Conspiracy theorists - Do they hurt the Liberty movement?

[green73]

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

Best comment I've read in a long time.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

That's probably an overstatement, but not much of one. You are completely right that Fox cost Ron Paul a bunch of primaries, and there have been shenanigans (such as when Louisiana combined all the other candidates into a 'coalition' in 2008) and possibly vote fraud. If there's a causal relationship here, it's Ron Paul doesn't 'play ball' and vote as he's told to, so he wins no primaries.



The trick, of course, is to do a good job rebutting the feeling in others. This isn't easy when the media is constantly playing its divide and conquer game, and telling people, 'See? You don't want to be associated with these other people.' On the other hand, there are people here who are here specifically because they were made to see the truth about, say, 9/11 and it made them mad enough to get off their duffs. So, I guess the thing to wish for is that we all become perfect, and perfectly able to ferret out what will make a person love liberty enough to fight for it and push just those particular buttons.

But in the end, our best strategy is to help everyone come to love liberty--be it messy or not, and whether the idea of one's crazy next door neighbor having liberty is frightening or not.

Precisely.

+rep

 

[UWDude]

Someone can tell you to shut up, but the only person who can really silence you in that scenario... is you.

Depends who controls the parks, or forums, or wherever else you are talking, eh?

 

[MelissaWV]

Depends who controls the parks, or forums, or wherever else you are talking, eh?

It's the internet. Even if a mod told you to shut up here, you realize you are not "silenced," right? There are other venues all over the place.

 

[UWDude]

It's the internet. Even if a mod told you to shut up here, you realize you are not "silenced," right? There are other venues all over the place.

I said parks too. Yup. It's more than the internet.

 

[gwax23]

Yes they do.

 

[MelissaWV]

I said parks too. Yup. It's more than the internet.

Then you should have mentioned it in the post I was responding to.

The only thing this movement has ever had, was the freedom of ideas. It is a movement of ideas. Furthermore, it only grows on common ground.

That means, some people will need to hear about the end of the world, Armageddon, and the return of Jesus Christ, to wake up.
Do I believe in all that?
No.
But, I would never dream of telling them to shut up because it "will hurt the movement".
Because I know, there are ears, that can only hear that message.
So a right-wing christian convinced these are the end times is not some kooky, counter-productive proselytizer trying to use "the movement" as a spring board for their own Christian agenda.
If they are truly in love with the concepts of freedom, then they will speak to those of like minds, and mix the essential message of freedom with the message of the end of days.

My response fit the post.

 

[jmdrake]

Movements need to move on.

Agreed.

That's what's causing most of the division right now. Some folks never believed anyone would win their election anyways, and the few that have will obviously just turn on us (and a subset of those folks are salivating, waiting for someone to vote "wrong" so they can post an article and preen about it). Some folks believed everyone would get elected THIS time, and did actually get a few people elected (but at what cost, both financially and philisophically). Some folks don't give a fig about the elections and mostly seem interested in a mixture of informing fellow forum members... and crying that the sky is falling (too many chemtrails). It's always been the makeup of the population on the forums, but now that the bulk are not focused on the same shiny object, it becomes more obvious how different we all are.

That we are a diverse mix has been obvious since before this forum even existed. That some people falsely claim that those who support this idea or that don't support the general goal of getting people elected to office is also obvious. And yes, it is a false claim. Everybody holds some position that might turn some segment of "likely republic voters" off. For some it's their support of gay marriage. For others it's their pro choice position. For others it's their view on the environment and global warming. Some are against corporate personhood. Some feel the need to re-fight the civil war. Some are anti organized religion. Some are anti-God period. Some want to make sure everyone knows what an evil communist womanizer Martin Luther King supposedly was. Each of those positions pisses off some portion of the electorate that we want to reach. But for some odd reason, it's only the "conspiracy theorists" that are the problem. Ummm....okay.

These divisions have always been their and have always been known about. The New York Times mentioned this in their article about Ron Paul back in 2007.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

This was before a single primary had been lost. This diversity has always been the strength and the weakness of the Ron Paul movement. It's a strength because it's hard otherwise to put together a group of people that agree with people like Dennis Kucinich about the wars and all civil liberties other than gun control, and who agree with people like Jim Demitt on fiscal responsibility, that the welfare state is bad for everyone including those "benefiting" from it, and the need to protect gun rights, the one civil liberty that liberals hate the most. (Liberals also like some forms of free speech and hate others. Same with conservatives. And I'm speaking in generalities here.)

When there is a focused goal of "raising millions for Ron Paul" it's easy to set aside differences and focus on the common goal. What's happening now is not much different from what happened in 2008/2009. There was fracturing then as well. Only then there was the possibility of Ron running again, and nobody considered the possibility of someone like Rand taking the mantle without adopting the same rhetoric.

The forum still does have a mission statement. It still does have moderators (most of which are not even moderating anymore, but are still complained about on a regular basis). There still are alternatives to it. There's still a market for a variety of sites that cater to different segments of the population that want to engage in certain kinds of discussions. I don't think anyone's really being silenced, and I find a bit of irony in someotne on these boards saying that one person expressing a "shhh you'll hurt the movement" opinion is unacceptable, because it silences the other person who has every right to say that the WTC was brought down by [insert theory].

Let me see if I understand you correctly. It's okay for someone to express his "shhhh you'll hurt the movement" opinion, but it's not acceptable for someone to express the opposite opinion? Only the OP has a right to express his opinion? Because...that's in effect what you are saying. Some of us think what the OP did was counter productive and only caused more discussion of what he supposedly didn't want talked about. Look at how long this thread is and compare it to the lengths of recent "conspiracy" threads. It's the forum version of "blowback". And it's just stupid. I finally got "yongrel" to see this truth years ago. (I kinda miss him). Others will eventually figure it out. Still others will stupidly keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.

It's time to reflect on what YOU want to happen next, and how YOU can help it happen. Will you run for office? Will you start prepping more seriously? Will you go completely off-grid? Will you support Rand? Thomas? Amash? Someone else? Will you toss your money at Ron and whatever new venture he captains? Will you continue to dig up stories (and be responsible enough to research them, and not post rumor as fact)? Will you find a pet cause and advocate for it? Will you find one injustice you can stop, maybe even on a local level, and rally to do just that? There are myriad things to do, and some of them are going to "look bad." It's time to stop linking everything back to one central movement, imo. The "crazy uncle" comparison is apt, but there's no direct blood relation.

There have been several positive threads about this. And in one a certain previous moderator started a flamewar with a certain current moderator because she took a mild criticism of the campaign by the current moderator and blew it way out of proportion. But yes, people realize that we have to move beyond the idea of getting Ron Paul elected or focusing solely on getting good people elected or focusing solely on elections period. I hope you realize that too.

So maybe, just maybe, I can hope that the fact I want people being held to rules they agree to abide by ... doesn't make me "Statist"? And that pointing out big glaring logic holes in folks' posts ... doesn't make me a Government plant/shill? Nah. Back to your regularly-scheduled game of "he started it."

Do you really understand the forum rules? Because "never talk about conspiracies" isn't one of them. In fact I saw forum admin Josh Lowry post a 9/11 conspiracy thread in general politics some months ago, though he (or someone) eventually moved it to hot topics. Since the beginning of this forum discussions of conspiracies (and anti/pro gay rights, and anti/pro abortion rights, and anti/pro religion, and anti/pro confederate states of America) have been allowed. Certain of those controversial discussion have been whisked to HT as soon as possible. Some controversial discussions seem more equal than others. But those who focus on "the mission statement" as a way to attack others for talking about what they don't want discussed aren't really looking at this realistically IMO.

People who want positive discussion should post positive threads. People who like flamewars should start threads like the OP. It's that simple.

Edit: I just realized I got this thread mixed up with another on. The OP in this was was looking for interviews for his radio show. The OP in the other thread was actively trying to "shsshh" people. The OP in this thread was actively looking for discussion, so I guess he got what he wanted.

Edit 2: But MelissaVW, since you claim to care about the forum rules, does it concern you that the OP actually broke a well known rule by starting a conspiracy theory thread in General Politics instead of hot topics?

 

[jmdrake]

It's the internet. Even if a mod told you to shut up here, you realize you are not "silenced," right? There are other venues all over the place.

True. And people can tell folks like the OP to "shut up" and he's not really silenced either. And people can point out to the OP that if what he really wants is less conspiracy discussion, he's going about it the wrong way. But he's free to be counterproductive. So are you.

 

[acptulsa]

Mr. Drake, you said some good and thoughtful things in your posts, but perhaps your best contribution to this thread is in your sig.

"We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

One man's trash is another man's treasure, as they say. All the liberal selling points are selling points. Liberty is messy. Send five organizations into Ethiopia to end the starvation and you invariably wind up with one or more of those treading on each other's efforts, duplicating each other's efforts, reinventing the wheel that another group has just reinvented. Results are often hard to measure. Liberty is messy. But out of that mess comes brilliant solutions that central planning either doesn't think of, or is afraid to try because sending a group off to work on something unproven and experimental could waste their time--and ordering people to waste their time when they're set on doing some good could lead to mutiny. That's why the Soviet Union was never known for innovation and the U.S, once upon a time, was.

No doubt we'd like to be a monolith that rolls over the countryside, converting people en masse and never setting a foot wrong. That we can never be. The world is full of individuals, and it does take different strokes to win over different folks. So, perhaps we should learn to embrace this? No?

The mass media has its advantages, it has its strengths. It also has its weaknesses. That's why The Monolith invented Fox News. There was a certain segment of the population that had gotten completely sick of the anti-Archie Bunker narrative. We are not Mass Media. We in no way resemble a steamroller. We get forced into dealing with people on an individual basis. It ain't quick. But you know what? It's working for us.

People hate 9/11 Truthers. Well, sure they do. Who wants to hear bad news? Who wouldn't want to shoot the messenger? But at the same time, when you show someone that the official narrative of that day doesn't add up, and they finally see it and know it, they become some of this movement's stalwarts. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we have been these last six years (some of us more) inventing new ways to sell people on something that shouldn't need selling--liberty. Or to put it another way, we invent new ways to undo the propaganda brain washing, ways that don't work for everyone but do work for some. The media has to craft their mass message, and that message can only evolve slowly. The 'you're with us or you're weird' method only allows for the message to change so fast, and that isn't fast at all, but slow. If we push the right buttons, we can wake people who stay awake. And if we cheerfully admit that freedom is messy, but point out that only from that mess can true innovation spring, we have much less to worry about when it comes to pressing the agenda forward.

In collectivism, you have to sell everyone, or fifty-one percent of everyone, on an idea before you even get a chance to try it out. We don't. There's a weakness in the MSM monolith for us to exploit, and a strength we can call our very own.

 

[John F Kennedy III]

I would be really careful using the whole "Ron Paul does this and he hasn't won any primaries" argument. What's ironic is that we are discussing conspiracies (theories, facts, whatever), and we use that argument even though we know the very fact that Ron Paul hasn't won any primaries could be the result of a conspiracy. I happen to think it's been pretty well-demonstrated that this happened. There's no doubt that the media had an effect on his support among average joes.

Correlation does not equal causation, especially when there are only two cases available to study. No relationship can be established. "Ron Paul does this" and "Ron Paul doesn't win any primaries" may be facts, but they have no established relationship, strong or weak. They are exclusive.

Do you look at my sig? They flat out stole the nomination from Dr. Paul. In a fair fight he'd be President Elect right now.

 

[cybermonk]

9/11 truthers are not part of a conspiracy! They are part of the truth! The phrase "conspiracy theorists" implies that they are theorizing about the true events that took place. In all actuality they are not theorizing anything. They are simply finding more facts about what happened. If more facts are found why not allow a transparent study of them? The reason is simple: to hide the real truth and stick to the official story that was championed by executive elite, NWO officials, investors Lloyd Goldman, Joseph Cayre, and Larry Silverstein.

News flash: The American people do not trust them and for the right reasons. It is time to recognize the power of intuition. We all have to take a closer look at who profited monetarily from the accident. Larry already made a Billion from the collapse just off of insurance (not including any other looted goods and/or market manipulations). Also important to note how aggressively Larry Silverstein went after the money for both policies he had worked his way into, edited, and took out. http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-29/...larry-silverstein-swiss-reinsurance?_s=PM:LAW There were also large amounts of gold stolen from the towers in the weeks before the attacks and the security company, Securacom backed by KuwAm, was owned by Marvin Bush. The lease was purchased by the Silverstein Group for $3.2 billion that same year. WTC Insurance Payout Totaled $4.55 Billion. "This is a dream come true," Larry Silverstein said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." This also immediately allowed our government to change the headquarters for the FBI and CIA and "wipe the slate clean" so to speak. There was a HUGE amount of data and intelligence that was not backed up offsite that simply demolished with the towers. All of the old timer CIA and FBI officials were stationed in the towers that day some of which were in Tower 7. http://rememberbuilding7.org/ http://wtc7.net/ With all that being said, look at when it happened in our financial history! Please watch this video and let me know what you think: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJBRzBusfc8. It was simply the beginning of the looting of our federal reserve system by foreigners and domestic terrorists alike. American's deserve to know the full truth. We have also recently learned that a scud missile hit the Pentagon thanks to declassified documents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRK8QFvXyfE Time to wake up and turn off the TV people. These people are serious about their blood money. We should be too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvay28lZiHUWe Listen to the messages of each of the people individually and a coverup is simply undeniable. Beware the bearers of false gifts and their broken promises!

 

[idiom]

American's deserve to know the full truth. We have also recently learned that a scud missile hit the Pentagon thanks to declassified documents. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRK8QFvXyfE

See that right there. What is that? Is that a link to a pdf with declassified documents of DOD investigations concluding that the impactor was a scud missile? It looks that way in the way the link was presented.

No. Its a link two two frames of a security video that are blurry as anything. You claimed specific knowledge of the impactor. You didn't have it. That's fraud. A.k.a. lying.

I don't think it hurts the movement. But I think it hurts you personally. At best it makes you look like an idiot. At worst it looks like you are trying to deceive.

You talk about truth but you have no idea what that even means.

 

[Travlyr]

See that right there. What is that? Is that a link to a pdf with declassified documents of DOD investigations concluding that the impactor was a scud missile? It looks that way in the way the link was presented.

No. Its a link two two frames of a security video that are blurry as anything. You claimed specific knowledge of the impactor. You didn't have it. That's fraud. A.k.a. lying.

I don't think it hurts the movement. But I think it hurts you personally. At best it makes you look like an idiot. At worst it looks like you are trying to deceive.

You talk about truth but you have no idea what that even means.

It does not look like an airplane to me.

 

[donnay]

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.

Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication

BBC’s killer documentary called “The Power of Nightmares“. Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after “the bad guy of their choice” namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and “criminal organizations” such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government’s story of Al-qaeda, a “group” or criminal organization they could “legally” go after.

http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html


Unraveling the Myth of Al Qaida
http://www.globalresearch.ca/unraveling-the-myth-of-al-qaida/7787

Al Qaeda and the “War on Terrorism”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/al-qaeda-and-the-war-on-terrorism/7718

Hillary Clinton Admits the U.S. Government Created al-Qaeda
http://www.dailypaul.com/235730/hillary-clinton-admits-the-us-government-created-al-qaeda?page=1

Al Qaeda Links
http://tvnewslies.org/html/al_qaeda_links.html

 

[acptulsa]

It does not look like an airplane to me.

Indeed not. It is more than a cause for reasonable doubt. But it is not, as represented, positive proof that the building was hit by, specifically, a SCUD missile. And, indeed, the notion that our government used a SCUD missile for anything at all is ridiculous on the face of it. So is the idea that the Twin Towers were hit with missiles that had hologram generators on board to make it look like they had airplane wings.

It's one of the older tricks in the book. Something is done, people look for the truth and begin to offer theories that better fit the facts, someone (who is either dumb or a COINTEL professional) offers a perfectly ridiculous theory, certain dumb people pick up on it (perhaps because it's the sexiest explanation yet) and spread it around, and intelligent people hear it and roll their eyes. These last people could have been convinced, or at least could have bugan to harbor seeds of doubt, but roll their eyes instead. And if these same idiots are kind enough to end their presentation of a severely flawed theory as fact with, 'And that's why we need to vote for Ron Paul!' then, yes, the movement is damaged. The only thing that keeps the thread title from being a yes or no question with an obvious answer of 'yes' is the phrasing--conspiracy theorists who go off half cocked do damage the liberty movement. If they had any brains, they'd refrain--at least until the powers that be paid them to do what they do.

Everyone has had either a Christian or an antheist prostelytize them. I include both Christians and Atheists because people are bound to find one more irritating than the other. These people have Faith, so they present stuff that isn't scientifically proven as fact. Now, they're free to believe, and they're free to share, but just as soon as they insist theory is fact they become bothersome. The same is true of conspiracy theorists. The successful ones stick to presenting irrefutable holes in the official story, and irrefutable facts that don't add up to the official story.

All one has to prove is that there are very good reasons to have reasonable doubts.

 

[idiom]

It does not look like an airplane to me.

A SCUD has a ballistic (Up n Down) trajectory and the very latest are doing extremely well to get within 100m of their target. They have zero ability to fly horizontally and follow terrain.

Still waiting on those declassified documents identifying it specifically as a SCUD.

I am not taking issue with the possibility of it not being a plane. I am taking issue with people who flat out lie to get attention.

 

[donnay]

I've been listening to A.J. for many years, on and off. Mostly for entertainment purposes/to pass time when I'm playing videogames and I get sick of neo-cons, and I don't want to listen to the regular sound from the game.

While I think he is sincere in many respects, and a talented broadcaster, I get tired very quickly of the endless, complicated evil schemes he believes the government is undertaking around the world. I believe he gives the government way more credit (not to mention assumes they are way more efficient) than they actually deserve or are. I don't necessarily have a big problem with most of these things, but many of his medical/pharma conspiracy theories are truly repulsive. Some examples:

- Vaccines cause autism? He's still pushing this garbage even after many, many reputable medical and public health journals have shown this to be a farce? Does he realize this has consequences or does he simply not care if previously eradicated third world diseases become more common in children? If you don't want to vaccinate your kid, that is your right. But if you are going to use some ridiculously schizo-like paranoid theory to encourage others not to do so, that's where I speak out.

- The way he hocks multi-vitamins as cures for inveterate diseases (he actually had some guy on there claim that he cured a man with Madcow disease using the "Alex Pack" - a combo of Omega 3, multivitamins, and glucosamine/chondroitin. (The human "form" of so-called madcow disease is called Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease - which is universally fatal and not diagnosed until autopsy). This was so disgusting to me I actually almost tried calling in to the show to argue with the quack he had on there. Imagine if a little vitamin C and fish oil could cure an illness the best neurologists and infectious disease physicians and researchers in the world have known and been working to treat for almost 100 years!) Simply amazing to me. Of course, he could have been misdiagnosed by an actual MD as opposed to the Veterinary pathologist (not joking) who pushes these products, something tells me the story is a complete fraud but then again I am cynical. There are probably many other examples outside of health. I'm particularly entertained by his oft-used script:

Wow, talk about distorting the truth? Can you cite your source. Maybe while playing video games you didn't hear Dr. Wallach correctly?

Prion diseases such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob or "mad cow" disease, and also Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease are related to the accumulation of wrongly folded and entangled prion proteins. It has now been shown that this may be due to a copper deficiency in the brain, and that copper stabilises prions and helps them to fold correctly (7).

http://www.health-science-spirit.com/copper.html

Other sources:
http://www.health-science-spirit.com/copper.html
http://www.soilminerals.com/information.htm
http://www.consumerhealth.org/articles/display.cfm?ID=20010801000231

 

[John F Kennedy III]

It does not look like an airplane to me.

I've seen the footage many times. It's NOT a commercial airliner. It's:

1. A small private plane

2. Some type of missile

3. Something else tiny that makes that flash and ball of fire on impact.

 

[VoluntaryAmerican]

The net of "conspiracy theorist" has been drawn so large as to question any rational persons thoughts and criticisms.

Even bringing up things like the TSA has gotten me labeled conspiracy theorist... It's being used as a way to demonize thinking men.