It has become very fashionable to yell "conspiracy theorist" whenever anybody questions the official versions of current events, history, the failure to resolve problems, official cover ups and so on. Western History however is one long conspiracy / cover up from the beginnings of Greek and Roman civilization right up to the global warming scam.It is not in the interests of the controlling elite to let us ordinary punters know what is really going in.A conspiracy, remember, is just a group of individuals or organizations working towards a common goal who do not want their collaboration to become public knowledge. no lizard men, ancient Egyptian wizards or alien overlords necessary sorry.
Â
Read full post: Don't Call Me A Conspiracy Theorist
Â
COMMENTS are open but there isn't much point commenting as this is a longer and illustrated version of a post that has been up before. I just needed the link to kick start my traffic. Call me cynical if you like possums.
Â
RELATED POSTS:
It’s make-or-break time for education as schools dumb down
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 62
While I think I get what you're trying to "say" in this piece, I am somewhat confused/disconcerted by your use of language and logic at times . . it seems a bit naive, for want of a better word, and to be somewhat counter productive to people understanding what to me is your basic thrust . .
. For instance, your stated as if absolute truth accounts of witch trial methods, seem truly irrational to me. Sure, some people may have been subjected to some form of the Monty Python style "If you sink and drown with weights attached to you, you are innocent" methods, but it seems far more likely to me that those are predominantly exaggerations of confession extracting torture methods, wherein a person would be held underwater for a while to get them to spill the beans, so to speak, much like water-boarding is used now. It simply does not seem likely to me that large numbers of human beings were so stupid as to not realize just as we do that if you attach a heavy weight so someone and chuck them into the water, they will sink.
It may make for a good chuckle to act like people were vastly dumber than us a few hundred years ago, but it does not seem rational to me to actually believe they were, or even more nonsensical to me, is your apparent belief that people "contaminated" by Christian beliefs were turned into psychopathic imbeciles who would do horrible irrational things without hesitation , while the "uncontaminated" Druids (these would sometimes actually be the very same people, naturally, before they heard about/accepted Christ) were incapable of such cruel and crazy things , and any reference to them conducting human sacrifices or whatever, ought to be considered fabrications by those psychopathic "contaminated" people . . .
Nor were the Druids perfect, one of the ways of dealing with an enemy warriors in Druidic Ireland was to disembowel him, tie him to a tree with his own intestines and leave him to die. There is no evidence they sacrified members of their own tribe to appease the gods however.
Records of witch trials in England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and France reveal that I've been a tad soft on the witch hunters. The tortures were cruel beyond belief.
There are several written statements from priests who took final confessions of witches and were later moved by conscience to speak out, reporting that women had said they confessed to being witches because their children were being held and if the woman did not submit to absolution by a cruel death, her children would be killed in the belief that once driven out of her the evil spirit would pass to them.
To put these crazy belief in perspective have you ever wondered why in African civil (i.e. tribal wars) rape is such a big thing?
There is a primitive belief that if a woman is penetrated by a man her womb is forever tainted by his seed. In tribal societies ethnic purity is everything (so much for multiculturalism) so once a woman has been "contaminated" by a man of another tribe, her sons can never be accepted as full members of her tribe. Thus no man in her tribe will marry her. Rape is a weapon of genocide.
If VK (Vikki), a Brahmin woman, was to ever admit her relationship with me to members of her Hindu faith it is not be the fact I'm married that would damn her in their eyes but the fact that I am not of her caste. In Britain there might be some tutting but in India, away from the big cities, she would be orstacized, an out caste and having lost caste would be lower than a dalit (an untouchable).
A couple of years ago there was a well publicised case in India of a young couple who were in a relatioship being murdered by their families because he was a Brahmin and she a Jat (labouring caste).
Honour killings among Muslims and Hindus in Britain are more common than the media is willing to report.
Last year in London a young boy from Ghana was burned to death by a tribal witch doctor, imported by the family for the job. The boy, they said at the trial, was possessed by evil spirits.
Beyond the Anglosphere and western Europe the world is as sexist, racist, brutal and tribalistic as it has always been. We're not that much less dumb than people were four hundred years ago.
Well, my concern was that you were (probably inadvertently) portraying these sorts of "hysteria" behaviors as something that you have to be really dumb/ignorant/primitive to be involved in. And that this inference could be kinda counterproductive to getting folks to take the potential that something like catastrophic AGW alarmism is a scam, a form a induced hysteria if you will, but based on "scientific" sorts of things, more seriously. It's almost like playing into the; modern super smart/advanced scientist as savior/magician/priest archetype, I believe the scam is based on, it seems to me.
People are still vulnerable to believing illusions and imagination, as they always have been it seems to me, but the idea that "we" have somehow evolved/advanced beyond all that, is widespread as far as I can tell. Things like the "war on terror" are not really all that different in some essential ways, from the "war on witches" you've touched on, to my mind. People are literally being blown to pieces (along with those who happen to be near them, including little kids) because someone suspects them . . . Being tortured, to get confessions and betray other "terrorists", which is to say new suspects . . just as in the "war on witches".
I don't believe the master "conspirators" we face today (the New World Order overlords, if you will), are in any sense ignorant of what has happened in the past, and what forms of psychological environment is conducive to what they wish to achieve. In that sense, it is a scientific conspiracy, I feel, in the sense that they are students of what has worked in the past and are employing many very scientific students of psychological warfare/manipulation.
It takes some real study to be able to place what they are doing in a rational framework I find/found, and just thought your use of the witches and religion stuff was somewhat "anti-serious" in a sense . . These are some extremely clever and scientifically advanced people we are being accosted by, one does not have to resemble a Monty Python character, to be swallowed up in the hysteria they induce. While at the same time, the imagery of stupid paranoid people over-reacting to imaginings of some dark conspiratorial evil ones, is very useful I believe, for generating a "witch hunter" stereotype, in the garb of "conspiracy theorist".
It seems that's reflected in your request; 'Don't Call Me A Conspiracy Theorist' . . It's like . . I want to say; You're going the wrong way there, Ian, that's what we have to overcome, that Monty Python imagery . . That's us in the mind's of the people we want to snap out of it. The people we wish to look into these matters much more seriously . . (Speaking for myself really, of course).
Maybe I was too ambitious in expecting gather liberals to see the similarity between their attacking global warming sceptics / Obamesiah dissidents / republicans / constitution supporters / pro lifers / defenders of traditional marrriage and fiscal responsibility advocates, to see the similarity between themselves and a medieval mob. I forget these people need things spelled out for them in very simple terms.
This was the first in a series of posts (to be put on scribd.com where reading figures are much better over time) showing how certain vested interests present a version of events that will appeal to a certain mindest, and then use those people as "useful idiots" to suppress or trivialise serious questioning of activities where vested interest conflicts with public interest.
I do like to inject humour into serious subjects however. It may well be counter productive but experience (of doing stand up) tells me most people will listen to a comic monologue ridiculing their social class or profession and laugh, recognizing the target but not seeing themselves as part of that group.
I even do it myself, laughing at jokes about management consultants and telling my son and daughter "Yeah, but I was not a TYPICAL management consultant.
"This was the first in a series of posts (to be put on scribd.com where reading figures are much better over time) showing how certain vested interests present a version of events that will appeal to a certain mindest, and then use those people as "useful idiots" to suppress or trivialise serious questioning of activities where vested interest conflicts with public interest."
Do that, please ; )
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50188551/mark-of-the-beast-the-great-counterfeit-2
Thanks for looking at my scribd page and for your confidence in my ability but the ebook you linked is not my creation, it's an item from mt recommended reading list. It is worth reading however, some fresh perspectives in there.
Actually, it really only needs to be more than one person for it to be a conspiracy, and it becomes what they label a conspiracy theory as soon as people get some evidence that there are plans that are not supposed to be known to them that are being contrived behind the scenes. Because the evidence lacks proof, (and not always because there isn't proof, but because they won't allow it to be presented) it's labeled as a conspiracy theory in hopes that by making the people presenting the evidence look paranoid it will make the evidence go away or at least make the people presenting the evidence go away.
In essence, calling people conspiracy theorists who are presenting viable evidence for what they see as strong possibilities to probablities is nothing but a bullying tactic, but one that they've sanctioned for their own cause which is to squelch the truth and further their own agenda. So not only is it fashionable to call a search for the underlying stories conspiracy theories, it's another brainwashing technique with which the masses are more than willing to cooperate because it makes them feel reasonable and sane, and it doesn't take them out of the comfort zone of belief in what they are learning from "reliable sources."
It always amuses me to note how those who bang on about "evidence" all the time are always so quick to dismiss observation and leaked documents as unreliable but are always willing to accept statistics which can easily be manipulated.
"If you torture data long enough it will give the answer you want."
From the numbers of hits I get on any conspiracy related posts I think more people are starting to get the message.
Ian, interesting. I always avoid the knee-jerk jump to claim "Conspiracy Theorist!" when something, anything, is proffered. As Sue has pointed out in the above paragraph, it is used as but a bullying tactic, a cudgel, with which to beat the suspecting into submission. I don't deign myself to be the the most potent swig in the bottle; I merely try to employ common sense (as uncommon as it has become), which I admit is subjective. Then, I ask myself at what lengths must I suspend my disbelief for order that I believe something to be possible, or True.
The Ancient past notwithstanding, and that even 'evidence' is subject to the interpretation of that evidence (and usually by some Leftist 'Scientist,'), I try to look at what is possible, what is probable, and conclude as best I can. Hardly Scientific, but a far sight better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. (or the knee-jerk reaction employed by those who intend to limit thought and speech).
To me, for two examples, I hardly see the Ponzi scam perpetrated upon the American Public that was the Housing and Mortgage collapse, and "Global Warming" as the innocent little "anomalies" that they've been presented to be; I know that the Housing scam was designed and perpetrated to steal and transfer the Wealth, and thus the Power, from a Middle Class that had become far too powerful for the tastes of the Ruling Elite.
9/11 may present a different kind of "conspiracy." Using my above (and admittedly un-Scientific "method"), I wouldn't believe for one moment that the Government of the United States (on it's own) perpetrated the Horror of 9/11. And not necessarily for want of any evidence presented, or not presented. I do, however, think that in the remotest possibility, it could have been a concerted act, coerced Globally. That is not to say that I believe the Government of the United States was purely responsible, or willingly complicit...but forced.
And admittedly, and even then, it sounds silly. But that does not necessarily make it so.
you're absolutely right, an educated, economically independent middle class (working class in Britain) turned out to be too inquisitive and politically aware for the elite's liking.
They don't care or want to hear that statistics can be easily manipulated, and how they were derived is even more important than the results. John cited an interesting example of that on Civil Unrest's recent post about how they derive the stats for flu vaccine death victims. I remember arguing with someone saying exactly what one of the employees is now admitting they did and do. Virtually anyone dying from any kind of respiratory illness or major organ failure that could possibly be linked to the flu even if it isn't, gets counted in those stats during flu season. It's only of late that the CDC is finally mumbling under its breath that it really isn't quite sure how many die from the actual flu.
When they bring out the statistics to "prove" their cases I get reminded of that old public service ad we used to have to advance the cause for their opportunity to go on to college that showed the picture of a minority with the caption and announcement, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste." I'm thinking, "uh-huh, and so is an education."
The bansturbators in the UK, having demonized tobacco are now on the case of alcohol. Some years ago they came us with safe limits which the doctor hired to decide what was safe later admitted he had made up because it was impossible to define a fafe limit for everyone. He then revealed that the number he made up was 45 units per week and a civil servant decided to halve that and then reduce 22.5 to 21 which is divisible by seven.
Last week a new report was published (another waste of taxpayers money because everybody ignores the advice) saying that the "safe limits were way to high and people should drink no more that a quarter of a glass of wine , quarter of a pint of beer or a fifth of an ounce of spirit in any one day.
And these idiots wonder why they have no credibility.
Somebody on TV did point out that the "scientific research" attibuted the death of anyone who admitted drinking at all, from liver, heart or gastric diseas or several types of cancer to alcohol when in fact there is no way of knowing what the actual cause might be.
"Have you heard, your Uncle Passed late last week?"
And I say, "Oh...horrible. What happened?"
"He drank himself to death."
And therefore, in their minds, most any organ failure in the body, if he'd had a snort regularly, is attributed to "drinking himself to Death."
Psshhh...
We're quite silly really, you're just so used to seeing comments by the idiots from the dark side we seem sensible by comparison.
A perfect example is this post about a restaurant customer who instead of a tip left a note saying he had to cut back on tips because of Obama's tax policies. Straight away the usual suspects (including the pretentious gobshite who poses as an intellectual) were there saying this was typical of republicans.
How did they know the guy was republican? The story was probably made up but let's pretend it was real. From the grammar and the lack of political awareness I'd say it was left by a student who gets a kick out of being an arsehole.
Though I wouldn't dream of having a Cigarette, I do love a good Cigar...which, I suppose to you, is an oxymoron! (laughs!)
Graham, you're a scream, once again!
Ian, yes, I'd heard about that. Of course the pin-headed "intellectuals" would "reason" that it had to be a Republican...if they hadn't jumped to THAT conclusion would be evidence that they're more than a bit off their feed...
Agreed, Sue. I'll take 'death by drinking' over that other fate any time.
However in the Officers Mess when the heavy drinking started the cigars came out and to save face and because it was expected of me I used to have a few puffs and somehow get rid of it and then collect them, a sort of well I don't mind if I do Colonel or General, this IS a fine cigar Sir I will save it for later if you don't mind, and hand them out to my Senior NCOs. Never let it be said I did not look after the ones that had the ability to make my life easy ;-)
Ha! Great Story, Sir. "Man up" with the higher-ups, and all of that! Way to take care of those Non-Comms! I'll bet you'd procured some pretty fine Cigars that way.
As a boy, I was incorrigible, of course, and my Mum was no help at all. As we'd take the last bite of our Meal at the table in the evening, she'd invariably look over and say, "Let's head to the Living Room!" And off we'd go, to watch the Evening News whilst pounding a Nail.
I was 13.
He went on, "The evidence at this point I think is very, very convincing that it was not a lone gunman..."
This would be, though.
From a review on that page:
At the height of the Cold War, JFK risked committing the greatest crime in human history: starting a nuclear war. Horrified by the specter of nuclear annihilation, Kennedy gradually turned away from his long-held Cold Warrior beliefs and toward a policy of lasting peace. But to the military and intelligence agencies in the United States, who were committed to winning the Cold War at any cost, Kennedy’s change of heart was a direct threat to their power and influence. Once these dark 'Unspeakable' forces recognized that Kennedy’s interests were in direct opposition to their own, they tagged him as a dangerous traitor, plotted his assassination, and orchestrated the subsequent cover-up."
That promises to be a very interesting book.
I've never swallowed the lone nutcase version of the JFK assassination but have never thought the theories were anything more than speculation. Oswald did not seem bright enough to have organised something like that and as with so many of these events his death was a bit too convenient for us to calmly accept Jack Ruby had been so pissed off he felt it necessary to preempt the inevitable guilty verdict and legal execution.
What might Oswald have said while he was on death row?
I haven't touched tobacco since I stopped dabbling with the old herbal mixture and that's a long time ago. I'd like to say there is nothing more repulsive that moving in to kiss an attractive female only to find she tastes of stale tobacco but I'd be lying. There have been a few women I made exceptions for.
There's a British blogger, Dick Puddlecote, who states the case libertarian case for freedom to smoke very well and exposes the dishonesty and hypocrisy of the government / politically correct thought police / health mafia in manufacturing evidence to support plans for restrictions or bans on fat, salt and sugar content in food; tobacco, alcohol, slightly risky sports and anything else the bansturbators, do gooders and pokesnoses fancy banning.
So while not wanting to smoke myself I find it necessary to defend people's right to smoke because once one freedom is lost the bansturbators will set their sights on banning another.
missed your brain cells comment among these quickfire responses.
But ...
No matter how much we drink and for how long we will never have a negative number of brain cells whereas I can thing of at least 5 people on 'the dark side' who were born that way.
I can't abide the Smoke Nazi's, myself, self-righteous buggers...
I hear ya, this one is a damn cartoon . . . It's kinda like someone wanted to present a negative caricature of an atheist, like a false flag sorta deal. I'm really not sure what I'm looking at, but I'm pretty sure I've seen enough.
The various exposé's have convinced me Hoover was in on it. He and Kennedy fought bitterly, and Kennedy rebelled against him. They were way too ready with all the info on Oswald, and had his back story ready. He was identified and picked up like he was framed. The info back then was mostly still on clipboards, they had it too quick.
I also have thought that LBJ had something to do with it. It did take place in Dallas. He was determined to be President and leave his mark on Texas, which he did, moving the entire space control hub to Johnson Space Center (catchy name, huh?).
In short, I think the order was written in english, on government stationary behind black curtains. We know how they were also standing up to the Maffia, so the actual guns were probably easy to come by; just change a route, leave security holes and go REALLY slow.
How LBJ Killed JFK
"Wow! I read this post last night. I would never have guessed it to still be live by this time today. " I wrote that on that post the atheist wrote about the homeless shelter. You meant to put the foillowing comment and my quote there instead, I think.
"I hear ya, this one is a damn cartoon . . . It's kinda like someone wanted to present a negative caricature of an atheist, like a false flag sorta deal. I'm really not sure what I'm looking at, but I'm pretty sure I've seen enough."
Well, that was in my comment, but it was someone else's comment that I quoted that he used to explain what that book that RFK, Jr. is endorsing is about.
Actually I meant to put it here, I figured it would just be deleted if I said it on that post where you made that comment, and it seemed to fit with the discussion here about "negative brain cells" and so on . .
That character was setting off my onboard "lie detector" something awful, but I couldn't tell what level of deception is going on. They seem like either the worst anti-Christian agent provocateur in history, or someone faking it completely, in some sort of attempt at doing the opposite . . some sort of false flag dealeo, by someone perhaps frustrated with anti-Christian zealotry, trying to counter punch so to speak . . .
In that case, I really don't think it was anything but a sincere attempt to bash Christians. I think when there is as much give and take with so many individuals, if there were a hint of the kind of more sophisticated intellect it would take to pull that off, it would have revealed itself. I certainly did not see it, but maybe you saw something I didn't.
Ooh. Wicked me, I'll put myself on the naughty step.