't you do us all a big favor and vet the source of your goofy claims, rather than make the rest of us point out your sloppy research skills?

[Bassman66]

103. Apologise.

You were wrong.

No amount of squirming is going to help you.

When I made my post, 5 Jews were running the Fed.

100% of the Fed board was Jewish and had been for a while.

That's a FACT.

Do you deny it?

Apologise.

[Bassman66]

83. Yep, that's Bill not fixated on the American Constitution.

Say.. didn't he take an oath or something?

[SDuderstadt]

Say, did you read the WHOLE quote, or....

just the clipped portion that was provided?

[SDuderstadt]

88. Say, did you read the WHOLE quote, or....

just the clipped portion that was provided?

[Bassman66]

104. Yeah I read where Bill said we shouldn't get hung up on...

..on the American Constitution.

What is it with recent Presidents and The Constitution?

[SDuderstadt]

108. It was a CLIPPED quote, Bassman

Here's the whole quote, in CONTSXT. Funny, you only gave us part of what he said to make it sound nefarious.

You know, you can't have – be so fixated on a desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles. It's something that I strongly support. You can't be so fixated on that that when you're unable to think about the reality of life that millions of Americans face on streets that are unsafe, under conditions that no other nation – no other nation – has permitted to exist. And at some point, you know, I still hope that the leadership of the National Rifle Association will go back to doing what it did when I was a boy and which made me want to be a lifetime member of it – (laughs) – because they put out valuable information about hunting and marksmanship and safe use of guns. But just to ignore the conditions we face today in a lot of our cities and other places in this country and the enormous threat to public safety is amazing.
http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_bill_clinton_...

[Bassman66]

114. I know, Bill doesn't give a rats azz about the Constitution. nt

[SDuderstadt]

117. No...YOU don't give a rat's ass about....

the truth because you (through your source) deliberately left out much of what Clinton actually said to dishonestly make it sound nefarious. Since you're a "truther", I find it highly ironic you bend the truth so much to suit your purposes.