Deep Politics Forum

Full Version: Negating the "conspiracy theorist" label
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
David Guyatt Wrote:In such cases mirrors are feared.


Welcome to the DPF. And by all means continue to "cross swords" with me and anyone else hereabouts. Out of such duels, insight is gained.

Again, there is nothing to be gained from such a relatively passive and collegial response as that suggested by Myra (who I know to be one of Truth's boldest warriors). Perhaps we're arguing semantics here, but I think not.

If you'd like a sound byte response to, "So you're one of those 'conspiracy theorists'" accusations, I humbly suggest the following (within the context of a JFK discussion):

"Conspiracy in this case is not a 'theory,' but a fact. And anyone with reasonable access to the evidence who does not conclude that Kennedy was killed by conspirators is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime. So how would you characterize your access to the evidence?"

Something sweet and endearing, like that ...
Thanks Charles

I'm impressed with the Francis Thompson Quote too. Another aficionado perhaps?

Don't misunderstand me though. He was a devout catholic whereas I regard much of the ritual surrounding religious practice as mumbo-jumbo in the same category as the invocations of the tribal witchdoctor. In other words I am very far from a 'true believer', let alone a practitioner, in any of the Great Faiths or Denominations - in the accepted sense of the words anyway.

But I have to say that Francis Thompson has been and remains one of the formative influences of my life and I regard his 'Hound of Heaven' as one of the greatest odes of the English language, right up there alongside Shakespeare. I can still recite the whole thing from memory - and occasionally do. Similarly with most of his poems on children, especially 'Daisy' and The Poppy'; anyone who can read and absorb either without getting at least the hint of a tear in the eye is .... well shall we just say not somebody I would likely get on with too well for long. I find it strange that he is so little known, with practically nothing he wrote available in the current book catalogue - other than anthologies of course.

Sorry for veering off-topic but a reply seemed the appropriate place to mention it.

I'm not nearly as versed in Thompson as I'd like to be.

So as not to take over this thread, I urge you to visit our "Art" page and go into detail.

Thanks for the enlightening post And by the by, I'm with you on the organized religions business.


Myra Bronstein

Peter Presland Wrote:Well I hesitate to cross swords with a founder member so early but I think Charles is being a little hard with the 'tantamount to surrender' bit. I take all his other points and agree 100% but - and it's a BIG BUT - as a tactical ploy to put ones potential dismisser on the defensive, I think it has great merit. IMH experience, most people who use the term 'Conspiracy Theorist' as a pejorative do so as a way of avoiding having to deal with potentially difficult and unpleasant issues; as a defense mechanism in other words - that's where they do not have an agenda of course. In either event I reckon it is still a good tactical device to take the wind out of their sales before moving to substantive debate.

That's exactly the case Peter. Once they affix the conspiracy theorist label to me, which happens shortly after I mention the plot to kill President Kennedy (or the other sixties political assassinations), they're no longer willing to listen. I might as well be standing there in a tin foil hat because that's what they're seeing when they look at me.

Immediately accusing them of being a "coincidence theorist" is meant to turn the tables and put them on the defensive, and show how silly the all or nothing mentality is.

If they can shake off the decades of programming that has told them to tune out talk of conspiracies then it's worth it to talk facts. To, as you say, move on to substantive debate. Otherwise they just won't be receptive.

People are terrified of being in a room with a "conspiracy theorist." At least Americans are. They're rather be stuck on an elevator with Typhoid Mary.

Are people in other countries as freaked out by "conspiracy theorists"?

Myra Bronstein

Charles Drago Wrote:...
Again, there is nothing to be gained from such a relatively passive and collegial response as that suggested by Myra (who I know to be one of Truth's boldest warriors). ...

Thanks Charlie.

Myra Bronstein

Great exchange on Democratic Underground, a site that has not historically welcomed free thinking researchers.

Member "Time for change" posted a great essay here:

Which was promptly dismissed by someone with this post:

"Tin Foil Hat Much???"

Here's the follow up that I applaud:

"10. I've had it with this phrase "Tin Foil Hat" being used to try to shut down debate.

If you have something to say about the OP, say it. You don't agree with it? You have some other explanation for Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld's apparent immunity from prosecution, or for the continued War on Iraq, or for the other points raised, regarding the quite visible limits on Obama's power? Say it. Give your perspective. But don't put down someone else's thoughtful post with this all-purpose "shut the fuck up" phrase. Please. You don't think there's any kind of conspiracy, and it's just accident and coincidence that a few rich people are being given trillions of dollars of future taxpayers' money with virtually no strings attached? You think the continued occupation of Iraq is not a major breach of contract between Obama and the American people, requiring a better explanation than he has given? You think these things were not planned by anybody, and that Obama's apparent powerlessness to undo them are not worthy of notice or discussion? Okay. I can argue with you--and so could Time for Change--on those points. But calling it "Tin Foil Hat" and then running away, is kind of like a kid throwing rock. It's the way Rush Limbaugh argues. Throw the rock, and cut off any callers who might disagree. "How great is that?Someone who is rejecting the social programming that tells us when someone acusses us of being conspiracy theorists we have to slink away mortally wounded.The come back got a good response too, e.g.:

"21. Thank you Peace Patriot -- As you say, using phrases like that do indeed serve to cut off

meaningful discussion.

That's exactly what TPTB want. Nobody uses that phrase more than them and their followers. They use it precisely for the purpose of cutting off discussion and marginalizing those who pose a threat to them through independent thought. Independent thought is enemy # 1 for those who seek to maintain their ill-gotten power."

Point being, go on the offensive not the defensivewhen this tactic is attempted.

"45. Only in America

do large swaths of the under-eductated population believe that conspiracies never happen in big business and government dealings. Everybody else knows full well that conspiring to do one thing while proclaiming another is the usual routine.

Time to expose this canard as part of a decades-long and very successful CIA disinformation campaign."I'm surprised the mods of DU will permit such a free and open exchange of ideas. Usually they relegate any post not fawning over Democrats to the conspiracy cellar where the crazy Aunt is hidden. They do not even allow discussion of President Kennedy's murder.
Myra Bronstein Wrote:Are people in other countries as freaked out by "conspiracy theorists"?

I've lived longterm in five countries and visited or met persons from another 50 or so. Only the English-speaking countries seem so upset by the idea, the wealthier and better [sic] educated in Western Europe sometimes share this idea, but MUCH less than in the US. America who is #1 on this. I believe it is all due to the propaganda line of Empire and we're the ones with the (crumbling) empire now.
Time For a Closer Look

By Michael Gaddy

April 09, 2009 "
Lew Rockwell" -- For several decades the state and its willing accomplices in the media and talk radio have marginalized and demonized anyone who alleges involvement of the state in illegal activities or conspiracies to provide false information to support its illegal wars and other agendas. Those who do so are referred to as "conspiracy nuts" or in the case of Rush Limbaugh, Keepers of Odd Knowledge Society members. (K.O.O.K.S) To believe the state is never involved in illegal conspiracies would require one to believe the state incapable of criminal behavior and Julius Caesar was killed in a random walk-by knifing.
A theory is defined as a guess or conjecture; therefore, once one piece of actual evidence is discovered, a theory no longer exists; it becomes a possibility. The problem Tin-foil hatters face is the lack of any subjective review of that evidence. The state is always in charge of "officially" discovering evidence. When those outside of the state’s influence discover evidence the government has somehow "overlooked," then an "impartial" panel is commissioned to investigate that evidence. The problem is, the impartial panel is always appointed by the state and populated by those with close connections to the state apparatus. Need I say more than the 9/11 Commission, or the Commission led by former Senator John Danforth tasked with investigating the tragedy called Waco?
Even in the event these commissions find wrongdoing by state employees, there are never any prosecutions of those responsible, even when the crime they commit is murder. FBI Agent Lon Horiuchi is a great example. Therefore, it is obvious those who represent the state operate with impunity and/or the state sanctioned "license to kill."
Perhaps the state believes only private citizens are capable of carrying out criminal conspiracies; after all, over 40% of those in federal custody are there for "conspiracy" to commit a crime. But when one mentions the state and criminals, are they not being redundant?
Lately, I have become increasingly skeptical of the timing and circumstances surrounding mass shootings. Any investigator worth his/her salt would question how, within a short time of the state indicating its intention of prohibiting the sale of a certain type firearm, a mass murder occurs in which that type weapon is used.

A prudent individual, unencumbered with emotional or financial connections to the state, cannot logically ignore the similarities in many of these mass shootings.
First, there is the insane and totally explained phenomena of a person becoming angry at someone or something, and then randomly killing people they do not know.
Second, is the almost universal use of mind-altering drugs by the perpetrators of these heinous crimes? Almost all of those involved in school shootings were taking, or had just stopped taking, drugs such as Prozac or Ritalin.
Third, is the fact a great number of the shooters kill themselves after committing their heinous crimes?
Fourth, when the mass shooting does not fit the above profile, the state uses the incident to claim, as they did in the shooting this weekend in Pennsylvania, that the perpetrator feared the state was going to take his guns. This certainly aids the state in its efforts to paint all that are concerned about the possible loss of freedoms and encroachments on the 2A as potential killers and threats to society.
Has the state gained from any of these very suspicious shootings? Of course they have.
After the political assassinations in the 1960s, the state, operating with the fear and outrage of the public, was able to foist on the America the wonderful 1968 Gun Control Act, a law taken almost word for word from the Nazi Weapons Law of 1938. Former NRA President Charlton Heston’s involvement in the promotion of this vile law is a story in itself.
While there are many writers who believe the state is presently too concerned with the economy to concentrate on laws prohibiting the private ownership of firearms, I believe, that because of the economy, the state will be forced to actively pursue draconian firearms legislation as a priority.
As so eloquently stated by many of the economists at LRC, the current actions taken by the government to shore up the economy are all destined to fail. The current bailouts will fill the pockets of those who support and control the state and do nothing but lead to continued unemployment and financial chaos in this country and the world. The coming financial chaos will lead to civil unrest on a huge scale. Those who have been living on the producers in this society have been led to believe (by the state) they are entitled to the property of others and will take whatever action they deem necessary to secure it.
When millions are unemployed and businesses are failing in greater numbers than today, the state will be forced to seek other methods of revenue collection. If there were to be enacted a federal property owner’s tax, and seizures of private property were initiated to supplement the lack of collected revenue to run the state and its empire, state representatives sent to seize the property would prefer unarmed victims. The state will take the necessary steps to protect its revenue collection actions. If not, then why do we have armed IRS agents?
Is the state capable of killing to achieve its goals? One could always ask Randy Weaver and the Waco survivors, not to mention the families of tens of thousands of soldiers and millions of Vietnamese and Iraqis.
In future writings I will detail the similarities of mass killings perpetrated by Charles Whitman, Patrick Purdy, Klebold and Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, and Jiverly Wong, and the evidence that takes state involvement from guess and conjecture to a possibility.
Michael Gaddy [send him mail], an Army veteran of Vietnam, Grenada, and Beirut, lives in the Four Corners area of the American Southwest.
Hi Evan, Welcome back. Twice in one day, hey? Well I'm pleased you enjoy hanging out so much here during your spare time.

Did you report Evan Marshall for not having the required photo? Make him invisible? Disappear his posts? Ban him until the he produces a photo you approve of? Or is it freedom of speech there? Or double standards?

Say hi to the folks in Nowra :wavey:
Brava! (In and of itself)

N.B. Technology is a two-edged sword.......something even the 'Borg' have to admit.....
Pages: 1 2 3 4