Zeitgeist

Economics Political Theory
41

I haven’t looked at it in depth? I, like many here I assume, have researched mountains of information regarding the NWO, Illuminati, Masons, etc. and I was rather convinced at that point; I was 14 and somewhat religious. I had a worldview in which there was divine plan, and also “evil” that was manipulating world affairs. So, of course there must be anti-christs and such, right? I do not now deny that social clubs like the Freemasons do have power, but far be it that those organizations are working towards the subjugation of humanity. They are more like forums and networking for people in the business/political sphere. There is by no means a uniform consensus on policy, and I suppose if you like, you can say groups that include speakers that advocate a global governing body constitute a conspiracy, but by that definition isn’t this forum a body of conspirators for anarchy?

As noted many times before, why is there a need to demonize your opponents?

42

Austrian Economics is bunk because neo cons also certain espouse free market views.

43

Which ones?

44

There’s another long thread on this already. [:)]

45

"Because there’s no hardcore evidence."

True . Almost all physical evidence was destroyed. [A fact that as far as I can see, “should”, by itself, raise serious “red flag” concerns for anyone trying to seriously scrutinize the events of 911 [:S]]

What you have left is mostly network video and photographic “evidence”- none of which can/should be assumed as being authentic until so proven, at least in a properly conducted scientific investigation into what happened, in my opinion.

So far, it has not been so proven- in fact a number of reputable researchers have actually concluded the exact opposite- that the so called live network footage of that day is mostly computer generated and fake.[see the best example, imho, “September Clues”, here]

Outside of laws of physics, it seems to me incontestable that real scientific investigations do not/cannot automatically assume the authenticity/falsity of any evidence in advance, ESPECIALLY all video and photographic “evidence”.

Any scientist who does make such grand assumptions [eg S. Jones] is not a real scientist in my [worthless] opinion.[:O]

And even scientific investigation does not address a very large legal “elephant in the room” question: no “evidence” [video or otherwise], and no witness has ever been cross examined in front of a jury to prove/disprove such important issues as chain of custody, reliability of witnesses, et. etc.

All we have is the governments “word”, and its purportedly “scientific” explanation about what happened- which we are then told to believe, plus a bunch of extremely dubious network videos showing events that violate practically every known law of physics.

“There are assertions fused with some scientific explanations along with nonsensical fantasy”

Also true.

The governments explanation makes zero sense either scientifically or otherwise- it is without a doubt a "nonsensical fantasy" to anyone who studies all the evidence with an open mind.[:)]

You seem like an intelligent person, which begs the question:

given that:

[1] none of the video /photographic evidence of the event(s) has ever been independently and scientifically validated as being in any way authentic , and-

[2] none of the “evidence” has ever been cross examined in a court of law to likewise prove/disprove authenticity, chain of custody issues etc etc [i.e. all rock solid, fundamental Bill of Right issues]…

why is it that you have automatically sided with the governments story and assumed its “evidence” to beyond question ? Why would you assume, in this one instance, that it was/ is telling the truth?

“Enquiring minds” want to know![:D]

46

Zeitgeist: Fun, silly, entertaining, mostly counterfactual, but fine if it gets people questioning things - many will eventually find mises.org or at least become minarchists.

Zeitgeist Addendum: Terrible non-understanding of economics and communist overtones, completely unrealistic, but the idea of “emergent vs. established” was interesting.

Alex Jones: Mixed bag, sometimes quite good and getting better, but way too over-the-top to recommend to others:

47

Compared to what? Not in comparison, for those who are already into conspiracy theories and watching Zeitgeist.

48

I have tons of Alex Jones films on my computer, and I’m better off for have watching them. A lot of people seem to bash Jones, but their reasoning doesn’t hold. I use to read his sites everyday till I stumbled on LRC and Mises.

49

Saw this last night. The first 2 minutes are very good.

50

Long time lurker, first time poster. ^ This is how I feel too. I’ve spent about 4 years being a minarchist conspiracy theorist only to finally get to know austrian economics and realize that even if every conspiracy theory out there is true, they’re still all government enabled. Why would anyone bother trying to cut every single branch off a tree when you could just as well strike it at its root?

I still recommend others to look for cui bono clues and always be doubtful of anything the government says or does; yet, more importantly, that such worries wouldn’t exist in the first place if it wasn’t for the established statist system, where such great conspiratorial feats can externalize its costs to the very people affected by it!

I mean.. a lot of people here, if not everyone knows that every single depression has been state-induced - that itself could be characterized as a conspiracy theory, right? Everyone here also knows how the fed came about? Jekyll Island and all that? IMO most of this board and maybe even the people criticizing conspiracy theories are already conspiracy theorists at least to the mainstream. Not that it’s a bad thing but, we only know that which we’ve been able to look at. Whether you think something was true or not depends on how much you’ve studied about it so you can have an educated opinion. Conspiracy theory is just a loaded term. People have different values and judge events differently, right?

Also, LOL @ super-sayan AJ.

51

I wish I remembered the allegory that I read in a daily blog post early last year. It said something along the lines of a doctor bludgeoning a patient stops the bleeding but hardly solves the problem or something along those lines. That’s how I feel conspiracy theorists are treating Austrian economists to further their own cause. That paper by Cass Sunstein should tell you that it is way too easy to co-opt a conspiracy movement.

52

Exactly.

53

I was speaking of their rhetoric. And you ignored the point besides.

So evil, power seeking people who almost always have connections in an evil power structure (government) have great power.

And the logical conclusion to draw from that is, they would never use that power in a systematic way to subject humanity to their wishes?

54

My point is not whether conspiracy theorists like yourself are right. Whether or not you believe in the black helicopter/tinfoil hat/UFO/Truther/etc. stuff is irrelevant. What’s relevant is that spouting that stuff and associating it with Austrian economics and liberalism is bad PR. If you want to believe the lizard Rockefeller/Rothschild Nazi cabal created and controls the Federal Reserve, I don’t give a hoot. But don’t bring your baggage aboard the ship, so to speak, any more than I would bring my views on feminism or homosexuality on board, or folk like Carson would bring their views on feminism or homosexuality or unions or workplace structure on board.

55

Because feminism and Austrianism/Anarcho-Capitalism are totally irrelevant to each other. 9/11 and other events are quite relevant if we want to accurately discuss the state.

Keep in mind that not all conspiracy theories are are created equal, just like not all ‘free market’ ideologies/supporters are created equal.

56

Feminists could claim that patriarchy is caused by men and point to the fact that most governments are run by and for the benefit of patriarchal men. Homosexuals could play up the religion=government line, point out famous examples of homosexual anarchists and point out that some of the most totalitarian governments (Cuba, USSR, Communist China) have persecuted homosexuals. Conspiracy theorists can make the subjects of their ire government, and claim government X is evil and run by three toed sloth men from Venus.

Please explain to me what difference it makes if the Federal Reserve is run by Martians or morons. It still has the same negative effects on the economy, it still benefits a small plutocratic cartel and it should still be abolished either way.

57
  1. Nothing of what you said there has been demonstrated to be true. If it had been demonstrated to be true, then there would be a connection between feminism and government.

Even the most abject defender of the government’s version of events (as you are in this case) must admit some conspiracies are in fact, true. Operation Northwoods, The Reichstag Fire, The Gulf Of Tonkin, etc.

  1. Praxeology necessitates an acceptance of some conspiracies, at least, in the world we live in today. It does not necessitate a connection between feminism and government.

Because if we believe history basically happened by accident, we are not equipped to deal with, or eliminate government.

And you can stop giving ridiculous examples, such as Martians. If you do have knowledge of what ‘conspiracy theorists’ think, then use those examples.

PS-whats with the board messing up my formatting?

58

So, how exaclty does believing in the tinfoil gospel help the Austro-liberal cause? Are you planning to run on a platform of “Hang the Rockefellers for Causing 9/11” or “End the AIPAC-controlled Fed” or “Banish Barack the Bilderberger”? Do you think it does good for our cause when we are associated with the John Birch Society and end-days militia groups in the public eye?

Conspiracy theories and ethics-based arguments (in the academic sphere, that is) are two big albatrosses around the Austro-liberal movements neck, and neither of them come even close to rational, utilitarian argument. And I’m neither a utilitarian nor do I have that strong feelings either way conspiracy wise.

As for what conspiracy theorists think, they aren’t a unified movement, nor do they hold one political position. There are conservative tinfoilers, like the John Birch Society, progressive tinfoilers, like Lyndon LaRouche, libertarian tinfoilers, like Alex Jones, fascist tinfoilers, like David Irving and all sorts of other tinfoilers, like the Zeitgest crowd. Their theories sometimes include the supernatural or extraterrestrial life, but others focus their hatred on more Earthly targets, like wealthy, politically connecte families such as the Vanderbilts, Rothschilds or Rockefellers, countries like the USSR, Russian Federation, Communist China, the USA, Nazi Germany, the UK, and just about any country that’s gone to war you can think of (and even some that haven’t), individuals like Presidents, Senators, Governors, Kings, Queens, CEOs, Chairmen, what have you, and everything in between. I wouldn’t peg you as the outright lunatics who believe in Satanic cults or alien agents, but I’d guess one of these groups is on your Enemies List.

59

If our main goal is to prevent some mainstream socialist jackass from viewing us as extreme, then we might as well abandon all ideas of limiting government.

If our goal is the truth on the other hand…

I certainly do not believe in aliens.

And yes, many of those groups I would consider to be mainly (Zeitgeist) or at least somewhat (David Irving) mistaken. As I’ve said, that doesn’t do anything to disprove anything, anymore than free-market economics is proven to be bunk when the ever idiotic Glenn Beck calls himself a “libertarian at heart.”

60

Not true, in my experience, at least as with regards to 911 issues.

"Truth, facts , rationality and logic? Surely you jest - ALL are conveniently thrown “right out of the window”, consistently, time after time, “an-cap” after “an-cap”.

“Not that there’s anything wrong with that” [:)]