The origin of the label "Conspiracy Theorist"

fictionaire

Here is a good article I came across this evening.

Obviously it does not apply to all topics on this board.

Conspiracy Theorists

By Jolly Roger
slicingthroats@yahoo.com


I think the label first became widely used to slander people who questioned the details surrounding the JFK assassination, and forty years later, there aren't too many thinking people who still believe the Warren Commission's "lone gunman" explanation. That explanation is doubted by everyone who has taken the time to look into the details, and believed only by people who refuse to.

Which is "theory" and which is fact? In the absence of a full confession, this can only be decided by a preponderance of evidence, and it would be silly to come to a conclusion on any matter without looking at all the evi dence available. This is only common sense, just as it is safe to assume some degree of guilt or complicity on the part of anyone who lies about an event, or tries to hide, plant, or destroy any type of evidence.

Conspiracy theories arise from evidence. After the government releases an explanation of a particular event, a conspiracy theory is only born because evidence exists to disprove their explanation, or at least call it into question. There's nothing insane about it, unless you define sanity as believing whatever the government tells you. In light of the fact that our government lies to us regularly, I would define believing everything they tell you as utter stupidity.

In July of 1996, flight 800 exploded over Long Island. Shortly after their terrorist explanation failed scrutiny, our government then explained the event by claiming that a faulty electrical system caused a spark that ign ited a fuel tank, and the people who doubted this explanation were quickly labeled "conspiracy theorists." More than a hundred witnesses saw a missile travel from the ground up to the plane just prior to its explosion, bu t rather than being treated as eyewitnesses to an event, they were labeled "conspiracy theorists," which label allowed all subsequent investigation to ignore the strongest evidence in the matter.

Our "investigative" news agencies decided to accept and disseminate the official story, and they helped us forget the U.S. naval station nearby, the fact that missiles were regularly test fired there, and naturally, they paid no heed to more than a hundred "conspiracy theorists" who saw the plane get blown out of the sky by a missile. I believe that the U.S. Navy accidentally shot down flight 800, and that's my belief because it's the mos t sensible explanation that can be drawn from the available evidence. I'm not theorizing about conspiracies, but there are conflicting explanations of the event, and if the Navy did accidentally blow a passenger plane out of the sky, who would have a motive to lie about it? The U.S. government, or a hundred witnesses?

Then of course, there were the "crazy conspiracy theories" arising from the bombing of the Alfred Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City. In that matter, audio tapes and witnesses agree that there were two explosions, t he first of which occurred inside the building between eight and ten seconds before the truck bomb exploded. Explosive experts agree that Timothy McVeigh's fertilizer bomb could not have destroyed the building, and the FB I's counter terrorism chief, and members of BATF lied about their whereabouts during and prior to the catastrophe. The evening news decided not to tell you any of this, and they will label anyone who tries to a "paranoid conspiracy theorist." In light of the evidence, we would be complete fools if a conspiracy theory didn't exist.

There were no conspiracy theories arising from the explosion of flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, and there were no conspiracy theories arising from the work of the uni-bomber, so the newly invented psycho-babble that tries to explain the malady of conspiracy theorists, also needs to explain why millions of conspiracy theorists all decided not to theorize about those events. There is no psychological malady. There was simply no evidenc e to indicate a conspiracy.

The real question is not why people theorize about conspiracies, but why people choose to believe the government's version of events when it's obvious that they're lying. One reason is that most people never see the evide nce because our "news" industry hides it, and another reason is that the same news industry will quickly associate anyone who questions the government with the people who see Elvis, Bigfoot, and UFO's.

But sadly, I think the main reason people choose to believe the government's version of events despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is because it's easier, and safer. If you ignore most of the evidence, and acce pt as plausible whatever ridiculous explanation the T.V. provides, your life remains simple, and you get to sit on your ass and watch more T.V. If on the other hand, you pluck your head from that same ass and realize you' ve been lied to, as a citizen in a democratic society, you're instantly burdened with being responsible for doing something about it.

meglome

I wouldn't really be sure where to start pointing out how incorrect this guys statements are.

I'll have a quick blast at it.

JFK. Modern computer techniques have shown that there was only one shooter, using the audio and video from the day. Given the evidence against Oswald, his psychology and the fact he was a damn good shot means there is little doubt it was him.

Oklahoma City Bombing. Using computer modelling it has been shown that the massive damage to the building was caused by the lower support columns being blasted out and the building largely collapsing. These columns were right next to the bomb. Had the bomb not taken these supports out the damage and death-toll wouldn't have been any way as large. It's no mystery.

"Conspiracy theories arise from evidence." I would say quite the opposite in fact. It seems to me that too often unanswered questions added to some inaccurate internet videos seem to somehow add up to a big conspiracy. I wouldn't discount for a moment that there may be conspiracy's but so far the evidence I've looked at tends not to stack up.

"Government's version". Governments often lie to the general populace. The real question here in different events is why. I would agree with the Conspiracy theorists that governments are more than likely, in some of these events, covering up things. But in my opinion it's usually their own ineptitude their covering up, not some vast conspiracy.

Even though I was baptised a catholic I'm not a believer as simply I find little or no credible proof that God exists. Religious people need in many ways to have an element of blind faith which I don't have. The way I see many conspiracy theorists is similar, plenty of blind faith, add touch of paranoia, poor fact checking and there you go. Personally I'm a sceptic just show me some real evidence and I'm on board.

humanji

fictionaire wrote: »

But sadly, I think the main reason people choose to believe the government's version of events despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is because it's easier, and safer. If you ignore most of the evidence, and acce pt as plausible whatever ridiculous explanation the T.V. provides, your life remains simple, and you get to sit on your ass and watch more T.V. If on the other hand, you pluck your head from that same ass and realize you' ve been lied to, as a citizen in a democratic society, you're instantly burdened with being responsible for doing something about it.

This is the bit that sticks out for me. I think it's more of a case that some people just grasp to whatever conspiracy they can, because they don't want to believe that we do live in a randomly ****ty world. They need a reason that puts more worth in their existence than there currently is.

Some people can take one of these theories and examine all angles without going overboard. They may or may not believe in it, but they can handle it. Others can be seriously deluded and I'd say dangerously paranoid. They don't want these conspiracies to be investigated, because if they were and it was discovered that they were wrong, they simply couldn't cope with it and will pointedly refuse to acknowledge that they were wrong. A good example of these people is David Icke and his lizard haters who were on here a while ago.

bonkey

There were no conspiracy theories arising from the explosion of flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland,

A google of "Lockerbie conspiracy" proves this wrong.

and there were no conspiracy theories arising from the work of the uni-bomber,

A google of "unabomber conspiracy" (i.e. using the correct spelling) proves this wrong.

This leaves two possibilities:

1) The author has made claims without any credible research. Thus, the author and their claims are fundamentally untrustworthy. (There are no shortage of other claims made in the article which equally fail to withstand even a trivial level of scrutiny.)

2) The author is lying, seeking to mislead the reader about the truth.

Option 2 should be considered in light of an argument made by the author themselves:

it is safe to assume some degree of guilt or complicity on the part of anyone who lies about an event,

So...either the author has done no/crap research, or it is safe to assume that the author has some degree of guilt in both the Lockerbie and Unabomber cases. With an equally small amount of research, it can be shown that the author has made claims regarding JFK, flight 800 and the Oklahoma bombings which are - at best - not entirely accurate. So, should we accept the author's claim of what is safe to conclude, and conlude that the author was complicit in all of these events?

What I find more interesting, however, is that the only real way to not find these inaccuracies is to believe the author's claims without researching them independantly to any extent.....exactly the type of behaviour that the author attributes as the root cause for why the public is so often misled.

The author's argument can, therefore, be boiled down to the following:

"Don't believe what they tell you without checking it for yourself....believe what I tell you without checking it for yourself".

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

The author's argument can, therefore, be boiled down to the following:

"Don't believe what they tell you without checking it for yourself....believe what I tell you without checking it for yourself".

Well said.

Mahatma coat

Right, JFK first off, Modern computer modeling can be used to show anything that you want, for every model that 'proves' there was only one shooter one can be rolled out to refute this.

Ditto Oaklahoma bombing.

as for the flight 800 story, I remember this one, there were reports of missiles in the first few hours, then nothing about it.

what the author is referencing is EyeWitnesses from the day in question, some people said they saw a missile, hell there was footage on the telly showing something that looked suspiciously like a missile and there was a missile base very close to an otherwise fully functional aircraft.

I would have to give credence to the eyewitness reports in these situations

Smoke + shots from the Grassy Knoll

2 Explosions in Oaklahoma

Missile hittin flight 800


But its probably far more comforting to dismiss it all as CrazyTalk and take an air if Smugness about anyone who questions the accepted story

after all we're just the TinfoilHat brigade.

Mahatma coat

Right, JFK first off, Modern computer modeling can be used to show anything that you want, for every model that 'proves' there was only one shooter one can be rolled out to refute this.

Ditto Oaklahoma bombing.

as for the flight 800 story, I remember this one, there were reports of missiles in the first few hours, then nothing about it.

what the author is referencing is EyeWitnesses from the day in question, some people said they saw a missile, hell there was footage on the telly showing something that looked suspiciously like a missile and there was a missile base very close to an otherwise fully functional aircraft.

I would have to give credence to the eyewitness reports in these situations

Smoke + shots from the Grassy Knoll

2 Explosions in Oaklahoma

Missile hittin flight 800


But its probably far more comforting to dismiss it all as CrazyTalk and take an air if Smugness about anyone who questions the accepted story

after all we're just the TinfoilHat brigade.

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

But its probably far more comforting to dismiss it all as CrazyTalk and take an air if Smugness about anyone who questions the accepted story

after all we're just the TinfoilHat brigade.

I'm not saying that at all. I'm not comforted either way, I'm well aware of what people are capable of doing to their fellow man. When you look at all the evidence you are left with some unanswered questions in many of these events. But unanswered questions do not equal a conspiracy. I'm not remotely tied to any particular view over another but I do find the CT's use much more disinformation than any government, which is exactly what they accuse the governments of. The "accepted" stories may not be prefect but they are far more based in fact than the conspiracies. And quite frankly some of the stories are just so outlandish that they are a complete joke, yet people choose to believe no matter how many times and in how many ways their "evidence" is shown to be false.

Kernel

meglome wrote: »

JFK. Modern computer techniques have shown that there was only one shooter, using the audio and video from the day. Given the evidence against Oswald, his psychology and the fact he was a damn good shot means there is little doubt it was him.

No, Oswald was not alone. A dumbass with a bolt action rifle pulled off shots like that? With all the circumstantial evidence? The fact that he immediately said he was a patsy, then got 'whacked' by a mafia affiliate with a terminal disease before it went to trial? You don't think there's anything strange about that, knowing the political situation re: cuba? Jesus, some people will believe any official explanation....

As for conspiracy theorist, I do prefer the term 'truther', I find it's more apt. :cool:

meglome

Kernel wrote: »

No, Oswald was not alone. A dumbass with a bolt action rifle pulled off shots like that? With all the circumstantial evidence? The fact that he immediately said he was a patsy, then got 'whacked' by a mafia affiliate with a terminal disease before it went to trial? You don't think there's anything strange about that, knowing the political situation re: cuba? Jesus, some people will believe any official explanation....

As for conspiracy theorist, I do prefer the term 'truther', I find it's more apt. :cool:

Oswald was a army marksman, and the fact he was a dumbass has no relationship to that fact. Lesser shots have been shown since to be able to carry out this shooting in the same time frame and accuracy. All your other points have been trashed out at length in here so I'm not going to do it again. Although when I read all this information I became convinced that Oswald killed JFK, even though growing up I thought the opposite. Look at the end of the day given Oswalds psychology he made a terrible patsy... his own brother fully believes he did it.

http://www.jfkfiles.com/jfk/html/concl.htm

This doesn't prove as a fact that Oswald did it but it discounts the Grassy knoll and accepts that JFK and Connally were very likely hit by the same bullet.

humanji

Kernel wrote: »

Jesus, some people will believe any official explanation....

And some people will refuse to believe anything, no matter what. Two sides of the one coin.

Kernel wrote: »

As for conspiracy theorist, I do prefer the term 'truther', I find it's more apt. :cool:

And I prefer to be called "The Worlds Greatest Lover" but that wouldn't be true either :cool:

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

as for the flight 800 story, I remember this one, there were reports of missiles in the first few hours, then nothing about it.

And yet, amazingly, with 10 seconds of googling, I could find reerences to the missiles, references to interviews which were carried out where the eyewitnesses asid there were missiles. These interviews, incidentally, were an official part of the investigation.

So its simply untrue to say that there was nothing about it, just as its would be untrue to suggest that claims of missiles were excluded from the investigation.

what the author is referencing is EyeWitnesses from the day in question, some people said they saw a missile,

When the second shuttle exploded on re-entry, I watched the event live. CNNs coverage had a headline saying the shuttle travelled at something like 20 times the speed of light. They also interviewed people who were eye-witnesses to the event, at least one of whom insisted that the shuttle had been shot down by a missile which travelled from a plane he could see in roughly the same part of the sky at the time.

Do you believe that there is a real chance the shuttle was shot down, whilst travelling at FTL velocities?

hell there was footage on the telly showing something that looked suspiciously like a missile

If you're claiming there was footage of the plane exploding...I'd be very interested in seeing that.

and there was a missile base very close to an otherwise fully functional aircraft.

I would have to give credence to the eyewitness reports in these situations

A relatively small number of witnesses said that there appeared to be something like a missile. The majority of eyewitnesses said that there was no missile.

If you have to give credence to eyewitness accounts, why are you going with the minority? And if you are going with the minority, allow me to ask again...do you believe the shuttle was shot down?

But its probably far more comforting to dismiss it all as CrazyTalk and take an air if Smugness about anyone who questions the accepted story

Personally, its far more comforting to ask for the evidence on which these claims are being based and then to compare it to the evidence on which the accepted version of events in each case is based on.

I still don't understand how something like the article posted at the top could be accepted by anyone. Even if you believe in the possibility, probability or reality of any of the conspiracy theories, the

after all we're just the TinfoilHat brigade.

The TinfoilHat brigade are the people who will read the article posted and go "gosh...isn't it amazing that there were no conspiracy theories about Lockerbie or the Unabomber".

If you put yoruself as one of them, then I'm afraid that yes - your willingness to believe whatever ant-establishment message thats being sold to you this week will get you ridiculed.

If, on the other hand, you don't openly believe anti-establishment claims (typically originated or disseminated by people who make a living from the popularity of conspiracy theories) and treat all evidence and claims with the same degree of skepticism.....then you're most certainly not in the TinfoilHat brigade, but I'd be surprised if you held the article posted by the OP in high esteem.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

No, Oswald was not alone. A dumbass with a bolt action rifle pulled off shots like that?

I think if you look at the JKF thread you'll see evidence that Oswald could fire off all three shots, and the two reloads (unlike in the Movie JFK Oswald didn't have to chamber three rounds he could have already had a round chambered) Oswald was a marine, and a qualified marksman any marine of
that calibre could have made that shot.

With all the circumstantial evidence?

Such as?

The fact that he immediately said he was a patsy,

After shooting a cop, running into a theater, and trying to shoot another cop.

then got 'whacked' by a mafia affiliate with a terminal disease before it went to trial?

A strip club owner whose family had a history of mental illness, and the "mafia connections" have never been proven reliably.

You don't think there's anything strange about that, knowing the political situation re: cuba? Jesus, some people will believe any official explanation....

I've yet to hear a plausible "alternative explanation". JFK was aganist the vietnam war? Nope he increased troop levels and publically supported the war. Kennedy prevented a CIA counter revolution in Cuba? Why didn't such a counter revolution with Kennedy out of the way. Kennedy stopped Israeli getting nuclear weapons! Kennedy supported Israeli.

As for conspiracy theorist, I do prefer the term 'truther', I find it's more apt. :cool:

Yeah because it's not important if you're right or wrong, just how cool or "apt" you look.

Theres a telling display.

Mahatma coat

yeah bonkey thats the 'nothing' I'm referring to, There was footage of it on the news in the first few hours after the incident, then the footage disapeared, and is it a hundred witnesses saying - I clearly saw the plane explode, or a hundred witness saying I didnt see anything, cos I was round the corner/inside/sleeping/am blind..... but I heard the explosion.

there was footage from a barbecue that was happenin at the time, which showed the moments before the plane exploded, something was visible aproaching the plane at speed. then this footage disapeared.


on the JFK topic, are people trying to tell us tha Oswald acted ALONE, that no other individuals Conspired to Kill JFK, as I asid in the other thread, Oswald may well have shot Kennedy but I seriously doubt that he acted alone.



CNN said that the shuttle was traveling at 20 times the speed of LIGHT:eek:

probably a freuydian slip where they meant to say sound.

aint that about the speed of a missile;)

Do you believe that there is a real chance the shuttle was shot down, whilst travelling at FTL velocities?

less of the obviously loaded questions please:rolleyes:

bonkey

Mahatma coat wrote: »

less of the obviously loaded questions please:rolleyes:

OK - ignore the FTL bit.

There was an eye-witness claiming he saw another plane in the same area, and something travel at high speed from the plane to the shuttle immediately before the shuttle broke up. He was expressly watching/i] for the shuttle re-entry.

Since he was interviewed live, he was never shown on TV again that I'm aware of. National media didn't cover the story. There was no investigation into the possibility.

Why is asking about that a "loaded" question?

Do we credit eye-witneses or don't we? Do we accept that some people see things that aren't there? Do we accept that when the vast majority of eyewitnesses say one thing, and a small number say another, that the majority are more credible?

[Mahatma Coat]and is it a hundred witnesses saying - I clearly saw the plane explode, or a hundred witness saying I didnt see anything, cos I was round the corner/inside/sleeping/am blind..... but I heard the explosion.[/quote]
The only person who's mentioned 100 witnesses is the author of the original article. Its not up to me to answer questions about his claims. If you want to believe them without researching them enough to be able to answer the question that you post, thats your perogative.

fictionaire

Since JFK was killed, this shows that whoever pulled the trigger, conspired to kill him.

This is not a conspiracy theory. Its a conspiracy fact. So move on.

Has anybody tried to establish motives for his killing?
Or was Oswald just a crap hitman because he got caught?

Diogenes

fictionaire wrote: »

Since JFK was killed, this shows that whoever pulled the trigger, conspired to kill him.

This is not a conspiracy theory. Its a conspiracy fact. So move on.

Has anybody tried to establish motives for his killing?
Or was Oswald just a crap hitman because he got caught?

Oswald was an obsessive loner, who had attempted suicide twice, defected to russia, and slinked back home bored, a military wash out, who attempted to murder a right wing pundit weeks before he killed Kennedy, a man obsessed by Cuba.

People cannot accept that a loser can kill a President, by himself, and invent conspiracy theories to explain it.

Mahatma coat

was there any record of the plane that he saw?

I'd have to check this before I'd dismiss his story out of hand. however (I wont be back in australia till the start of feb so I wont be able to spend hours on end trawlin through the web til then.

oscarBravo

Mahatma coat wrote: »

I'd have to check this before I'd dismiss his story out of hand.

I'd dismiss his story out of hand. At the time it started to disintegrate, Columbia was travelling at almost twenty times the speed of sound, and at an altitude of over 200,000 feet.

Shot down? Um, no.

casey212

This is not a label, it is a put down and it was intended that way.

Mention anything thats not in the daily sport and your are guaranted hear the term used. The world is run by "good guys" after all, and they really have an interest in all our well being!

humanji

As opposed to the "truthers" who seem to just want everyone to live in fear and paranoia.

Mahatma coat

Actually most truthers if thats the nom du jour we're now usin want people to live without fear, they want people to be aware of the evils being perpetrated in our names suposedly for our own good and to start again with an open and acountable government 'of the people by the people FOR the people kinda thing', as opposed to a nanny state telling us via the ministry of Propaganda that we should live in fear of our neighbours.

Kernel

humanji wrote: »

As opposed to the "truthers" who seem to just want everyone to live in fear and paranoia.

As MC aptly pointed out, 'we' believe that fear and paranoia are the tools of those who want to oppress you and methodically strip you of your liberties to further their own agenda. I believe this stems from a problem in the democratic system in that it is too unpredictable for long term evaluation and control (a problem recognised since the time of Socrates), and that the elites (rightly or wrongly) have little respect for the unwashed masses.

Diogenes

Kernel wrote: »

As MC aptly pointed out, 'we' believe that fear and paranoia are the tools of those who want to oppress you and methodically strip you of your liberties to further their own agenda. I believe this stems from a problem in the democratic system in that it is too unpredictable for long term evaluation and control (a problem recognised since the time of Socrates), and that the elites (rightly or wrongly) have little respect for the unwashed masses.

So if I have this clear the democratic system is unpredictable which means theres a hidden global government that control things

Mahatma, I disagree I think "truthers" cannot comprehend how random and uncontrolled the world really is. How shambolic and disorganised government truly are. So they invent a government that is brillant and ruthless and organised to explain away and simplify global world events.

Kernel

Diogenes wrote: »

So if I have this clear the democratic system is unpredictable which means theres a hidden global government that control things

The democratic system is inherently unpredictable and difficult to control in it's purest form. That's why it makes sense for people with an agenda to control the masses and retain power (and dare I say it; stability) by changing the current system to a more.. totalitarian/centralised one.

Diogenes wrote: »

Mahatma, I disagree I think "truthers" cannot comprehend how random and uncontrolled the world really is. How shambolic and disorganised government truly are. So they invent a government that is brillant and ruthless and organised to explain away and simplify global world events.

I think that is a very naieve viewpoint - the governments are not buffoons, neither are the elites. It would not be difficult to work on such a system of control, and predict possible outcomes to various actions. There has been a huge amount of money spent and research conducted into all facets of social order, including directing society and predicting possible outcomes of scenarios. This effort has been underway for a century or perhaps longer, with the likes of Rockefeller and Kissinger proposing population control, eugenics, political change and globalisation. Think of it as systems analysis and design on a bigger scale, if it helps.

The goals have been set, and a timeframe may have been outlined. All that remains is to push forward the various stepping stones, et viola. Look at the European Constitution for an example. It will go ahead in the end - despite protestations. It's another link in the chain of one world government. It may not go ahead in the form that the elites want, but once it's slipped under the door, it can be changed slowly, methodically in future. These people have fabulous resources to utilise in order to achieve what they want.

Mahatma coat

Diogenes wrote: »

So if I have this clear the democratic system is unpredictable which means theres a hidden global government that control things

yep, thats it in a nutshell.

Mahatma, I disagree I think "truthers" cannot comprehend how random and uncontrolled the world really is.

there seems to be more order than you credit to it.

How shambolic and disorganised government truly are. So they invent a government that is brillant and ruthless and organised to explain away and simplify global world events.

global world events are being controled by a small Cabal of ruthless and powerful individuals.

to quote another famous fictious character

" Remove the plank from thine own eye before you remove the splinter from your Brothers"

Clare_Guy

Mahatma coat wrote: »

global world events are being controled by a small Cabal of ruthless and powerful individuals.

I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men. -Woodrow Wilson after he'd signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

The democratic system is inherently unpredictable and difficult to control in it's purest form. That's why it makes sense for people with an agenda to control the masses and retain power (and dare I say it; stability) by changing the current system to a more.. totalitarian/centralised one.

I'm not sure how this makes sense. I'm hoping you or someone else can explain to me where my understanding of your position is wrong.

Let me put forward my understanding...

There is a shady behind-the-scenes group of people in control. Although we hear terms like the NWO, and how they're trying to gain control, we also hear that they are ultimately the same groups who've been secretly in control behind everything for the past centuries, if not longer.

So in a sense, the NWO is the OWO, who are trying to gain control despite being in control for centuries. They've been in control, behind the scenes for longer than any modern nation has had democracy in place. The switch to democracy didn't effect them, as they were ideally placed to ensure that the democracies put in place continued to serve them.

And yet, despite all of this...despite being in control before democracy, despite corrupting the foundations of democracy, despite remaining in control since democracy has come about, and despite strengthening that control....we're supposed to believe that democracy is a threat to them, that that they're trying to gain control (of what, though, I'm unsure) by subverting it.

Bear in mind that despite all of this, vast wars have been fought in order to preserve democracy, even though we're supposed to believe that what was being fought against would have been a preferable system for these people and that they're not just behind the power in english-speaking nations, but pretty-much all western (if not global) powers.

So seriously....what am I misunderstanding here? Have they not been behind the power for centuries? Has their power been limited to certain nations? Are there multiple, competing behind-the-scenes groups who are secretly warring with each other? Are the modern behind-the-scenes groups not the progression of the more ancient ones, and if not when and how did the change come about?

casey212

bonkey wrote: »

Let me put forward my understanding...

There is a shady behind-the-scenes group of people in control. Although we hear terms like the NWO, and how they're trying to gain control, we also hear that they are ultimately the same groups who've been secretly in control behind everything for the past centuries, if not longer.

You can never have enough power or control

bonkey wrote: »

And yet, despite all of this...despite being in control before democracy, despite corrupting the foundations of democracy, despite remaining in control since democracy has come about, and despite strengthening that control....we're supposed to believe that democracy is a threat to them, that that they're trying to gain control (of what, though, I'm unsure) by subverting it.

Tell me where "democracy" exists or ever has existed?

bonkey wrote: »

Bear in mind that despite all of this, vast wars have been fought in order to preserve democracy, even though we're supposed to believe that what was being fought against would have been a preferable system for these people and that they're not just behind the power in english-speaking nations, but pretty-much all western (if not global) powers.

Never has a war been fought for democracy.