What would it take for you to believe?

[hamelekim]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?

[JoeyDonuts]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?

Huh?
http://laseriedemivida.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/bobkelso.jpg
Oh....Sorry, sport.


I was thinking about soup.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

A date with Jessica Simpson.

Get me that and I'll believe whatever you're shoveling.

[fromdownunder]

I might be tempted to "believe" if somebody could post a rational reason as to why these hidden people, who have so much power, have simply not done what they have supposedly spent 100's of years trying to do. Isn't "world power" their game?

If they are so brilliantly secretive, and can manipulate so many events AND keep everything hidden from everybody except a few internet basement dwellers, why don't they just take over right now? Why has it taken so long?

I will believe if you show me the logic in the "master plan". Please be specific. Hell! Just show me the master plan.

Norm

[JoeyDonuts]

To quote Reaver from Fable II, "that kind of power is a means, not an end."

I'd suggest taking a closer look at the donut and model plane industries.

[thought_fugitive]

Mark of the Beast™ trading cards and lunchboxes.

[Malkuth]

I think a lot of people have skipped the rational open-minded thinker stage and gone straight from bright eyed young idealist to mass media spoon-fed apologists for the status quo.

There's a reason why the popular term 'critical thinking' has the word critical in it. It's because people are encouraged to be critical of anything that doesn't have the 'officially approved and sanctioned by darwin's and einstein's priesthood' stamp on it.

I used to be of the opinion that critical thinking referred to a rational examination and open-minded exploration of the pros and cons of not just both extreme positions in an argument, but all possible variations in between. I used to be of the opinion that critical thinking was more than taking the side of the majority in an argument and then being bandwagon critical of the opposition. I used to be of the opinion that critical thinking involved a long reflective period of actual thinking, not mere knee-jerk reaction to the expression of dissenting views.

Alas, I find more and more as I search the online world that 'critical thinking' involves a fairly simple 'which side has more believers and more smart arguments against the other' type of mentality behind it.

Here is a very interesting discussion paper about the difficulties in simply defining critical thinking.
http://www.bakeru.edu/crit/literature/dlh_ct_defense.htm

On a side note, it's mildly amusing to me that critical thinking has the same initials as conspiracy theory, making both sides of many arguments here self proclaimed CT'ers :P



As to what it would take for me to be a 'believer' in what i assume you mean to refer to as 'conspiracy theory', I have to say I am already somewhat convinced that there is, to some degree, a culture of conspiratorialism within the inner circles of the world's power elite. I am not convinced of a total 'one world NWO style' conspiracy, although the multitude of arguments put forth to support it are intriguing, when you take the time to research it more thoroughly.

Many of the more extreme ideas, such as no planes etc, ridiculed so viciously by many, are not 'believed' by the majority of conspiracy theorists. It is my contention that many of the more extreme conspiracy theory ideas out there are deliberate plants by people intentionally trying to derail the 'truther' community. I say this with some measure of confidence as one who has read and even posted much on more than a few conspiracy theory and alternative history forums. I have been witness to several instances of so-called conspiracy theorists who promote wild claims being called out to provide proof of their assertions, then being ostracised by the majority of the forum membership when it's found they cannot do so.

Many conspiracy theorists are educated, level-headed and dare I say skeptical of as much in conspiracy theory as they are in official history. It's only when some of the uneducated youth, desperately seeking some kind of answer as to why the world seems to be so """"ed up stumble upon the wildest and loudest shouted speculations and immediately take it for revealed truth that the 'skeptics' have such easy targets drawn to fire their sharp tongued artillery of WOO-WOO at them.

It's extremely saddening to me that so many people who call themselves rational critical thinkers would so easily allow themselves to be roped into villifying the gullible and demonizing the uneducated. The impressionable minds of children taking their first steps towards understanding should not be shot down in strafing runs of ridicule.

[Chupacabras]

To me, the first requisite would be to be interested in the subject.

[babbits]

I'll give you a straight answer because your question has the tone of sincerity.

If some communication were received by the whole world, in one session, saying in all languages simultaneously, to all ages of human beings, "I am a supernatural force; or maybe a natural one, if you understood the universe well enough to understand that.

"It's important to me that you humans act in ways that please me. I realize you have received contradicting statements in the past as to what pleases me. Here's the real scoop:"

And a list of rules.

None should include measures such as wasteful 'sacrifices' which the Force does not require anyhow. (But the priesthood does.)

Because as it is, it seems to me that if there were a consciousness in the universe with the power to affect our lives, and an interest in what we think and do, it would have done so long ago.

So all systems of religion or "enlightenment" seem to me to be human artifacts, created for the benefit of their designers. I don't see why the force that designed or created the universe, if such there were, would need our worship or obedience.

[Brainster]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps?

Yep, any of those three would probably do it, but I'm not exactly holding my breath here in anticipation.

[1337m4n]

Concentration camps?

Yup, that would do it.


Be sure to call me when it happens.

[JoeyDonuts]

Yup, that would do it.


Be sure to call me when it happens.

Yeah, I want one of the NICE tents. And these places don't sound so bad! We're all going to have our own TENTS? That's awesome! We won't be piled in like racks of firewood - as the prisoners in Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka, etc etc were.

[TokenMac]

a world currency? World government? Concentration camps?

I would say the camps would do it for me, but just to be sure will I be in these camps or will it be you.

You know for all you fighting, and me being an apologist and all....

Well I geuss at that point it will be less do I believe and more do I care.:D

[Hans]

I'd consider a common currency a good thing.

A rational explanation why the guys who want to control the world got rid of perfectly functional dictatorships, fascism in the 1940s, communism in the 1990s not to mention European domination in the 19th century. They had the perfect method of world control but 'threw them away'.....

[qwints]

one world currency wouldn't bug me; UN concentration camps would.

[LightinDarkness]

As to what it would take for me to be a 'believer' in what i assume you mean to refer to as 'conspiracy theory', I have to say I am already somewhat convinced that there is, to some degree, a culture of conspiratorialism within the inner circles of the world's power elite. I am not convinced of a total 'one world NWO style' conspiracy, although the multitude of arguments put forth to support it are intriguing, when you take the time to research it more thoroughly.

Ironically, believing there is such a thing as the "global elite" goes completely against the critical thinking you described. The conception of a dichotomy of "the elites" versus "everyone else" is a conspiracy creation in order to give meaning and purpose to believing in conspiracy - because "the elite" represents all things evil and diabolical in the world. Of course, when we actually look at the world we see that there are no true elite. Those in power routinely fall from it, those with wealth routinely lose it, those with fame are routinely relegated into irrelevancy. For the conspiracy concept of "the elite" to be real there would have to be some group that stays wealthy, in power, or has fame. It doesn't exist. People with those things rise and fall and have done so throughout history and will continue to do so.

[1337m4n]

It is my contention that many of the more extreme conspiracy theory ideas out there are deliberate plants by people intentionally trying to derail the 'truther' community.

No that is not "your" contention. That is the attidute of every single moronic conspiracy nut and snake-oil peddler towards every single moronic conspiracy theory except their own. No-planers believe that the remote-control theory is a plant. Remote-control believers believe that no-planers are plants. Pentagon Flyover lunatics believe that missile theorists are plants. Missile theorists believe that pentagon flyover lunatics are plants. MIHOP idiots believe that LIHOP idiots are plants. LIHOP idiots believe that MIHOP idiots are plants. Demolition theorists think that DEW theorists are nuts, who think that thermite theorists are nuts, who think that demolition theorists are nuts.

You are not special. Your contention is not unique. Every blasted conspiracy loon thinks that all conspiracy theories except for his own are plants. It's a defense mechanism in response to seeing just how ridiculous conspiracy theories really are, so the loon can safely continue to believe that his conspiracy theory is the only one out there that isn't ridiculous. Rather than stare at the idiot in the mirror, the conspiracy theorist prefers to believe that the mirror is really a government plant designed to project the image of an idiot.

If you wish to demonstrate that your contention is indeed special and unique, you might try providing some evidence.

Incidentally, by claiming that there are such "plants", you indirectly claim that there is indeed some sort of Evil Conspiracy, otherwise there would be no reason for anyone to produce the "plants". So which is it? What Evil Conspiracy are these "plants" designed to cover for?

If you are thinking of answering that question with something along the lines of "How should I know", perhaps you should reconsider your position regarding whether these theories are "plants" at all.

It's only when some of the uneducated youth, desperately seeking some kind of answer as to why the world seems to be so """"ed up stumble upon the wildest and loudest shouted speculations and immediately take it for revealed truth

You have accurately described 99% of conspiracy theorists. I don't know where you came up with the word "many" in the sentence before this part of your post. I sure as hell haven't found more than a few dozen, and I'm pretty sure I've been on this board quite a bit longer than you have.

It's extremely saddening to me that so many people who call themselves rational critical thinkers would so easily allow themselves to be roped into villifying the gullible and demonizing the uneducated.

So what exactly are you saying here? That gullibility and ignorance should be encouraged?

Gee that sounds like a hell of a plan. I'll start by encouraging that children be gullible when it comes to strangers offering them candy, and encouraging people to remain uneducated with regards to drunk-driving.

The impressionable minds of children taking their first steps towards understanding[ should not be shot down in strafing runs of ridicule.

Nobody here has attacked anyone for taking steps "towards" understanding.

You see, believing in theories that are completely unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, is a step "away from" understanding.

And if your definition of "children" is the same as mine, such people should be recieving their education from school and from their parents, not from Youtube videos and screaming, anti-semitic talk radio hosts. Even a second-grader understands that theories must be supported by evidence. They teach kids that every time they ask them to "show your work". And I'm sure you're no stranger to the elementary-school science fair:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1680349d47725e0e32.jpg

Why, look at that! Hypothesis, procedure, conclusions! Apparantly, elementary school students understand the scientific method better than whatever "children" you're referring to in your post. Perhaps you are referring to toddlers, barely able to walk upright? Toddlers shouldn't be listening to Alex Jones. Perhaps their parents should show better supervision.

[JoeyDonuts]

Nominated.
(http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4576908&postcount=41)

Although some scaling on the photo would have been nice. You have any idea how annoying it is to scroll left/right on a trackpad?

[Malkuth]

Once again my comments are taken out of context, miscontrued and used as a platform from which to launch vicious attacks.

I'll just have to content myself with the knowledge that you are a small minded buffoon who's stated intent is to divide people and discourage open minded exploration.

[1337m4n]

Nominated.
(http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4576908&postcount=41)


Ooh, my first LA nomination! :blush::blush::blush:




Although some scaling on the photo would have been nice. You have any idea how annoying it is to scroll left/right on a trackpad?

My bad.

There, that should fix it.

[1337m4n]

Once again my comments are taken out of context, miscontrued and used as a platform from which to launch vicious attacks.

mass media spoon-fed apologists

'skeptics'

sharp tongued artillery of WOO-WOO at them.

villifying

demonizing

strafing runs of ridicule

small minded buffoon

Yup, no hypocrisy here.

If you don't like getting attacked, perhaps you shouldn't provoke other people by attacking them.

When you make posts consisting of thinly-veiled insults agains the majority of the forum community, should you not expect some backlash?

I'll just have to content myself with the knowledge that you are a small minded buffoon who's stated intent is to divide people and discourage open minded exploration.

I always love it when people claim they are "content" in the "knowledge" that they are right, in the same post that they make a post containing a personal insult and nothing else.

PROTIP: People who are "content" don't make personal insults. The "oh I'm content in my knowledge lololol btw you're an idiot" defense is the last resort of somebody who knows he is beaten. I should know, I've used it before.

You should go back to Trolling School.

[JoeyDonuts]

My bad.

There, that should fix it.

Aha! Boffo. Well played sir.

[MRC_Hans]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?I would hopefully never go from rational thinker to irrational apologist.

Ample evidence might make me accept practically anything, but that would still be rational.

Hans

[Malkuth]

Twist things any way you like, I'm just trying to get people to understand that there's a lot of people out there who know very little about any of these subjects. Often their first contact when investigating on the web is the stuff that's shouted the loudest. The gullible among them take it as truth, then go in search of more. Many of them have come across places like this and asked innocent questions only to be blown away by a torrent of abuse. I've seen it many times. It happened to me in the months after 911.

There's also a lot of smart people out there who are certain that there's a lot going on in the world that most people don't know about, and it's not all in our best interests. Much of the 'proof' that you demand is extremely hard to come by.

[MRC_Hans]

I think a lot of people have skipped the rational open-minded thinker stage and gone straight from bright eyed young idealist to mass media spoon-fed apologists for the status quo.

That could be. Evidence contradicts this, however: In any census made since the midle 20th century that included the public view of the credibility of mass media, they have been given a very low level of credibility by the general populace. In many cases, journalists are ranged with the lowest, right down with lawyers and insurance agents. Even politicians usually range higher.

So it is not very likely that the mayority will let itself be fooled for any great amout of time or to any great extent by the media.

At they say, you can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time, but you can't foll all of the people all of the time.


There's a reason why the popular term 'critical thinking' has the word critical in it. It's because people are encouraged to be critical of anything that doesn't have the 'officially approved and sanctioned by darwin's and einstein's priesthood' stamp on it.


Wrong. People are encouraged to be critical of anything, period. Even such things that have various established authoritie's stamp on them.

I used to be of the opinion that critical thinking referred to a rational examination and open-minded exploration of the pros and cons of not just both extreme positions in an argument, but all possible variations in between.

You were right.

I used to be of the opinion that critical thinking was more than taking the side of the majority in an argument and then being bandwagon critical of the opposition.

You were right.


I used to be of the opinion that critical thinking involved a long reflective period of actual thinking, not mere knee-jerk reaction to the expression of dissenting views.


You were right.


Alas, I find more and more as I search the online world that 'critical thinking' involves a fairly simple 'which side has more believers and more smart arguments against the other' type of mentality behind it.


You are wrong.

Your impression may come from following the debates about some of the more stupid beliefs. Even the most saintly critical thinker tends to resort to knee-jerk reactions when confronted with the same nonsense for the umpteenth time. In fact, I suspect that certain debators, for the lack of useful arguments, choose to just repeat their claims till the opposition is reduced by simple attrition.


Here is a very interesting discussion paper about the difficulties in simply defining critical thinking.
http://www.bakeru.edu/crit/literature/dlh_ct_defense.htm


Especially critical thinking that goes against your views is often hard to define.


On a side note, it's mildly amusing to me that critical thinking has the same initials as conspiracy theory, making both sides of many arguments here self proclaimed CT'ers :P


Some are easily amused.


As to what it would take for me to be a 'believer' in what i assume you mean to refer to as 'conspiracy theory', I have to say I am already somewhat convinced that there is, to some degree, a culture of conspiratorialism within the inner circles of the world's power elite. I am not convinced of a total 'one world NWO style' conspiracy, although the multitude of arguments put forth to support it are intriguing, when you take the time to research it more thoroughly.


There is no doubt a power elite. The inherent fierce competitiveness of such class appears to have kept it from taking over the world so far. That and the fact that ethics is not confined to the masses.

Many of the more extreme ideas, such as no planes etc, ridiculed so viciously by many, are not 'believed' by the majority of conspiracy theorists. It is my contention that many of the more extreme conspiracy theory ideas out there are deliberate plants by people intentionally trying to derail the 'truther' community.

Not very likely. First of all, the supply of fools is sufficient without planting any. Also, viewed from the outside, most 911 CT are so daft that they should all be plants.

I say this with some measure of confidence as one who has read and even posted much on more than a few conspiracy theory and alternative history forums. I have been witness to several instances of so-called conspiracy theorists who promote wild claims being called out to provide proof of their assertions, then being ostracised by the majority of the forum membership when it's found they cannot do so.

Yes? Tell me, have you met any who could provide proof of their assertions?

Many conspiracy theorists are educated, level-headed and dare I say skeptical of as much in conspiracy theory as they are in official history. It's only when some of the uneducated youth, desperately seeking some kind of answer as to why the world seems to be so """"ed up stumble upon the wildest and loudest shouted speculations and immediately take it for revealed truth that the 'skeptics' have such easy targets drawn to fire their sharp tongued artillery of WOO-WOO at them.

Mmm, you mean such as those who come here? Yes, I also often wonder why we bother.

It's extremely saddening to me that so many people who call themselves rational critical thinkers would so easily allow themselves to be roped into villifying the gullible and demonizing the uneducated. The impressionable minds of children taking their first steps towards understanding should not be shot down in strafing runs of ridicule.

So, what do you suggest one says to a child who repeats silly nonsense?
(Be it noted that we are here talking about such children that have access to and can use a computer on the internet, we are not talking of toddlers.)

Hans

[timhau]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?

I'd need some of that... uh... what's it called? Starts with an 'e', rhymes with 'dense' ... ?

[Egil]

I firmly believe there are groups of people who want a world government and a world currency. Unless the talk coming out organizations like the UN and IMF is just my imagination.

It is one thing to believe this, it is quiet another to believe there is an entire conspiracy involving control of Media, Industry and governments. And that this conspiracy has such power to hijack planes, blow up buildings, manipulate currency and perform other such badguy operations without any leaks (before or after) and to put a religious slant on it, that they are all wearing the mark of the beast.

To believe one merely requires one to look at most of 20th century history and the other requires a psychosis.

[Thunder]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?

i will believe in one world currency..when I see a one world currency.

i will believe in one world government..when I see a one world government.


I will believe in FEMA CAMPS..when I see actual FEMA camps.

thats why I am a skeptic. I have to see it to believe it.

I was skeptical of WMDs in Iraq. I was right. I am skeptical of the reach and power of Al Qaeda. So far I appear to be right.

And I am skeptical of all these stupid conspiracy theories. And I also appear to be right.

[Pardalis]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?

Have any of these happened?

[Brainster]

Yeah, I want one of the NICE tents. And these places don't sound so bad! We're all going to have our own TENTS? That's awesome! We won't be piled in like racks of firewood - as the prisoners in Auschwitz, Dachau, Bergen-Belsen, Treblinka, etc etc were.

No, no, no! Remember Auschwitz was a caring place. They had several symphonies, a swimming pool and even a brothel. It was so popular that people were packing themselves tightly in freight trains to get there.

[dudalb]

I have filed away a few posts here are being a perfect example of "Psuedo Skepticism"...maintaining a air of "rational thinking" and using a lot of verbage to sell woo in the package of being "open minded" and "rational".

[dudalb]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?

Solid Evidence from a reliable,proven source.

[Horatius]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?


"What would it take for you to believe?"

I'd have to ask, "To believe what?" What would a "world currency" require me to believe in ? What would a "world government" require me to believe in? What would "concentration camps" require me to believe in?

That is, there are many ways any one (or more) of these things could come into being. Which of these possible ways are you asking me to believe in?

[JoeyDonuts]

No, no, no! Remember Auschwitz was a caring place. They had several symphonies, a swimming pool and even a brothel. It was so popular that people were packing themselves tightly in freight trains to get there.

http://altavoz.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/yngwie-malmsteen-1.jpg

INAPPROPRIATE!!!

[MRC_Hans]

I firmly believe there are groups of people who want a world government and a world currency. Unless the talk coming out organizations like the UN and IMF is just my imagination.



Of course there are folks wanting that. Why not? Should that be a bad thing?

Hans

[Egil]

Of course there are folks wanting that. Why not? Should that be a bad thing?

Hans

So, since the state and federal government isn't screwing me enough already we gotta throw in a global government to screw me globally? :(

Nevermind that it'd probably be used just to steal from Peter to pay Paul. Government as usual.

[aviolet4u]

well lets wait and see what happens with North Korea, I hope nothing but you never know they might get medieval on our arses.

[garethdjb]

well lets wait and see what happens with North Korea, I hope nothing but you never know they might get medieval on our arses.

This is an idiom with which I am unfamiliar. :confused:

[aviolet4u]

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/definition+of/get+medieval

[garethdjb]

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/definition+of/get+medieval

Ah thanks for that. I didn't think that the North Koreans were going to start a debate over the supremacy of the church, or the development of Feudalism in an increasingly market-based society, but other than that I was clueless. :)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?


Evidence that points right to the "puppet masters". You don't wield that kind of power, changing the course of history, without a traceable mark.

[theprestige]

Evidence that points right to the "puppet masters". You don't wield that kind of power, changing the course of history, without a traceable mark.
This.

Everybody in Stalinist Russia knew who their oppressors were, what their methods of oppression were, and what the consequences were for dissent.

Furthermore, as time went on, more and more solid, concrete evidence for this oppression came to light. Personal testimonies, reconnaissance and espionage products, official documents, etc.

Real tyrannies are, well, real.

[Dr Adequate]

I'll be convinced when They come for Alex Jones.

[aviolet4u]

Ah thanks for that. I didn't think that the North Koreans were going to start a debate over the supremacy of the church, or the development of Feudalism in an increasingly market-based society, but other than that I was clueless. :)

lol yeah I would take debates over missiles anyday :boxedin: you're welcome. :)

[The_Animus]

If they are so brilliantly secretive, and can manipulate so many events AND keep everything hidden from everybody except a few internet basement dwellers, why don't they just take over right now? Why has it taken so long?
Norm

What constitutes world power in todays society? In the past you had dictators like Hitler, but if you were looking for massive power and influence would that really be the best way to go about it? It's easy for everyone to see a dictator as a dictator. It's easy for people to rally against an openly authoritarian government, person, or party.

So what would someone do today? What would you do today to garner the most power and influence while not appearing to be a dictator? While appearing to be just another person, if not a successful one?

Huge financial assets?
Control of large amounts of media?
Ability to influence government?
Connections to people who also have the above?

Now this wouldn't give them the ability to control every aspect of everyones lives, but then again why would they need to. Right now people with these things can get most anything they want anyway without the trouble of mass killings and brutal enforcement.

Look at all the major corporations that get away with illegal activities by simply paying a fine and not having to admit guilt.

I'm not saying I believe in some NWO, just providing discussion on what exactly someone would actually do in todays society. If anything exists it's not some world domination in dictator form or some swift coup that will take place sometime in the near future. But a couple hundred captains of industry, political leaders, media owners, and other powerful and influential individuals who have developed relationships with one another, whether business, political, or other collaborating towards getting themselves further power and money (which is basically what all businesses do anyway). If anything it would be unusual that something along those lines wouldn't occur.

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Now this wouldn't give them the ability to control every aspect of everyones lives, but then again why would they need to. Right now people with these things can get most anything they want anyway without the trouble of mass killings and brutal enforcement.


Well, absolute control and concentration camps are common themes amongst those that believe there's some secret cabal running—or trying to run—the world. That's what fromdownunder was basing his post on.

You're absolutely correct that these things aren't necessary methods to attain "global power", but the paranoid fantasists seem to think otherwise. According to these kooks, the attributes you list seem to be merely intermediate "steps" toward achieving absolute control.

[The_Animus]

According to these kooks, the attributes you list seem to be merely intermediate "steps" toward achieving absolute control.

So I shouldn't tell them there is no master plan and what they think are intermediate 'steps' is what really gives them control? ;)

[Horatius]

Huge financial assets?
Control of large amounts of media?
Ability to influence government?
Connections to people who also have the above?

Now this wouldn't give them the ability to control every aspect of everyones lives, but then again why would they need to. Right now people with these things can get most anything they want anyway without the trouble of mass killings and brutal enforcement.

.....

But a couple hundred captains of industry, political leaders, media owners, and other powerful and influential individuals who have developed relationships with one another, whether business, political, or other collaborating towards getting themselves further power and money (which is basically what all businesses do anyway). If anything it would be unusual that something along those lines wouldn't occur.


But, if they're already "captains of industry", with wealth and power far above those of regular people, why would they need to "collaborate"? They already have everything they need, what more could such collaboration give them?

Very few people start out life as a captain of industry. If these people can achieve such wealth and power without this shadowy group supporting them, why would they be inclined to suddenly throw their lot in with them?

[The_Animus]

So you are asking why people who are rich wouldn't want more power and influence than they have already? Like the power and influence that would come from having mass media assets, governement officials, and the like behind you?

Why do people who already have $5mil want more? Why do people who already have power want more? Would collaborating with other people who have money, power, or influence to create social change not be appealing to some people?

[tsig]

No, no, no! Remember Auschwitz was a caring place. They had several symphonies, a swimming pool and even a brothel. It was so popular that people were packing themselves tightly in freight trains to get there.

It was so exclusive that they issued armed invitations to attend.

[Horatius]

Would collaborating with other people who have money, power, or influence to create social change not be appealing to some people?



Except then, they'd be collaborating with the people they're competing against. You don't go from 10 billion to 20 billion by crushing people like me, you do it by crushing other billionaires.

[Elizabeth I]

one world currency wouldn't bug me; UN concentration camps would.

Especially since, on the evidence, the UN could :rule10-up a one-man rock fight.

I'll be convinced when They come for Alex Jones.

...not to mention grateful.

So I shouldn't tell them there is no master plan and what they think are intermediate 'steps' is what really gives them control? ;)

Not if you want to keep those NWO subsidy checks coming every month.

[Thunder]

if the truthers give me $5,000...i will believe in 9-11 truth.

hear that? $5,000 guys. can you do it?

[Elizabeth I]

if the truthers give me $5,000...i will believe in 9-11 truth.

hear that? $5,000 guys. can you do it?

Oh, come on, Parky, don't sell yourself so cheaply. Make them pay through the nose. :p

[Malkuth]

Except then, they'd be collaborating with the people they're competing against. You don't go from 10 billion to 20 billion by crushing people like me, you do it by crushing other billionaires.

Might be how you'd do it. It's not how they do it.

The guy with 10 billion does it by making deals with the few other guys with 10 billion. The deals made are to collectively crush hundreds of millions of people like you, so the few guys with 10 billion each end up with 20 billion and everyone else ends up just a little poorer. But some of them have a nice trinket or gadget to show for their donation.

[mark4mark]

Would it be a world currency? World government? Concentration camps? You can potentially rationalize and explain away anything that happens. At one point do you go from rational "thinker" to irrational apologist?

Evidence.

[dtugg]

Might be how you'd do it. It's not how they do it.

The guy with 10 billion does it by making deals with the few other guys with 10 billion. The deals made are to collectively crush hundreds of millions of people like you, so the few guys with 10 billion each end up with 20 billion and everyone else ends up just a little poorer. But some of them have a nice trinket or gadget to show for their donation.

Please. Hundreds of millions do not get crushed in order to build a billionaire's fortune. Self made billionaires get that rich by creating and selling useful products and/or services (or investing with corporations that do). Some people will find the product or service useful, and if they do they will exchange their money for it. If they don't they won't. People that bought the product/service will be have less money than they did before, but they will have the product/service that they deemed worth it in exchange. People that didn't buy the product will have more money compared to those that did but also won't have the product/service.

It's called capitalism. Nobody is being exploited or crushed because the exchanges are entirely voluntary. It benefits everybody, albeit some more than others. I don't care that Bill Gates is richer than God and that I've helped him become that way because his company has in exchange also made my life better.

[The_Animus]

Please. Hundreds of millions do not get crushed in order to build a billionaire's fortune. Self made billionaires get that rich by creating and selling useful products and/or services (or investing with corporations that do). Some people will find the product or service useful, and if they do they will exchange their money for it. If they don't they won't. People that bought the product/service will be have less money than they did before, but they will have the product/service that they deemed worth it in exchange. People that didn't buy the product will have more money compared to those that did but also won't have the product/service.

It's called capitalism. Nobody is being exploited or crushed because the exchanges are entirely voluntary. It benefits everybody, albeit some more than others. I don't care that Bill Gates is richer than God and that I've helped him become that way because his company has in exchange also made my life better.

Much of this is debatable. The statement that no one is exploited by capitalism is insane. Look at sweatshops. I think you will also find that most of the super rich aren't that way because they are the self made man but because they were born into money. Being born into large sums of money makes it a heck of a lot easier to make more. However, this is really the subject for another thread.

[Malkuth]

Yup, some here just find it a fun sport to rudely mock anything they disagree with, at length.

[qwints]

I'll be convinced when They come for Alex Jones.

Alex Jones is obviously an undercover agent of the NWO.

[dtugg]

Much of this is debatable. The statement that no one is exploited by capitalism is insane. Look at sweatshops. I think you will also find that most of the super rich aren't that way because they are the self made man but because they were born into money. Being born into large sums of money makes it a heck of a lot easier to make more. However, this is really the subject for another thread.

I don't think that anybody working in a sweatshop is being exploited. They don't have to work there and they typically earn much more than they would elsewhere. The fact that sweatshops exist actually make their lives much better.

And sure plenty of rich people were born into that money. So? I don't care.

[qwints]

I don't think that anybody working in a sweatshop is being exploited. They don't have to work there and they typically earn much more than they would elsewhere. The fact that sweatshops exist actually make their lives much better.

And sure plenty of rich people were born into that money. So? I don't care.

Saying that sweatshop workers receive some benefits does not demonstrate that they are not exploited.

[The_Animus]

I don't think that anybody working in a sweatshop is being exploited. They don't have to work there and they typically earn much more than they would elsewhere. The fact that sweatshops exist actually make their lives much better.

And sure plenty of rich people were born into that money. So? I don't care.

Sweatshop workers are subject to hazardous work conditions, extreme temperatures, harmful materials, extremely long work hours (14, 16, 18+ hours a day to the point of collapsing from exhaustion), and poor pay.

Nike breaks down their instructions into tenths of a second and gives a worker 6.6 minutes to make one of its shirts. This shirt sells for $27.00 and the woman who made is paid 8 cents. This is 340 times mark up. Another shirt is sold for $15 and the woman is paid 3 cents. This is a 500 times mark up. That is the definition of exploitation.

In some cases people are told they will be paid for their work and are instead forced into slavery. If workers complain about working conditions, or try to contact watchdog groups that do factory inspections it can result in threats, firing, or violence against them from the employer. There are numerous cases of children working in these factories.

There are cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, genital mutilation, forces sterilization.

You have these people in third world countries who have had all their natural resources taken away by corporations and corrupt governemnts (usually the 2 support one another), and so they have literally nothing since all their land, and resources has been stripped from them. They have no food, and they have nothing to buy food with. The only thing they have is to sell their lives away for the chance to barely make enough to buy food to live. Eventually the standard of living increases a little and the people there are able to start making a little more money at these jobs. At this point the company decides it is no longer worth it to continue operations, so they close down the factory and move on to the next ultra poor country with ultra cheap labor. Meanwhile those people in the original country go back to dying of starvation. This cycle repeats ad infinum.

[Kay]

Sweatshop workers are subject to hazardous work conditions, extreme temperatures, harmful materials, extremely long work hours (14, 16, 18+ hours a day to the point of collapsing from exhaustion), and poor pay.
...No one is denying that sweatshops suck from our standards. Yet the fact is that people in the poor countries take the job because these are the best alternatives to prostitution and starvation. Furthermore, from what I understand, those workers are paid quite well to what their average countryman get, though not well compared to us. Keep in mind that $1 gets you a lot farther in Bangkok than New York.

You have these people in third world countries who have had all their natural resources taken away by corporations and corrupt governemnts (usually the 2 support one another), and so they have literally nothing since all their land, and resources has been stripped from them. They have no food, and they have nothing to buy food with. The only thing they have is to sell their lives away for the chance to barely make enough to buy food to live. Eventually the standard of living increases a little and the people there are able to start making a little more money at these jobs. At this point the company decides it is no longer worth it to continue operations, so they close down the factory and move on to the next ultra poor country with ultra cheap labor. Meanwhile those people in the original country go back to dying of starvation. This cycle repeats ad infinum.


Of course, which is why no one in Asia is getting richer as the years and capitalism progress on. OH WAIT~

[dafydd]

Evidence.

[Klimax]

Evidence.

Don't CLarsen thread ,please.

[Bobert]

Just watched the Natgeo documentary on Guantanamo Bay. The US Supreme court stepped in to allow detainees at GB the right to habeas Corpus.

Not very "NWO'ish" if you ask me.
I thought that the evil NWO controlled everything?
How come the Bush regimeTM didnt step in and topple the supreme court?
What happened?

[Malkuth]

Very few people are suggesting that 'the nwo' actually do control every little thing. If they did, indeed we wouldn't even be allowed to debate this.

The fact is that the whole 'evil nwo control everything' is the woo of but a few, a deliberate strawman designed to allow the 'rational thinkers' to pigeonhole everyone who really wants to know what's going on with the same 'idiot ct'er' label.

What really isn't in much doubt by the majority of 'truthers' is that certain cliques of the world's elite are working towards eventual total control. Little steps at a time in a long term plan to eventually end up with virtual total control of the type you ridicule.

[theprestige]

What really isn't in much doubt by the majority of 'truthers' is that certain cliques of the world's elite are working towards eventual total control. Little steps at a time in a long term plan to eventually end up with virtual total control of the type you ridicule.
And, on the topic of this thread, all it would take for me to believe this would be:
- evidence that such "cliques" exist, and
- evidence of which specific cliques are working towards total control (i.e., the "certain cliques" you mention above), and
- evidence that a specific long-term plan exists consisting of specific "little steps", and
- evidence that your "certain cliques" are in fact taking those "little steps" in accordance with that specific long-term plan.

Do you have any evidence for any of this? Or just conjecture?

[The_Animus]

And, on the topic of this thread, all it would take for me to believe this would be:
- evidence that such "cliques" exist, and
- evidence of which specific cliques are working towards total control (i.e., the "certain cliques" you mention above), and
- evidence that a specific long-term plan exists consisting of specific "little steps", and
- evidence that your "certain cliques" are in fact taking those "little steps" in accordance with that specific long-term plan.

Do you have any evidence for any of this? Or just conjecture?

That sounds about as realistic a request as asking the military to divulge top secret operations and technology to you.

As I said I don't support the whole NWO total world control thing.
I do support the ideas put forth in my post above http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4583816&postcount=45

I think that something of this sort not happening would be rather amazing actually. I equate this debate and requests for evidence such as yours similar to the christian evolution debate. Christians say the fossile record is incomplete and that there are gaps that need to be filled for evolution to make sense. Every time fossile record information is brought forth to validate this, the christians then ask for further fossile records to close the gaps even further. They ask for the missing link, and when it is found and presented they ask for a new missing link because the evidence provided wasn't good enough.

Also the only sources most people will take as evidence are from mass media or government, which in this case tends to pose problems as the government and mass media are controlled by the extremely rich and powerful.

ETA: Not that asking for evidence is bad. I think everyone should ask for evidence. It's just in instances like this there is not going to be evidence available in the way that there is for proving cells divide, or that friction causes heat. For example with the Stanford CD scheme. People believed for years that there was a scam going on. There were oddities and unusualy circumstances that just didn't add up. While this wasn't enough evidence to absolutely prove it was going on there was . In the same way I think there is evidence, just not what you would consider enough to meet the level of certainty you want.

[theprestige]

That sounds about as realistic a request as asking the military to divulge top secret operations and technology to you. Not that asking for evidence is bad. I think everyone should ask for evidence. It's just in instances like this there is not going to be evidence available in the way that there is for proving cells divide, or that friction causes heat.
All I'm saying is that if you make specific claims, you need to support them with specific evidence. You're welcome to speculate, of course, but that's all it is: unsupported speculation. "The military won't reveal its secrets to me" is not an excuse for assuming they have working antigravity hovertanks.

We conclude that the military has those capabilities for which it has provided evidence. We do not conclude the military has capabilities for which no evidence exists.

Likewise, we do not conclude that a specific conspiracy exists, for which no evidence has been provided. Malkuth alleges above that a specific conspiracy exists: Specific groups taking specific steps to carry out a specific long-term plan. This is not just speculation on Malkuth's part. This is a specific claim that he is making, about a specific conclusion that he has reached. In order for me to join him in his leap from general speculation to specific conclusion, I would need to see some specific evidence that this specific conclusion is warranted.

ETA: And now "specific" no longer seems like a word.

[The_Animus]

ETA: And now "specific" no longer seems like a word.

Don't you hate it when that happens? I would say you are correct that specific claims cannot be backed up. For instance that the military has teleportation technology. Based on history and releasing of documents after an extended period of time you can say that it is highly likely the military has secret technology and operations that we don't know about. What they are is guesswork. Similarily a claim that bush, cheney, and obama are secretly in cahoots biding their time until their robot army becomes operational cannot be backed up. Again based on history, it is not unreasonable to assume that rich and powerful individuals have made connections with other rich and powerful individuals to increase their overall power and influence over society, likely at the expense of the people.

[theprestige]

it is not unreasonable to assume that rich and powerful individuals have made connections with other rich and powerful individuals to increase their overall power and influence over society, likely at the expense of the people.
I agree in part. Since the "rich and powerful" are, in fact, people just like me, I do not find it at all unlikely that they do pretty much the same thing you and I do: Make connections with our peers, and gain benefits from those connections. Nor do I find it all unlikely that they, like you and me, would like to influence society and so forth.

What I find somewhat disgusting is your offhanded distinction between "the rich and powerful" and "the people".

[Brainache]

Sweatshop workers are subject to hazardous work conditions, extreme temperatures, harmful materials, extremely long work hours (14, 16, 18+ hours a day to the point of collapsing from exhaustion), and poor pay.

Nike breaks down their instructions into tenths of a second and gives a worker 6.6 minutes to make one of its shirts. This shirt sells for $27.00 and the woman who made is paid 8 cents. This is 340 times mark up. Another shirt is sold for $15 and the woman is paid 3 cents. This is a 500 times mark up. That is the definition of exploitation.

In some cases people are told they will be paid for their work and are instead forced into slavery. If workers complain about working conditions, or try to contact watchdog groups that do factory inspections it can result in threats, firing, or violence against them from the employer. There are numerous cases of children working in these factories.

There are cases of sexual harassment, sexual assault, genital mutilation, forces sterilization.

You have these people in third world countries who have had all their natural resources taken away by corporations and corrupt governemnts (usually the 2 support one another), and so they have literally nothing since all their land, and resources has been stripped from them. They have no food, and they have nothing to buy food with. The only thing they have is to sell their lives away for the chance to barely make enough to buy food to live. Eventually the standard of living increases a little and the people there are able to start making a little more money at these jobs. At this point the company decides it is no longer worth it to continue operations, so they close down the factory and move on to the next ultra poor country with ultra cheap labor. Meanwhile those people in the original country go back to dying of starvation. This cycle repeats ad infinum.

I think I agree with this.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have some kind of planet-wide regulatory system that could ensure basic human rights in all countries, basic labour laws and minimum wages? Maybe this global authority could somehow impose restrictions on multi-national corporations and force them to treat their workers as if they were human beings no matter what country they were born in...

Hmmm I wonder what such a planet-wide global regulatory body might be called and what it would use for money?


Pure Evil obviously.:deconfus:

[The_Animus]

I agree in part. Since the "rich and powerful" are, in fact, people just like me, I do not find it at all unlikely that they do pretty much the same thing you and I do: Make connections with our peers, and gain benefits from those connections. Nor do I find it all unlikely that they, like you and me, would like to influence society and so forth.

What I find somewhat disgusting is your offhanded distinction between "the rich and powerful" and "the people".

I'm sorry if this was misconstrued as all rich and powerful people are evil and not in line with the needs and wants of everyone else. It's all about context. In this case I meant the rich and powerful who use their financial and influenctial assets for their own selfish purposes at the expense of the people. And in this instance my use of "the people" was meant to signifiy the poor, and lower wage working class.

[theprestige]

In this case I meant the rich and powerful who use their financial and influenctial assets for their own selfish purposes at the expense of the people. And in this instance my use of "the people" was meant to signifiy the poor, and lower wage working class.
Yeah, only with very few exceptions, we all behave this way. Man's inhumanity to man transcends race, creed, and class. Not counting the occasional tyrant or despot, I think you'll find that most of your "rich and powerful" exploiters of "the people" are not nearly as exploitative as you assume; are in fact some of the world's greatest philanthropists; and--wealth aside--are vastly more humanitarian than the hordes of pimps, slavers, wife-beaters and other "poor and lower wage working class" people who need very little money at all to commit horrible crimes against humanity every day.

[The_Animus]

That is true. All people are capable and indeed do cause harm to other people. However, it is rare that a lower class individual has the ability to harm thousands if not tens of thousands of people at a time. Also it is true that many rich and powerful people are charitable and make donations or do other things which benefit society. Though as a ratio of income I wonder how much a rich person donates compared to a low income person. A man may donate 1 million dollars, but have 100 million. I may donate $35 but only have 5000. I gave far more of what I could than the person who gave a million even though they gave far more dollars than me.

Also I've noticed that often companies or a rich person who works for a company will donate a large amount of money, but that amount is next to nothing compared to the damage the company causes. For example Royal dutch oil may donate 1 million to help the environment, but then they also knowlingly cause billions of dollars in environmental damage they don't pay for.

[six7s]

What would it take for you to believe?Rainbows in lawn sprinklers

[theprestige]

For example Royal dutch oil may donate 1 million to help the environment, but then they also knowlingly cause billions of dollars in environmental damage they don't pay for.
Evidence, please.

Also, please note that whatever the ratio of an oil company's charitable donations to the environmental harm it does, we've drifted pretty far from demonstrating any kind of soft or hard conspiracies by specific cabals of rich and powerful exploiters carrying out specific steps in pursuit of a specific long-term plan of world domination.

But whatever. Like I--and others--keep saying: All it would take for me to believe your allegations about Royal Dutch Oil... is evidence.

[Harpyja]

Will any cry for evidence be heard?

[The_Animus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Royal_Dutch_Shell

http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14202

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/25/oil.business

Google searches involving the word(s), Royal Dutch Oil, Shell, Pollution, Nigeria, Controvercy can give you all the evidence you need and takes about 5 seconds.

[six7s]

Google searches involving the word(s), Royal Dutch Oil, Shell, Pollution, Nigeria, Controvercy can give you all the evidence you need and takes about 5 seconds.

Spelling controversy correctly might yield better results ;)

Results 1 - 10 of about 3,090 for Royal Dutch Oil, Shell, Pollution, Nigeria, Controversy (0.17 seconds) (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=Royal+Dutch+Oil%2C+Shell%2C+Pollution%2C+Nigeria %2C+Controversy&btnG=Search) :)

[theprestige]

So what's your verdict, The_Animus? Is RDS conspiratorial, or opportunistic? If conspiratorial, to what extent? Are they part of a specific cabal carrying out specific "little steps" towards a specific long-term goal of world domination? Or are they simply conspiring to maximize profits for their shareholders?

[The_Animus]

I was just providing evidence that Royal Dutch causes massive amounts of environmental damage at the expense of others.

I think there exist groups of people who are in positions of large finances, media control, governement, or some other position of power and influence who work together towards some common goal whether that is more money, more power, or social change.

Whether you want to call that an inevitable consequence of the economic and governemnt systems in place or a conspiracy doesn't matter to me.

As to who is part of this group, what they want to accomplish, or the steps they are taking towards this, I have no idea and I don't see how I, or most everyone else would have access to that information.

People can link corporate money to government officials who help said businesses or advocate policy that is benefitial to big business. People can link government activity or capitalist interests to overthrows of foreign government, supplying arms and supplies to people we shouldn't have, or oppressing people in another country to support the interests of a company or companies. People can link media to disregarding facts in favour of supporting companies or government officials/parties.

There is a lot of highly suspect things that go on in the world. But most any of this can be explained away (even when the explanation makes little logical sense) and it is virtually impossible to prove conspiracy. Even people who may have been part of it at one point could defect and no one would believe them because it could just be claimed they are just trying to sell books or whatever. Which could very well be the case.

So ultimately I would say I believe in my description of "conspiracy" I outlined above, but I doubt that I would ever be able to prove such a thing.

[Sabrina]

What would it take for me to believe in a vast evil conspiracy to control the world?

Evidence. Short, sweet, and simple.



I do have one legitimate question, and I direct this at anyone willing to give it a decent amount of thought before answering it.

Why, pray tell, would it be a bad thing to have one currency and/or world government? I see most conspiracy theorists railing against the idea all the time, saying it's evil and will destroy the world, yadda yadda; but what if it didn't? What if it turned out well for everyone involved? Forgive the example, but if CT's can point to examples from Hollywood, by God so can I; what about Earth in the Star Trek movies? One world government there; seems to have done well for itself, isn't oppressing the people, science and technology are constantly being improved, independent thought is encouraged... the list goes on. So why is it always considered a BAD thing to have one world government? It could just as easily turn out to be a good thing, but no one ever comments on that, and I'd honestly like to know why that is. Please respond politely; thank you.

[six7s]

So why is it always considered a BAD thing to have one world government?My hunch - based on observing and at least trying to think about reality - is that 'fear of the unknown and the incomprehensible' is a driving factor

I reckon its fair to say that CTists have an over-developed sense of paranoia - on top of the 'normal' tendency that most of us have when it comes to blaming the amorphous 'them' for all and sundry

Compounding the fear is, I suspect, the notion that its impossible for central-government politicians to have their finger on the pulse of local issues

However, as the median intellectual age of CTists seems to be about eleventy, maybe the latter 'point' is wholly irrelevant

[The_Animus]

It very well could be the best thing to ever happen. It really would depend on many things. How the government would be set up, what kind of checks and balances there are, how information concerning this government is recorded and released, etc. If done well it could be excellent. The reason I think that so many people see it the other way around is because of one thing.

History.

History has repeatedly shown that massive power in the hands of a small group of people usually, though not always, leads to trouble. All humans have the capacity from time to time, some more than others, to act irrationally, to be greedy, to want as much money, power, and social influence as possible.

Another issue is freedom. One world government means one world society. One culture. One set of laws, rules, and regulations by which all individuals must abide. If I don't like certain laws in the US, or certain actions being taken by the US government towards its citizens or towards the rest of the world I have the ability to go to another country which does things differently. Under one world government I have nowhere to go. I am born into a life where everything I can and cannot do has already been decided for me without my conscent. In the extreme sense some could consider this being born into slavery.

ETA: I should point out that my personal feelings are mixed. Humanity brings me both continual disappointment and continual surprise at the good it is capable of. While from day to day my outlook can change from dismal to hopeful I would say that overall I'm hopeful for humanity and what it can be. Our technological progress outpaces our moral progress, or maybe our wisdom would be a better way to put it. Ultimately I think it will be a race to see whether we learn to use our technology wisely and live in mutual cooperation or destroy the planet and ourselves. I'm hoping for the former.

[six7s]

One world government means one world society. One culture. One set of laws, rules, and regulations by which all individuals must abideNot necessarily

See:

apartheid South Africa
pre-suffrage everywhere
have-to-over-XX-years-old-to-vote anywhere
etc

[The Platypus]

At this point for me to believe anything a 9/11 cult minion says is tough.

I have seen so much lying, trickery, manipulation, deception along with every snake oil salesman trick in the book, constantly deployed by just about every one of them I have ever seen online or off.

I have seen too many of them spew so many ridiculous stories that are so riddled with nonsense and paranoia, that are so far beyond the realm of even possibility I can't help but think they have mental issues.

I have seen too many of them resort to some of the most immature and arrogant behaviour imaginable and actually think it supports their case.

Their paranoia is so profound that if you don't just believe whatever they try too feed you right off the cuff, you are instantly demonized and must be either "in on it" or you are accused of being in such love with the gov't and media that you believe everything they say wholeheartly. There are no other options in their minds. Not to mention this idea so many of them seem to have that the gov't is actively out to get them online, in the media, etc. speaks to their severe paranoia and delusions.

The whole thing is just the old "it's the jews" with a religious cult like wrapper on it. It's the same crap that racist idiots have long been saying for ages. How Jews control the world, jews control the US gov't, jews control the money and financial systems, jews control the media etc... and they are all out to get you!

9/11 cults say, An evil "group" controls the world, The evil group is also in control of the US gov't, the bankers and financiers are also in the evil group, the media controlled by the evil group, etc... and they are all out to get you! Sounds all too familiar...

After seeing this vast and consistant amount of delusion, dishonesty and paranoia, it would take a significant amount of seriously solid evidence for me to believe anything they say at all.

[The_Animus]

Not necessarily


See:

apartheid South Africa
pre-suffrage everywhere
have-to-over-XX-years-old-to-vote anywhere
etc


I'm not sure what your point is. I can see that technically there are different rules, but I don't see how having one government with a single set of rules for most people and discrimination for certain groups makes the situation any better...

[six7s]

I'm not sure what your point is. I can see that technically there are different rules, but I don't see how having one government with a single set of rules for most people and discrimination for certain groups makes the situation any better...Whoops!

I didn't mean to suggest 'better', merely 'possible'

eta

or, rather, 'not necessarily "One culture. One set of laws, rules, and regulations"'

[Cl1mh4224rd]

One world government means one world society. One culture. One set of laws, rules, and regulations by which all individuals must abide.


That's not even true in the United States. You don't have to look any further the current gay marriage hullabaloo going on to realize that...

[The_Animus]

That's not even true in the United States. You don't have to look any further the current gay marriage hullabaloo going on to realize that...

This is true. However this is also an instance of a concept which is undergoing change. Give it 5-10 years and I bet all of the US will either allow or ban gay marriage. My money is on allow.

Individual states do have their own laws and regulations, but all states are generally required to abide by the overarching federal laws. For instance if I think paying taxes is wrong there is nowhere in the US I can move to and legally choose not to pay taxes. Unless I don't work I suppose, though that creates a whole new set of issues.

Like I said originally it really all depends on how the world government would be set up. I was just voicing one of the concerns.

[theprestige]

I think there exist groups of people who are in positions of large finances, media control, governement, or some other position of power and influence who work together towards some common goal whether that is more money, more power, or social change...

As to who is part of this group, what they want to accomplish, or the steps they are taking towards this, I have no idea and I don't see how I, or most everyone else would have access to that information.
See, it's these two clauses that make your position untenable to me: You say that you believe a certain thing is happening. Then you say that you have no concrete evidence for this belief, and no way of getting this evidence.

Meanwhile, I find evidence of conspiracies all the time. Watergate. Iran-Contra. Illegal campaign donations. Corrupt politicians and corporate executives. These things happen. And these things leave evidence. Witnesses. Documents. Effects with clear causes. I'm even willing to stipulate that there's probably some kind of criminal conspiracy going on right now that we don't have evidence for. And I'm even willing to stipulate that there are criminal conspiracies past, present, and future, for which we will never have evidence--some, even, that we will never suspect.

But what I'm not willing to stipulate is that there is a specific conspiracy for which we have no evidence.

You want to claim that RDS perpetrates shenanigans? No problem: You actually have evidence that supports that claim. And to the extent that the evidence supports that claim, I'm perfectly willing to accept that claim.

You want to claim believe that an elite cabal of rich and powerful are working together to carry out a coordinated series of "little steps" to accomplish a coordinated long-term goal of world domination? show me the evidence. Not the speculation. Not the "other conspiracies happen, therefore this one is happening". Not the connect-the-dots. The evidence. I mentioned Iran-Contra earlier. You know how we know about Iran-Contra? Because of evidence.

[Sabrina]

Okay, I've heard from the skeptic side about my question... now how about it truthers? Any of you want to tackle the notion that a one world government might NOT be a bad thing? Or at least want to tell me (citing evidence please) why it IS a bad thing?

[Aidoneus]

I think part of it has to do with how seriously CTists take the Georgia Guidestones to show the NWO's agenda.

From what I can tell, it's not so much the one world government itself, but what they believe said government will do.

[Tailgater]

Ironically, believing there is such a thing as the "global elite" goes completely against the critical thinking you described. The conception of a dichotomy of "the elites" versus "everyone else" is a conspiracy creation in order to give meaning and purpose to believing in conspiracy - because "the elite" represents all things evil and diabolical in the world. Of course, when we actually look at the world we see that there are no true elite. Those in power routinely fall from it, those with wealth routinely lose it, those with fame are routinely relegated into irrelevancy. For the conspiracy concept of "the elite" to be real there would have to be some group that stays wealthy, in power, or has fame. It doesn't exist. People with those things rise and fall and have done so throughout history and will continue to do so.

good post

[Sabrina]

I think part of it has to do with how seriously CTists take the Georgia Guidestones to show the NWO's agenda.

From what I can tell, it's not so much the one world government itself, but what they believe said government will do.

Yes, but my question still stands with this; they don't KNOW that the one world government will attempt to oppress people. Why don't they ever consider the opposite side of the coin, that it may actually benefit the people of the world? I have yet to see a truther (or a skeptic, for that matter, but since they're usually responding TO a truther, it's understandable) consider the possibility that it could benefit people to have one government for the entire world. I'd like to know why that is.

[lionking]

I've waded through this whole thread waiting for Hamelekim to make another contribution. Out there anywhere?

[Tippit]

If they are so brilliantly secretive, and can manipulate so many events AND keep everything hidden from everybody except a few internet basement dwellers, why don't they just take over right now? Why has it taken so long?



Because at that point, their power would end. True power is and must always be anonymous, otherwise it can be held to account.

[Lonewulf]

Because at that point, their power would end. True power is and must always be anonymous, otherwise it can be held to account.

By this argument, 4chan is the most powerful force on Earth.

[theprestige]

By this argument, 4chan is the most powerful force on Earth.
Actually, that would explain a lot.

[The_Animus]

Meanwhile, I find evidence of conspiracies all the time. Watergate. Iran-Contra. Illegal campaign donations. Corrupt politicians and corporate executives. These things happen. And these things leave evidence. Witnesses. Documents. Effects with clear causes. I'm even willing to stipulate that there's probably some kind of criminal conspiracy going on right now that we don't have evidence for. And I'm even willing to stipulate that there are criminal conspiracies past, present, and future, for which we will never have evidence--some, even, that we will never suspect.

But what I'm not willing to stipulate is that there is a specific conspiracy for which we have no evidence.

You want to claim believe that an elite cabal of rich and powerful are working together to carry out a coordinated series of "little steps" to accomplish a coordinated long-term goal of world domination? show me the evidence. Not the speculation. Not the "other conspiracies happen, therefore this one is happening". Not the connect-the-dots. The evidence. I mentioned Iran-Contra earlier. You know how we know about Iran-Contra? Because of evidence.

Many government actions were not known at the time and only came to light many years later when documents became declassified. As you've said for all the ones we did find out about there are probably more which we never will. I read an interesting article this semester in my english 200 class about how historians are having a harder time piecing together the events and histories of recent presidents, the goings on of the white house, and other government areas because of the digital age. In the past there were far more paper trails and these documents were used to uncover much information that would otherwise not have been known. So the written letter from someone in power to someone else was able to come to light. Now it's just an e-mail, or a call, or a text and the content of that will never be recovered. Much of the evidence which you ask for may not physically exist anymore. It will be interesting to see what, if anything, comes out in the next 40 years.

Okay, I've heard from the skeptic side about my question... now how about it truthers? Any of you want to tackle the notion that a one world government might NOT be a bad thing? Or at least want to tell me (citing evidence please) why it IS a bad thing?

I guess for this particular topic I'm not really a skeptic or a truther. I'm somewhere in the middle. Nonetheless I think the arguments I gave for why it might be a bad thing is what truthers would say.

[The_Animus]

On a little bit of a tangent...

You may have read in some of the other business threads concerning the current financial debacle that the argument of incredible stupidity and ignorance shouldn't be used over greed as an explanation for what happened.

Concering events like 9/11, and the reasons for the war in Iraq which do you feel is a more likely explanation, incredible stupidy and failure of intelligence information from one of the most advanced intelligence gathering nations on the planet or that they had accurate information, knew what was going on, and simply chose not to act on or reveal it?

*Note* I'm not talking about whether the government was involved in 9/11 or used controlled demo or anything like that, just the knowledge that the attacks were coming that day.

[theprestige]

On a little bit of a tangent...

You may have read in some of the other business threads concerning the current financial debacle that the argument of incredible stupidity and ignorance shouldn't be used over greed as an explanation for what happened.

Concering events like 9/11, and the reasons for the war in Iraq which do you feel is a more likely explanation, incredible stupidy and failure of intelligence information from one of the most advanced intelligence gathering nations on the planet or that they had accurate information, knew what was going on, and simply chose not to act on or reveal it?

*Note* I'm not talking about whether the government was involved in 9/11 or used controlled demo or anything like that, just the knowledge that the attacks were coming that day.
There are plenty of threads in the 9/11 Conspiracies section that discuss the "Let It Happen On Purpose" theory, so I won't belabor it here. In brief:

1. I see no reason to assume that any intel-gathering nation, no matter how advanced, cannot be subverted by a clever and dedicated opponent.

2. There is plenty of evidence, both circumstantial and arising from several in-depth investigations, to support the conclusion that none of these nations were "advanced" enough to catch this conspiracy before it unfolded.

3. There is a spectacular lack of evidence that any of these "advanced" intel-gatherers had any concrete information about this conspiracy before it unfolded.

Once again, we're back to a question of evidence. See how that works?

[Belz...]

Are we on about the NWO and 9/11 again ?

People, that is SO 2003...

[sanguine]

Concering events like 9/11, and the reasons for the war in Iraq which do you feel is a more likely explanation, incredible stupidy and failure of intelligence information from one of the most advanced intelligence gathering nations on the planet or that they had accurate information, knew what was going on, and simply chose not to act on or reveal it?


The first. I know people who work or have worked in more than one of our intelligence agencies. They are large organizations, with all the issues that entails.

If Amazon can accidentally yank 50,000 titles from its ranking because someone set a True/False flag incorrectly, does it seem odd that people in several large, slow-moving organizations with more intelligence information than they have people who speak the appropriate languages could miss a handful of dudes in flight school?

People who believe in CTs massively overstate the coherence of every human organization, ever.

But that's a simplifying assumption that makes them feel better about their understanding of the world, so there you go.

[The_Animus]

I'll come back to the information failure later when I have more time.

For now there was a good clip on the Daily Show last night that illustrates why I think there are group(s) working together as I've described in earlier posts.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224259&title=clusterfu#@k-to-the-poor-house

It's about 1 minute into that clip that it starts talking about Goldman Sachs. This isn't evidence of conspiracy. It just raises suspicions. (The next part with guest Elizabeth Warren is good too)

I understand what you are saying though, that there is no evidence towards a specific group, towards a specific goal, with specific small steps. And in regards to that you are absolutely correct that there is no concrete evidence. There is only evidence of smaller things which breeds suspicion of conspiracy.

[theprestige]

I'll come back to the information failure later when I have more time.

For now there was a good clip on the Daily Show last night that illustrates why I think there are group(s) working together as I've described in earlier posts.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=224259&title=clusterfu#@k-to-the-poor-house

It's about 1 minute into that clip that it starts talking about Goldman Sachs. This isn't evidence of conspiracy. It just raises suspicions. (The next part with guest Elizabeth Warren is good too)

I understand what you are saying though, that there is no evidence towards a specific group, towards a specific goal, with specific small steps. And in regards to that you are absolutely correct that there is no concrete evidence. There is only evidence of smaller things which breeds suspicion of conspiracy.
For those of us not in a position to engage in "debate via youtube", do you think you could summarize the argument or claim made in the video?

[The_Animus]

For those of us not in a position to engage in "debate via youtube", do you think you could summarize the argument or claim made in the video?

For those not engaged in the counter thread to this thread, the gist of the video I linked to above and an explanation of how it relates to the topic can be found here...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4632999&postcount=229

I may still get back to the information failure I brought up in a previous post when other obligations are dealt with.

[richman2112]

Hello, this is my fist ever post in JREF so I think I shall make it long and a little controversial. HEHEHE I have been reading a lot of different forums so as to get the mindset and gist of the people here. This post has been the first to spark enough interest so far for me to reply. First, I would like to address the conspiracy theory stuff. I think ct's are a good thing as a whole and help to create a healthy nation. It's funny how a lot of skeptics so readily dismiss them and seem to regard them as a "bad" thing to have. I disagree with this, people like Alex Jones may be out there in left field on a lot of issues, and they may even be nuts,but they do a good service to a free country by creating a good healthy skepticism of the government. What is the point of relishing the fact we live in a free society if there is no one out there demonizing the government and fostering distrust of them. That is the entire concept behind a free press and yet the press no longer seems to adhere to these principles. The ct's are just the regular people taking up the job that the press continuously fails to do anymore. The problem is the regular people, as a whole, are kinda stupid and so their "news" tends to veer into the realms of stupidity as well. But, as far as I'm concerned the ct "news" serves more of a purpose than a good bit of the regular news does. The ct news creates distrust of our leaders by demonizing them, the regular news usually creates a distrust of our neighbor by showing some stupid car chase from another state. Now I know that a case can be made that some ct's (such as 911) can cause undo harm to the victims and upset them or some other scenario like that but I say only if the victims decide to read it. It is the same as TV shows that are "bad" for kids, you should not let the kids watch stuff if you don't approve so I consider that an invalid concept. Also, the ct's surrounding 911 are no worse than the government using the terror that people felt to start a war with Iraq and to pass legislation which was harmful to our civil liberties. Regardless of what kind of belief one adheres to the simple fact of the matter is that the bush administration took advantage of 911 just as much as all the ct's did. Often the biggest harm that comes from these theories is it causes uninformed people to research their founding fathers and learn more about their countries' origins and their constitution (how awful!). Yeah, you can say that it causes people to wear foil on their head and become paranoid, but the regular news causes people to buy millions of rolls of duct tape and put plastic on their windows to keep out the anthrax. There are people all over this country who readily wish to attack anyone wearing a turban, and most of them got their paranoia from the mainstream news. So, as far as I'm concerned kudos to all the foil headed whack jobs out there who give the mainstream press some competition, may their aliens come down and save us all from HAARP ! Now as far as a one world government goes I only accept the concept if it is based on OUR constitution. Civil liberties cannot be up for negotiation, I would dread going to a system of government dependence and being unarmed like that of Europe. Just like Animus said, we would all be born into slavery and bondage. Our liberties are the only things that would prevent an entity as large as a world government from becoming a tyranny. I seem to see so many dismiss the concept of a government turning tyrannical and my question is simply "what do you base that assumption on?" Do you base it on history? Do you base it on human nature? Do you base it on evolution? Or do you simply engage in wishful thinking? History shows that democratic countries always have to do their time with tyranny and a one world government would certainly make it easier to enslave the planet if there were a people willing to try. Human nature certainly denies the concept that the government is just trying to help simply because every large scale system humans have is based on or ends up as the few dictating to the many what is best for them and most often it is the belief of divine or social "right" to do so. The majority of governments end up as this, economics also follows this pattern as does religion and social networks. Evolution certainly denies this as most in the animal kingdom rule based on dominance. So one has to ask the question"are we evolved enough to have a one world government without it turning into a totalitarian state or an oligarchy?" Personally I'm not so sure we are their yet.

[The_Animus]

Richman2112 (http://forums.randi.org/member.php?u=31647) welcome to the forum! :)

That was a very nice first post and I think you make a good point about the current roles that the mass media and alternative media play in our society.

[Elizabeth I]

Hello, this is my fist ever post in JREF so I think I shall make it long and a little controversial. HEHEHE I have been reading a lot of different forums so as to get the mindset and gist of the people here. This post has been the first to spark enough interest so far for me to reply. First, I would like to address the conspiracy theory stuff. I think ct's are a good thing as a whole and help to create a healthy nation. It's funny how a lot of skeptics so readily dismiss them and seem to regard them as a "bad" thing to have. I disagree with this, people like Alex Jones may be out there in left field on a lot of issues, and they may even be nuts,but they do a good service to a free country by creating a good healthy skepticism of the government. What is the point of relishing the fact we live in a free society if there is no one out there demonizing the government and fostering distrust of them. That is the entire concept behind a free press and yet the press no longer seems to adhere to these principles. The ct's are just the regular people taking up the job that the press continuously fails to do anymore. The problem is the regular people, as a whole, are kinda stupid and so their "news" tends to veer into the realms of stupidity as well. But, as far as I'm concerned the ct "news" serves more of a purpose than a good bit of the regular news does. The ct news creates distrust of our leaders by demonizing them, the regular news usually creates a distrust of our neighbor by showing some stupid car chase from another state. Now I know that a case can be made that some ct's (such as 911) can cause undo harm to the victims and upset them or some other scenario like that but I say only if the victims decide to read it. It is the same as TV shows that are "bad" for kids, you should not let the kids watch stuff if you don't approve so I consider that an invalid concept. Also, the ct's surrounding 911 are no worse than the government using the terror that people felt to start a war with Iraq and to pass legislation which was harmful to our civil liberties. Regardless of what kind of belief one adheres to the simple fact of the matter is that the bush administration took advantage of 911 just as much as all the ct's did. Often the biggest harm that comes from these theories is it causes uninformed people to research their founding fathers and learn more about their countries' origins and their constitution (how awful!). Yeah, you can say that it causes people to wear foil on their head and become paranoid, but the regular news causes people to buy millions of rolls of duct tape and put plastic on their windows to keep out the anthrax. There are people all over this country who readily wish to attack anyone wearing a turban, and most of them got their paranoia from the mainstream news. So, as far as I'm concerned kudos to all the foil headed whack jobs out there who give the mainstream press some competition, may their aliens come down and save us all from HAARP ! Now as far as a one world government goes I only accept the concept if it is based on OUR constitution. Civil liberties cannot be up for negotiation, I would dread going to a system of government dependence and being unarmed like that of Europe. Just like Animus said, we would all be born into slavery and bondage. Our liberties are the only things that would prevent an entity as large as a world government from becoming a tyranny. I seem to see so many dismiss the concept of a government turning tyrannical and my question is simply "what do you base that assumption on?" Do you base it on history? Do you base it on human nature? Do you base it on evolution? Or do you simply engage in wishful thinking? History shows that democratic countries always have to do their time with tyranny and a one world government would certainly make it easier to enslave the planet if there were a people willing to try. Human nature certainly denies the concept that the government is just trying to help simply because every large scale system humans have is based on or ends up as the few dictating to the many what is best for them and most often it is the belief of divine or social "right" to do so. The majority of governments end up as this, economics also follows this pattern as does religion and social networks. Evolution certainly denies this as most in the animal kingdom rule based on dominance. So one has to ask the question"are we evolved enough to have a one world government without it turning into a totalitarian state or an oligarchy?" Personally I'm not so sure we are their yet.

Paragraphs Are Our Friends.

[richman2112]

Yes sorry about the giant run on sentence, for some reason i thought hitting enter would send the post early LOL it wont happen again:blush:

[Tailgater]

Yes sorry about the giant run on sentence, for some reason i thought hitting enter would send the post early LOL it wont happen again:blush:

Losing a really long post sucks.

[Elizabeth I]

Yes sorry about the giant run on sentence, for some reason i thought hitting enter would send the post early LOL it wont happen again:blush:

Losing a really long post sucks.

Having had that happen all too often, I agree and apologize.

[theprestige]

Personally I think that CTs create an unhealthy distrust. Better to know the truth and make well-informed decisions than believe a bunch of lunatic fantasies and lose track of reality altogether.

[richman2112]

Personally I think that CTs create an unhealthy distrust. Better to know the truth and make well-informed decisions than believe a bunch of lunatic fantasies and lose track of reality altogether.

I think that believing the government is a conspiracy laden tyrant full of secret societies and hidden agendas is far better than the millions upon millions of Christians being told by preachers that obama is the anti christ and a horrible evil demon is controlling the government with express written agenda of sending as many souls as possible to hell. At least the CT's arguments are actually possible. If the government did turn tyrannical the CT people would at least be useful because they have food and guns stocked. LOL The Christians are just going to hold their hands up and wait to be raptured. The christian ideas are far more loony and they outnumber the CT's by a whole lot.

[theprestige]

I think that believing the government is a conspiracy laden tyrant full of secret societies and hidden agendas is far better than the millions upon millions of Christians being told by preachers that obama is the anti christ and a horrible evil demon is controlling the government with express written agenda of sending as many souls as possible to hell. At least the CT's arguments are actually possible. If the government did turn tyrannical the CT people would at least be useful because they have food and guns stocked. LOL The Christians are just going to hold their hands up and wait to be raptured. The christian ideas are far more loony and they outnumber the CT's by a whole lot.
I'm sorry, but this is not what it would take for me to believe.

[richman2112]

I wasn't suggesting for you to believe, just saying that these CT nuts are mostly harmless and not worth alot of serious contempt

[theprestige]

I wasn't suggesting for you to believe, just saying that these CT nuts are mostly harmless and not worth alot of serious contempt
Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but what does this have to do with the topic of the thread?