Conspiracy theorists - Do they hurt the Liberty movement?

[cbrons]

Well i repped some people above. It's hard to get content for 4 hours a week, so you take some shots in the dark here and there, especially when you have no guests lined up and you just finished a grueling week of exams.

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

They might hurt some people's dreams of being able to rub elbows with the political elite at cocktail parties, but they're the backbone of the liberty movement. No way, no how will the conspiracy theorists ever bend on the key issues because they understand the nature of the beast that is government.

 

[AGRP]

Theres a difference between being a conspiracy theorist and fear mongers who leads followers to dead ends.

 

[coastie]

What are conspiracy theorists? What are truthers? Are their arch enemies called...liars? Serious question, you can't have a name for one, and not the other.

Collectivist much? You're pretending(or actually believe?) that just because someone questions one thing about a possible conspiracy, that they then believe in ALL conspiracies. You make no distinction here, and instead lump everyone into one big basket.

Take 9/11, for example-I believe planes hit the buildings. I have close relatives and friends that saw planes hit the buildings. I don't believe the hijackers were controlling the planes, though. People like you, however, would say that I believe no planes hit the buildings, because all "truthers" believe that, right?

Do you have any idea how many "crazy" conspiracy theories-have turned out to be true? Kinda like I remember everyone calling my uncle a "conspiracy theorist" in saying that our rights were going to disappear after 9/11....oh wait.

 

[shane77m]

I think its more damaging that a large percentage of the population are borderline retarded

People like the kid in this video.

 

[sailingaway]

I lurked at DP for a couple of years before joining - first there was some technical issue during the 2008 campaign, and then I just was reading stuff. I was really impressed that people would rather have all news and weed through it for what they wanted rather than shut down people who were interested in or believed in stuff they didn't. I thought that was PART of the liberty message, and living it. It also helps people hone their logic and not fall into the 'sound bite repetition' in place of argument you see so much with talking points.

I think it is a good thing.

I'm sorry those outside the LM get away with demonizing people who are more tolerant of different ideas than they are. Bigotry has become PC, unfortunately.

IMHO.

 

[Tpoints]

Collectivist much? You're pretending(or actually believe?) that just because someone questions one thing about a possible conspiracy, that they then believe in ALL conspiracies. You make no distinction here, and instead lump everyone into one big basket.

Yes, just like you can lump all religious people together until they give you a way to tell them apart. How do you know who's a legit, honest, serious, non-retarded, interested in more than profit by fearmongering conspiracy theorist? Can you tell me?

 

[cbrons]

People like you..........

+r

Relax.

I didn't mean to start a discussion thread, I was more looking for people who wanted to give their opinions live on a radio program, but as that ain't happening... I guess carry on?

 

[NewRightLibertarian]

Yes, just like you can lump all religious people together until they give you a way to tell them apart. How do you know who's a legit, honest, serious, non-retarded, interested in more than profit by fearmongering conspiracy theorist? Can you tell me?

Maybe when they give away all of their documentaries for free that might be a dead giveaway that they're more about getting the word out than profit. It doesn't seem like that begging for people to bootleg your DVDs would be the best model for someone interested solely in making a profit.

 

[Tpoints]

Maybe when they give away all of their documentaries for free that might be a dead giveaway that they're more about getting the word out than profit. It doesn't seem like that begging for people to bootleg your DVDs would be the best model for someone interested solely in making a profit.

Good point!

 

[idiom]

Something I posted in another thread yesterday.

I don't understand the purpose of getting so wound up about chemtrails though.

The *official* version of 9/11 is that it was carried out by a CIA trained and supplied organisation. People mostly don't care.

General Clark came out a decade ago and said what are now the last 15 years of wars have all been running to a pre-planned scheduled and listed them in order.

Nobody cares.

If the government admitted tomorrow that chemtrails are real, and that they have been paying the airlines subsidies for the wear gear and weight... no one would care.

They would say it is part of the fight against global warming or something.

The world is so full of tin made real we don't have to chase the tin we don't have insider reports or admissions too.


What is the goal? I mean the hardcore tin canon reckons that even if Ron Paul had been elected president along with 400 followers it wouldn't have changed anything because they would have been swapped out with clones or had their minds changed or something, because the current world order isn't a result of mass incompetence but of malevolent intelligence so powerful its possibly extra terrestrial in origin.

Is that the goal? To get us all to stop 'wasting time' on this forum and figure out how to overthrow the alien overlords?

In that light the whole push to get the less investigated theories limelight looks pretty darn cointel pro if you know what I mean.

 

[Muwahid]

Something I posted in another thread yesterday.

There's literally no evidence that Al Qaeda is/was a CIA trained and supplied organization. That all stems from the fact the US government helped arm Afghan Mujahideen during the soviet war. It's really frustrating to see people tout this as some kind of fact when there's just NO evidence of it.

 

[shane77m]

Is it a conspiracy that we are supposed to be fighting a war against Al Qaeda but we are also arming them in Syria? That sounds whacked out to me.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

They might hurt some people's dreams of being able to rub elbows with the political elite at cocktail parties, but they're the backbone of the liberty movement. No way, no how will the conspiracy theorists ever bend on the key issues because they understand the nature of the beast that is government.

This ^ We are here to stay. To hell with anyone who doesn't like it.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

What are conspiracy theorists? What are truthers? Are their arch enemies called...liars? Serious question, you can't have a name for one, and not the other.

Collectivist much? You're pretending(or actually believe?) that just because someone questions one thing about a possible conspiracy, that they then believe in ALL conspiracies. You make no distinction here, and instead lump everyone into one big basket.

Take 9/11, for example-I believe planes hit the buildings. I have close relatives and friends that saw planes hit the buildings. I don't believe the hijackers were controlling the planes, though. People like you, however, would say that I believe no planes hit the buildings, because all "truthers" believe that, right?

Do you have any idea how many "crazy" conspiracy theories-have turned out to be true? Kinda like I remember everyone calling my uncle a "conspiracy theorist" in saying that our rights were going to disappear after 9/11....oh wait.

I call them Reality Deniers. Because that's what they are.

There are different groups though. Some simply don't know any better, others actively, aggressively, hatefuly oppose any and every attempt at learning the truth if it doesn't toe the Statist Party line.

You could also just call them Statists.

 

[idiom]

There's literally no evidence that Al Qaeda is/was a CIA trained and supplied organization. That all stems from the fact the US government helped arm Afghan Mujahideen during the soviet war. It's really frustrating to see people tout this as some kind of fact when there's just NO evidence of it.

Roger Cook, UK Foreign Secretary ('97-'01) wrote:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians. Inexplicably, and with disastrous consequences, it never appears to have occurred to Washington that once Russia was out of the way, Bin Laden's organisation would turn its attention to the west.

Notably, he died of a heart attack four weeks after that was published, aged 59.

We were attacked by "The Database". That is the official story.

To prove that the whole of Muslim radicalization is CIA driven you would have to connect them to Sayyid Qutb who is the intellectual core of Qutbism.

The turning point in Qutb's views resulted from his visit to the United States, where he aimed for further studies in educational administration. Over a two-year period, he worked in several different institutions including what was then Wilson Teachers' College in Washington, D.C., Colorado State College for Education in Greeley, as well as Stanford University.[21] He also traveled extensively, visiting the major cities of the United States and spent time in Europe on the return journey to Egypt.

That trip was in the early fifties so the CIA would have had to have been really on the ball. It is far more plausible that they simply inflamed radical islam later.

 

[Indy Vidual]

....
We were attacked by "The Database".

Karma works in strange ways...
...sometimes very strange.

 

[emazur]

Depends.

The frothing at the mouth conspiracy theorists who rant about about 9/11 being an inside job or the NWO at every Ron Paul or libertarian gathering do hurt the liberty movement. It's quite simple: they water down the liberty message with talks of conspiracy that make the liberty movement seem less credible. Especially if the facts of the conspiracy theory are way off (such as JFK being assassinated b/c he "took on the Fed"). That being said, even though they do hurt the liberty movement, they can simultaneously help the liberty movement by bringing in the numbers and by providing a stepping stone from conspiracy theory to more serious and intellectual libertarian theory. The Alex Jones types belong in this category

The calm and structured conspiracy theorist who focuses on the liberty message first and puts conspiracies on the back burner? They help the liberty movement, just so long as they make it clear that their opinions are their own, they take facts and research much more seriously, and don't try to intertwine conspiracy theories with liberty (at least not too much). I would put the John Birch Society (which I like and think their magazine is excellent) in this category. Ron Paul could arguably be put in this category - he believes there is some form of new world order, he believes the Trilateral Commission and CFR conspire to undermine America, and he believes a one world currency is in the pipeline (and in my opinion he would be right or partially right on all three counts. No I don't feel like going into details). As you'll notice, he does not often bring up these subjects and most certainly does not froth at the mouth about them. It is very clear that the message of liberty comes first from Ron Paul. So even if you hate conspiracy theories, you don't really care that Ron believes in some of them.

 

[Indy Vidual]

...As you'll notice, he does not often bring up these subjects...

Ron does not often bring up these subjects, since he is a master at playing both sides.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Depends.

The frothing at the mouth conspiracy theorists who rant about about 9/11 being an inside job or the NWO at every Ron Paul or libertarian gathering do hurt the liberty movement. It's quite simple: they water down the liberty message with talks of conspiracy that make the liberty movement seem less credible. Especially if the facts of the conspiracy theory are way off (such as JFK being assassinated b/c he "took on the Fed"). That being said, even though they do hurt the liberty movement, they can simultaneously help the liberty movement by bringing in the numbers and by providing a stepping stone from conspiracy theory to more serious and intellectual libertarian theory. The Alex Jones types belong in this category

The calm and structured conspiracy theorist who focuses on the liberty message first and puts conspiracies on the back burner? They help the liberty movement, just so long as they make it clear that their opinions are their own, they take facts and research much more seriously, and don't try to intertwine conspiracy theories with liberty (at least not too much). I would put the John Birch Society (which I like and think their magazine is excellent) in this category. Ron Paul could arguably be put in this category - he believes there is some form of new world order, he believes the Trilateral Commission and CFR conspire to undermine America, and he believes a one world currency is in the pipeline (and in my opinion he would be right or partially right on all three counts. No I don't feel like going into details). As you'll notice, he does not often bring up these subjects and most certainly does not froth at the mouth about them. It is very clear that the message of liberty comes first from Ron Paul. So even if you hate conspiracy theories, you don't really care that Ron believes in some of them.

The liberty movement has been hurt precisely because it treated exposing conspiracy in this back burner, "wacky uncle" sense, and decimated the momentum of getting any policies changed, by treating the truth as some sort of secondary issue. As you note, Paul kept the matter on the back burner twice in his campaigns, and see how many primaries he won as a result, hmmm? Addressing the issues in an entirely left brain/rational way, to an electorate that is overwhelmingly entranced by neocon right brain emotionalism, is a twice proven failure. This partition theory of liberty discourse is completely false, and feeding the impotence of the movement in waking more people up about both freedom and truth.

The truth will set you free--both factors are on the same level. You simply can't properly talk about the loss of liberty and explosion of war over the last decade without addressing the false flag op that created the pretext for non-stop empire building and omni-surveillance. You can't talk about the evil of the Fed without addressing collusive manner of how it came to be, and how every president who has even incidentally printed money outside the control of the central banks ended up killed. Bashing "JFK took on the Fed" is a strawman, the point is that it IS accurate as a short hand way of summarizing the fate of each politician who allowed non-bank controlled currency to be issued. Why has no President since JFK even accidentially issued more US notes?

The conspiracy structures that entrench and expand tyranny are systemic, and cannot be answered by de-emphasizing their role in crushing freedom. A stance of condescension and derision of Jones et al as 'types' is in no way moving us towards a more serious advocacy of liberty, but rather towards providing cover and legitimacy to the current establishment's marginalization tactics. How many other coincidences, ruined careers and dead bodies are we supposed to ignore, to retain mainstream respectability? Is not this currying of establishment respect part of the problem, and the real reason for giving the exposure of conspiracy second rate status? The Birch Society was mocked and crazy-uncled a generation ago for even bringing up the Fed. So will it be alright for us to admit 9-11 was an inside job in another 30 years, only after we have been all locked up in the camps?