Conspiracy Nuts

Economics Political Theory
,
21

>But the burden of proof is on you to show we should make up stuff when we don’t have scientific answers.

Well we seem to have reached a little more of a consensus. I don’t intend to prove scientifically or otherwise to any of you that God exits, but likewise science has not proven that God does not exist either. If you at least entertain the possibility that God could exist (which you seem to) then we are in agreement. But I find it completely illogical when people believe that there is no possibility that God could exist when that belief hasn’t proven by science (the circumstance lean towards there is a God IMO).

22

You can’t prove God doesn’t exist. Just like you can’t prove I don’t have an invisible friend standing next to me at all times.

23

I don’t look at it in a top-down way.

I figure there are rent-seekers. Lots of competing interest groups. Eventually, they compromise and get a little of this while losing a little of that.

David Icke himself once said, “It’s typical to compare people to sheep, but that implies a shepherd. It’s not a shepherd controlling people, it’s people who control people. We have out-sheeped the sheep. We use ridicule, dismissal, and ostracisation to punish dissenters.”

The statement was made only in the context of him being ridiculed by public. Not the “global conspiracy”. But it’s a better theory - that human beings all turn against each other, and create a common tyranny on each other. The government incorporates schools, media, corporations, workers, and everything else into its own close grasp, and in their instinct for survival, corporations, workers, and media then turn on the government and abuse it for their own ends and hurt other people. It’s all about a cyclical abuse of man by man.

Even non-conspiracists get appalled by me when I defend Goldman Sachs. They would tell me that GS is different; it’s a supra-corporation that owns government, a part of the “cabal”. I dismiss it. I think GS may have had rent seekers working in it, but its recent abuse by government was not justified. The financial reform was blatant bullying of Wall Street, no matter how many people think Wall Street owns America. Of course, Wall Street firms themselves managed to rent-seek and change some of the reform to make themselves much better off, but there are other Wall Street firms hurt by it.

24

Translation: Everybody who does not agree with me is a “nut”, “crank”, “weirdo” who is “clearly ridiculous” and furthermore these “crazies” make me and my precious “movement” look bad- why tolerate them?

Interesting that for some reason the article you link to: A Good Short Article on the Birthers, Truthers and Alien Nuts , despite its attention -grabbing headline, appears to me to be far more forgiving of these theories [it takes a neutral stance] than you appear to be.

Possible diagnosis: Emotional insecurity of subject, caused by over- identification with a group. The subject subsequently feels threatened by imaginary “guilt via association” scenarios and tries to restrict and “cyber-herd” others [via inflammatory labeling] into opinions similar to their own in order to benefit “the movement” or group,[as they see it], and make it “more legitimate” in their own eyes.

This is also often an attempt at emotional bonding for someone who feels elsewhere alienated by their own views.

Suggested remedy: forget identifying with groups- try to disassociate from all groups, learn to think independently .

Regards, onebornfree.

25

I kinda got sucked into Alex Jones after leaving the Marine Corps (and Iraq) in 2006 where my position in support of the Iraq war completely changed. I don’t too much care for him anymore since I have moved on to more intelligent writings and discussions such as this site. But I think I could say that the conspiracy crowd helped lead me to people like Ron Paul which is where I first heard of Austrian economic theory. I think if I would have come to this site 5 years ago out of the blue I probably would have found it too extreme since I still had many walls within me that had been built up by statist teachings and thought over the years.

I am still in the infant learning stage when it comes to AE and Anarch-Capitalism, but the thing I love about this site is that you guys always bring up some very intelligent questions and ideas that challenge me on almost a daily basis. I don’t write too much on this forum, but I do read it quite frequently. The thing about the conspiracy sites which someone else already touched on is they seem to be so vague and redundant, never addressing the root of the problem which is the existence of the oppressive state.

26

Even non-conspiracists get appalled by me when I defend Goldman Sachs. They would tell me that GS is different; it’s a supra-corporation that owns government, a part of the “cabal”. I dismiss it. I think GS may have had rent seekers working in it, but its recent abuse by government was not justified. The financial reform was blatant bullying of Wall Street, no matter how many people think Wall Street owns America. Of course, Wall Street firms themselves managed to rent-seek and change some of the reform to make themselves much better off, but there are other Wall Street firms hurt by it.

I defend GS as well. I say they were only playing by the rules that the government gave them and were guaranteed a bail out when it collapses. But see, regular everyday people don’t understand the concept an don’t understand why politicians would do that. Sometime I have to step out of my Libertopia and remember that there are a whole lot of people who still think that government is “compassionate” and really do have the “peoples best interest”. LOL

27

You are right, most conspiracy theorists are rampant statists, particularly those with large profiles, [Alex Jones, Jim Fetzer, David Ray Griffin, Paul Craig Roberts etc. etc.], and the vast majority of those persons are out and out leftists [Jones is an exception]. They just do not/cannot “see the wood for the trees” and remain completely blind to the real nature of the state. Curious, yes?

What is even curioser is that most of the persons here that I have come across in the past and who describe themselves as “anarcho- capitalist”, or “libertarian” or similar, have absolutely no trouble swallowing, large, if not all, chunks of state propaganda hook, line and sinker- the official government-sanctioned 9/11 fiction being the prime example. Anything the state says is true about 9/11 is therefor automatically true and unassailable, for some reason or another.

So on the one hand we have raging lefty statists who believe hardly a word of the official versions on JFK, OKC, 9/11, etc. etc., yet on the other hand we have [here and elsewhere] large numbers who identify with hard-core libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism, who appear to lack the mental capabilities required to even remotely question the official 9/11 fiction, or the official versions on “the shoe bomber”, “the underpants bomber” , and on and on it goes.

“Vewy interwesting” indeed.

May they all " live in interesting times"?

Regards, onebornfree

28

Dearest Liberte and justinxOr:

Since it appears from you post’s that you know what/who is insane/crazy.. please tell me more. since you know for certain the questions that have perplexed humanity since the beginning of time, please lead me from my darkness. please supply us with a complete list of all the crazy thoughts ideas and theories so that we may be as confident as you..

my theory says that once you get out of college ( maybe high school) you won’t be soo sure of everything…

29

What, do you have a coincidence theory?

Lets take 911 for example. It IS a conspiracy theory. You just have to decide if you believe the one the government told you, or question it.

It was either a bunch of muslims conspiring, or a bunch of politicians/businessmen/investors. There is no way around it.

Which conspiracy do you believe?!

30

I think many conspiracy theorists are simply more willing to allow for psychological explanations because they fail to see how logically necessary incentices can result in the bad state of things they are describing.

I’m not much into conspiracy theories exactly because they are contingent, if true at all. Praxeology > Story telling.

31

I’m wearing that shirt right now! lol j/k

It’s the anti-state factor.

And Alex Jones is a minarchist sadly.

32

“I don’t dismiss anything science has done thus far. But like you just said, it is lacking. Creationism builds on top of today science and fills in the gaps where it is lacking.”

This is a very poor way of coming about truth. If I were to show you a card trick you had no explanation for, your knowledge would be lacking. By your logic, it’d be perfectly reasonable to state that since your knowledge of how I did the trick is lacking, saying that I have magic powers is a perfectly epistemologically sound position. If you cannot explain something, you don’t simply stamp it with a supernatural cause and call it explained.

“If you take the big bang for example. It either just blasted out of nowhere, or God created it. By taking a position that there is no God, you are necessarily injecting your own personal belief set into the gaps.”

For one, that’s a false dichotomy. Secondly, atheism is not the position that there is no God. It is strictly the lack of belief in God or better put, atheists are those who have not been compelled to believe in God(s). The statement “God(s) exist(s)” is a positive claim and needs defending with positive evidence (logical or empirical). The statement “I don’t believe in God(s)” is not a positive claim and needs only address the alleged evidence theists put forth. The previous statement is NOT the same as stating “I believe there is no God(s)” is also a positive claim that needs the support of evidence. Negative (aka weak) atheists make the statement “I don’t believe in God(s)” whilst positive (aka strong) atheists make the statement “I believe there is no God(s)” but the term atheist as a whole does not necessitate the latter claim; only the former.

“A truly objective person couldn’t be anything but an agnostic.”

Atheism and agnosticism aren’t mutually exclusive. The former is a statement of blief and the latter is a statement of knowledge. An atheist is one is without blief and an agnostic is one who makes no claim to knowledge. There are plenty of agnostic atheists in the world (I used to be one of them).

“But by stating flat out that there is no God you are not following any science and are injecting your own beliefs.”

For one, science is not the only means to knowledge, so saying it isn’t science isn’t really saying anything against the validity of such a statement. However the second half of this sentence seems to just assume that the statement that there is no God(s) is somehow a baseless assertion based on the personal bias of the stater. While I don’t doubt this is sometimes the case, I know for a fact that it isn’t always the case, as you would have any reader of that post think. Many who make the statement “there is no God” back it up with some sort of argument. Now I would consider myself a positive atheist with regards to any God(s) whose characteristics include perfection and the implementation action, that is to say I freely make the statement “There is no perfect God(s) who take actions.” I would argue these two traits existing in the same being are paradoxical. One who is perfect is in the optimal state of affairs and can therefore never take action, which is a means to a preferred end. How can a being prefer an end that is not present if they are already in the optimal state of affairs? The only conclusion I can derive is that if a perfect being exists, they would never take action as that would necessitate a desire for a better state of affairs. Any being who takes action is therefore imperfect. This is a very condensed version of what I’ve dubbed “The Problem of Action” and if it doesn’t sway you in the least I really don’t care. I only wished to illustrate that those who state there is no God do not simply make baseless claims. There are plenty of other positive arguments against the existence of God(s).

33

I think its similar to how Tom Woods, an AnCap, is always out there arguing on Constitutional grounds. Even if we make our arguments under the framework of the official stories, they still hold up. I’m not sure if there is much of a difference in convincing people that the state is incompetent compared to purposefully malicious. Either way, its plainly obvious that the government sucks at protecting people

34

Its also called the “god paradox.” I believe the one I based my name off came up with it orginally.

35

I google’d “TCFJI” but couldn’t figure out what it stands for. Can you let me know?

36

never mind, I found it. “The Creature from Jeckyll Island”

37

To be fair, I would say I am pretty pro-Iran (and pro-China). They’re not paradisical or anything, but they’re the best large countries that tell America to shove it. Better than Russia. Most of what you hear about them is just political propaganda.

Mostly because Iranian government uses that the West as propaganda to take heat off themselves. For instance, banning mullets during economic crises or blaming Earthquake unpreparedness on cleavage. Plus they have the nonsensical ‘dualist’ philosophy as a leftover from Zoroastrianism that now manifests itself as the Hosayn/Yazid drama. Because people don’t like the US government, doesn’t mean they are against government or on the side of anarchism.

The country is a hell hole. I think what matters is what some of the unrepresented people in Iran want – which is nuanced in its views about the West and the Iranian regime – not what political leaders say as a show. The latter seems to be applying a different standard to their leaders than our own.

38

“please supply us with a complete list of all the crazy thoughts ideas and theories so that we may be as confident as you..” (Mike)

I’ll help you.

39

Hey John, do you know where I can buy some posters of that masterpiece?

40

One conspiracy theory I truly believe is social conditioning on a massive scale. Method? Intellectual Property Laws.

My highschool geoscience teacher few times have told the class that doing things you enjoy, for fun, hobbies, etc. Should be active, not passive. Basically meaning, movies, tv, videogames, watching sports is a total waste of time. Anything involing sittng on ass having people entertain you, not entertaining yourself.

That being said, IP laws have lead to the creation of new businesses models such has videogames, TV sitcoms, big budget movies, big budget music, etc… To a large extent, Internet as well. The amount of hours people spend on tv, videogames, internet nonsense, is outrageous. I truly believe this was meant to condtion society to become a “do something for me” “entertain me” “me me me” society.

It is so easy to fulfill boredom by watching tv or a videogame instead of volunteering for example. IP laws enable this kind of rubbish. Internet was created by Al Gore. Not knocking the great achievements the internet has brought society, but I am afraid some of the subsidation and threats have made the internet too inexpensive. to the extent that one could spend large amounts of time on it.

If charging by GB or per hour was the norm, people would make better use of the internet. I have got a sneaking suspisicion that government had a hand in guiding the market away from this practice.

I also want to clarify, everyone’s value preference is different. Still does not change my opinion on the matter. I’m a victim of my poor choices to play zynga. and get into 24, lost, stargate, etc. I still like it, but I know it is wrong. And I struggle to figure out how to volunteer my duties, but state red tapes a lot of opportunities…