Conspiracies

[ginny]

Sorry I asked for an explanation to the grande conspirary. Even sorrier you couldn't give one. It disappoints the school girl in me.

Ginny

[dougplumb]

I've provided two explanations of the motivation in this thread. One right after you asked, another right after Selene asked.

I could cut and paste it here..

[dougplumb]

Brant:"I don't believe in anthropogenic global warming or climate change. There has been no measurable warming since 1998. It's cooled off a little. No sunspot activity is most likely setting us up for global cooling. Climate is always changing regardless. CO2 is a weak, very weak, greenhouse gas. Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas. The climate record indicates high temperatures tend to be followed by higher levels of CO2 than the other way around. A thousand years ago when there was green in Greenland and they grew wine grapes in England and temperatures were significantly higher than today, the world didn't fall off the cliff into the environmentalists' hell."

Agreed.

Why do you think that Obama inc are inacting carbon taxes ? How can you trust these people ? Why is this becoming reality when anyone with more than two brain cells can see its all fake ?

[Rich Engle]

Sorry I asked for an explanation to the grande conspirary. Even sorrier you couldn't give one. It disappoints the school girl in me.

Since I pretty much just teach for a living, it equally disappoints me when people ask me for things to do (usually for proof-of-concept), I do so, then they don't do them. I guess I just get easily frustrated going that way. You haven't turned in your book reports. Plenty of things to look at were provided. This takes time. So, do that first, or what are we to discuss?

Must I pick something? Pick one on your own of those provided. If not, let's say Joan Veon and her work. Or, how about the pamphlet? Anything.

I don't know everything about everything: no one does, it is not possible. Instead of the arguing to and fro, why not just pick a jump point and go from there? It takes two to tango, even if you're at a Highschool Sockhop.

Going the other way wastes time and is more cumbersome. Consider: not only are you asking for more data, but it seems you do so without responding at all to anything given? Consider that the data in question is complex, and that if I or anyone attempts too much summary, something will get killed in the mix. Without dipping your toes into the water (at least a bit)...you know? Even were I so awesome as to give a comprehensive walk-through, you would still be unsure. So you have to do some of it straight-up on your own.

Do that, then things open up. I get stuck doing it all the time.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wonder if anyone other than the participants and a small handful of curious onlookers are reading this thread. In my experience, I don't think so.

The 1,300+ hits so far show strong signs of being repeat visits by the same people. There is only a little over 10 hits per post, which is normal for repeat visits on threads with over 100 posts.

For those who are passionate, this is not just incompetence at communication and persuasion. This thing is not even getting read by normal OL readers.

If nobody reads something, how is anyone going to communicate anything through that means? So what's the point of all the hostility? Just to bitch?

I, for one, have stopped reading this thing. It reminds me of the global warming hostility (I refuse to call it a discussion) where people yelled at each other nonstop, dumped all kinds of data on the thread and ignored just as much as they dumped, and communed with their inner snark.

This goes way beyond the issues. If I perceive that this thread starts hurting forum traffic, I will close it.

This is a discussion forum. A lot of what I see here is not discussion. There are plenty of other places on the web to do this stuff for those who like to do this stuff. I don't want OL to turn into that.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

But isn't that a lot of hits for a relatively new thread? I don't go in there over and over again...I just read, reply.

Not that one judges quality by hits, or anything.

As to hostility levels, seems to me it is simmering down pretty good, compared to other things I have seen.

You always said "stick to the ideas." I have always agreed with you on that.

Isn't it fair to say this is a sensitive topic, on numerous levels, so maybe some of your legendary patience would be in order, Maestro?

The back-traffic seems productive, as well (as in communications going on outside-thread, email, that).

There's frankness, then there is hostility. Sometimes one person just has to say it (it doesn't matter who does, so much).

I don't have any anger coming out nor in about anyone here. If anything, it's just awkward, and I always thought that was the difference 'round these parts:

knowing that difference and watching it work out. Your win ratio in that department is extremely high.

Respectfully,

rde

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But isn't that a lot of hits for a relatively new thread?

Rich,

Not for a relatively new thread with about 130 posts.

As you do, so do 9 others (as a rough rule of thumb).

10 x 130 = 1300.

That's about how it works and OL has a much larger readership.

As to the issues, I don't mind people discussing them on any side. But I would like to see more discussing and less preaching.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Yeah, me too.

That's why I said pick one specific scenario and talk about it. I hear you...a lot of fire and posturing.

I have faith in good thinkers. Storming and norming, isn't that what they call it?

Maybe people ARE going back in because they need to reread and think. Man, that would be horrible!

Thanks!

r

[Rich Engle]

So what do we talk about to get the most hits? I'm in.

rde

Runs For Cover

Edited May 23, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So what do we talk about to get the most hits? I'm in.

rde

Runs For Cover

Rich,

How to make money?

(Boy am I late on that. But it will be worth it.)

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Well, we better switch over to something else. Ideas:

1. Porn

2. Professional Wrestling

That should do it. B)

Here, I was working on this one anyway (don't worry, I'll put it where it belongs).

r

Gimme ten minutes, let's see how this one works while ginny looks at scary youtube stuff.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Brant Gaede]

Thank god for you, Brand. I was just checking to see what planet I'm on (coudda been kidnapped, ya know). I can't believe one lone voice of reason in a long thread such as this. But, yeah, all it takes is one. Love ya Brand (Not really, but the two martians at my side made me say it.)

Ginny

Have another Madera my deara.

--Brand

[Judith]

This thing is not even getting read by normal OL readers.

. . .

If I perceive that this thread starts hurting forum traffic, I will close it.

Michael, how can a thread that no one is reading hurt forum traffic? Leave it alone; you never know when someone will post something interesting. My interest in the topic remains.

Judith

[Judith]

You haven't turned in your book reports. Plenty of things to look at were provided.

Well, the videos certainly provided some contradictory advice; for example, the first one you recommended definitely recommended against the gold standard, whereas the Alex Jones ones (or was it the Joan Veon one?) were for a gold standard.

Just about all of the sources I've seen previously as well as these are pretty unanimous about the Bilderbergers and the CFR and the families, etc. Where I see differences are in whether they buy into conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbor, Kennedy, 9/11, etc.

I've never seen anyone come out against fractional banking before; it strikes me as a radical idea. Why would anyone go into banking under those terms? Wherein would lie the profit? What would the world be like without any banking at all?

And is fiat money really such a good idea even if it did work for the colonies before the Revolutionary War?

I suppose I'm picking at the small ideas because the totality of all the videos is kind of mind-blowing.

Judith

[dougplumb]

Judith: "I've never seen anyone come out against fractional banking before; it strikes me as a radical idea. Why would anyone go into banking under those terms? Wherein would lie the profit? What would the world be like without any banking at all?"

That is a whole other topic and there is quite a bit to think about. I ran for the Canadian Action Party and thought we had the best monetary policy.

The problem with banking in a nutshell is that we have private banks creating money from OUR ability to pay for it and lending it to governments. This puts the banks in control of governments and as you saw from The Money Masters, the banks have had a gun to the heads of government. Who ever finances a project runs the project. Banks finance government and therefore run government.

Governments could create their own money instead of borrowing from banks and commercial banking could operate the way it does now, but there is nothing in that that could prevent banks from taking over governments.

Ultimately gold and silver are the only "honest" money but no one lends gold or silver at 10 % interest - more like 30 %. This puts the power in the hands of families that have money to lend and average folks on the same tread mill.

The thing about our current system of banks lending money to gov is that the economic system MUST collapse. Its a mathematical fact. If governments created their own money they could inject money into the economy as necessary and tax it back out to control money supply. More money is owed than exists in the economy and this gap just gets bigger and bigger with time as we have it today. Booms and busts are great opportunities for war which is to add to the income tax and take a larger portion of the economic output of the nation.

Reagan was shot by Hinkley because he exposed the Federal Reserve in a document that is online. It was a congressional report done while Reagan was pres. Kennedy was going to print 4 billion worth of government notes. All the assassinations go back to presidents standing up to the bankers.

The UN was never voted for, it was put into place by the banks to help the banks print their money for all governments all over the world and have it controlled from one source - world government.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Doug Plumb

[dougplumb]

They tried to establish The League of Nations after world war 1, but we didn't have TV back then and propaganda was an art rather than a science. The attempt for the League of Nations failed. With 50 years of television experience, propaganda has become a science and they can make 92% - 93% of the population believe whatever they want. There is a small percentage of people that are completely immune to it [Jaques Ellul "Propaganda"]. No one knows why as far as I can tell.

The whole idea is to create a world government with interdependent nations and interdependent armed forces so that any one nation cannot rise up against the Money Lenders. All the wars have been because some leader somewhere wants out and they paint him as a torturous & corrupt dictator so that US forces and people can be lead into war with him. They keep telling the American public that these dictators rise and threaten the USA, - no they threaten the banking system as we know it and that cannot be tolerated.

The USA has practically institutionalized torture, calling it "pain compliance". The US president has the right to order torture of children in front of their parents using pliars on genitalia of children. This is sick and there are some very sick people running the USA. Everyone knows torture doesn't work. What are all these people doing in Guantanamo ?

This is what the banks want, they do not want a single powerful nation that could rise against them, this is why the USA is being converted to a 2nd or 3rd world country through Sustainable Development. A large police force will be required once people learn about what Sustainable Development really is. The economy isn't coming back - its impossible with the current debts. The physical (real) economy is being sent off shore (with approval because of environmentalism) to leave us with an army/police/prison based economy to police the world for the banks.

To do this the establishment must put psychopaths in power. Psychopaths crave power because power protects them from being found out and stopped. This is why we have torture and lots of child molestation and satanic rituals. See "The Finders" by Ted Gunderson (a PDF document). Gunderson has exposed the satanic rituals and was the head of 800 FBI agents before he learned that the US government was bringing in all the drugs.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Doug Plumb

[Rich Engle]

I suppose I'm picking at the small ideas because the totality of all the videos is kind of mind-blowing.

Yup. Now we have a little stitch of row to hoe.

There's also some pretty good stuff to talk about in terms of how long ago media control was laid down.

By the way, may I see your papers, please?

rde

Glad he doesn't have to write about wrestling for awhile.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, how can a thread that no one is reading hurt forum traffic? Leave it alone; you never know when someone will post something interesting. My interest in the topic remains.

Judith,

It does hurt traffic because people only need to visit a long thread like that once, much less several times, to start imagining that the seriousness of the forum is decaying. All the effort it takes a reader to leave and seek somewhere else more serious is simply click the mouse.

But restricting the topic is not what I am getting at.

We are all adults and we are all intelligent. The civility condition in our guidelines means for posters to behave in a manner that respects this.

Specifically, I am referring to posts laced with constant arguments and insinuations that anyone who does not agree with the poster are either:

1. Blind

2. Stupid

3. Brainwashed

4. Deluded

5. Evil

6. A loon

etc.

This applies to both sides of the discussion (conspiracy supporters and conspiracy deniers). This descends into preaching and scapegoating instead of discussing the real issues. We step outside of anything interesting other than an intellectual version of professional wrestling. With one important difference. The hostility and contempt are real and not play-acting.

These premises can basically be summed up as the Chicken Little (sky is falling and those who don't see it are blind or evil) premise for the conspiracy supporters and Hardy Har Har (all conspiracy theorists are loons) premise for conspiracy deniers. I just don't want that stuff around me. If anybody wants to do that, there is the entire Internet to do it.

I am not against occasional flare-ups (that should be obvious), but there are limits. I see no value in hosting a big snarky mess.

If anybody wants to discuss the actual issues without descending into that childishness as their main form of discussion, I am all for it.

So as the saying goes, carry on...

Michael

[dougplumb]

OK Mike, lets talk about the evidence that supports the official version of 9/11.

If anyone insults me I'm calling the police. That is cyber-terrorism and you could be shipped off to Guantanamo 8-) If you have little kids, watch out. These guys get a big charge out of pointing guns at 8 year olds and strip searching them.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

btw - If you are interested in examining some of the material that has been discussed in this thread, I set up a thread here on OL about it in April of 2007. You will find a lot of links there:

Money and Politics - The Money Masters

The issues that are pointed out in the theory that the bankers are behind all the political evil in the world has two sides. The first is a good examination of fractional reserve banking, how the money supply is created from debt (Gignon's cartoon Money as Debt is a classic everyone should see), and a thorough uncovering of the relationship between banks and governments.

That was like a breath of fresh air when I came across it.

There are some serious downsides, though. As usual, oversimplification and scapegoating raise their ugly heads.

Still, I like to focus on the positive side, so rather than focus on the problems, I looked to the solutions. One of the most serious downsides for me is the actual solution presented: the idea that if we take issuing money out of the hands of bankers and put it in the hands of politicians, the politicians will act honorably and in the best interests of the citizens. I find that position to be... er... not in alignment with the nature of the politicians that I have observed.

There are some other things like that, but all in all, there is a lot of good information on that thread.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, Doug, let's talk about moderating posters.

Cut the crap.

I mean it.

Michael

[dougplumb]

I can prove what I say. I don't care if you don't like it.

Its been in the news - what about that little girl that got arrested for bringing a plastic knife to school to prepare her lunch?. The police thought she may be working with bin Laden I guess, given that she had a plastic knife.

I can find the link to a video where the home owner was invaded by Health Canada and one of their goons kept a gun trained on his little girl as they tore apart his house. He was a homeopathic doctor. Codex Alimentarius stikes again!

Its that ridiculous. So pardon me for ridiculing the ridiculous.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Doug Plumb

[dougplumb]

"One of the most serious downsides for me is the actual solution presented: the idea that if we take issuing money out of the hands of bankers and put it in the hands of politicians, the politicians will act honorably and in the best interests of the citizens. I find that position to be... er... not in alignment with the nature of the politicians that I have observed."

That is because politics and big business are in the sack together. Stop that and politicians will have to act differently. A different type of person will go for politics while the existing crop would probably join some underground satanic organization or be thrown in jail. I sat in student politics, everyone there wanted to do the right thing, there was no money involved.

[dougplumb]

On the topic of money, Greenspan has an essay called "Gold and Economic Freedom" its posted at several places on the web.

I have studied this stuff for a while and I believe government should create money to pay police, roads, etc - stuff that everyone uses and requires big planning and long term planning. This money could be literally printed off to increase currency supply as needed for growth. If growth slows due to overpopulation, the money can be taxed back as excise taxes.

We would need armies to stop the banksters from taking over other countries and for floods, etc. - national emergencies. Government could be local - local people would decide agenda for education and police policies as per necessary in each community.

We would of course have to get out of the UN. That place is beyond corrupt - man made global warming and the carbon tax hoax proves that beyond any doubt. Lots of scientists have spoken out about UN corruption.

[galtgulch]

On the other hand, if you like wakkadoodle stuff, keep an eye on galtgulch's contributions and follow his links.

Reidy,

Please define "wakkadoodle stuff!" I wish you were more specific to at least point to the rabbit hole you encourage OLs to keep an eye on or better still to follow.

It is hard to defend oneself when the accusation is so obtuse whether you are casting aspersions or using the subtle ad hominem approach.

I will confess that there is indeed a conspiracy afoot with the objective of enlightening the populace to the erosion of their liberties as the government in the hands of those who swear to uphold it instead ignore and abuse the Constitution. I frankly cannot recall just what explanation was given for the establishment of the Federal Government when I was an elementary school student. I might have been putting the pigtail of the girl sitting in front of me in the inkwell when that tidbit of information was imparted to the class.

I ought to check out an old history book to see whether the motivation for the creation of a federal level was addressed. My recollection is that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate in some way and that was that.

In any case I wonder if the Campaign For Liberty would qualify as a conspiracy. It is out in the open but virtually invisible in the media despite its accomplishments. The same is true of the entire Objectivist movement which might also be qualified to be a conspiracy of sorts.

Fortunately for me I have a lifetime supply of the makings of "tin hats" in the form of aluminum foil which is supposed to work as well. My secret weapon will be a gold foil hat but I haven't decided which gold coin to use to put threw the ringer. The Saint Gaudens is so beautiful.

Gold is up to 958 and I wonder if anyone thinks it will be artificially held or manipulated down to lower levels or allowed to seek its market level which is in the thousands?

www.campaignforliberty.com 23May 10AM 153,964, 1PM 154,011

gulch

Edited May 23, 2009 by galtgulch