What would it take for you to believe that there ISN'T a Vast Evil Conspiracy?

[stilicho]

Based on the responses I think we are actually largely, though not completely, in agreement and I think some of the disagreement is due to difficulty with semantics. In any case this was a good discussion, and so was the contra-thread to this one.

Everything except JihadJane's continued deception was perfectly fine.

Can't agree with you on that other contra-thread, though. The original poster went AWOL.

[JoeyDonuts]

Wow. Late to the party again. What would it take for me to believe?

I'll take two boxes of Thin Mints, please.


Okay, I already believe there isn't a Vast Evil ConspiracyTM.

Can I still have the Thin Mints?

[JihadJane]

Still playing the tired old "are you psychic?" card with more pointless quotations and stupid questions, I see. This **** gets old.

I'm sorry to keep aggravating your unusual punctuation allergy but I cannot agree with your assessment that this psychic "****'' is getting old. The pleasures of picking "facts" out of thin air are ageless and forever fresh.

[UNLoVedRebel]

I'm sorry to keep aggravating your unusual punctuation allergy but I cannot agree with your assessment that this psychic "****'' is getting old. The pleasures of picking "facts" out of thin air are ageless and forever fresh.

You aren't the only one who does this. Many Truthers think that if they just put thermal expansion in irony quotes, it somehow debunks the WTC 7 NIST Report. It's annoying when they do it; it's annoying when you do it. Please stop.

[Tippit]

The root cause of all financial crises, Tippit, is the tendency of human beings to gravitate towards the most attractive return on investment. If I offer you 10% return on your investment, I'm going to get more business than the Bank Of JihadJane that offers you a 3% return of investment.

That's just how the world works. Doesn't require any conspiracy whatsoever.



It's true that malinvestment doesn't require any conspiracy, but it's also true that investment requires capital, and when the primary source of capital originates from thin air, it's a cause for speculation.



You also explain that none of this is possible without a regulated money supply--without the egregious monetary inflation. That simply isn't true. If it were true then there never would have occurred speculative bubbles prior to the establishment of a regulated money supply. Yet, as we know, speculative bubbles traditionally wracked the economies of the Americas and Europe on a regular basis and in cycles that were predictable almost down to the degree of severity and the year in which they would occur.

The speculation as witnessed in the US stockmarket circa 1920-1929 could not have occurred without the corresponding monetary inflation - it would not have been possible at the same scope. The recent speculation which resulted in the doubling of US housing prices from 2000-2005 couldn't have occurred as it did without the Fed inflating the money supply. The "cycles" you refer to were actually predicted by the russian economist Kondratieff, and are the direct result of the fiat money fractional reserve banking system.

Speculation can occur for a number of reasons, but only monetary excess sets the stage for truly epic periods of boom and bust.

[Tippit]

Isn't Goldman Sachs raising equity to help repay its share of the bailout money? Maybe that's the missing piece of your puzzle. They've planned to repay it.

Lets assume they do repay it. What about the fact that they received billions of dollars at below market rates with the taxpayer assuming the risk? Who decided that Goldman Sachs was to become our economic overlord? If you loan me a half-trillion dollars for a day, I can virtually guarantee you I will become an instant billionaire, either if I pay you back in a timely fashion, or not at all. Whether mind-bogglingly large loans are ultimately paid back doesn't address the inequity of how the recipients of the loans are selected, or the enormous benefit of being selected. Shouldn't this be obvious?

[JihadJane]

You aren't the only one who does this. Many Truthers think that if they just put thermal expansion in irony quotes, it somehow debunks the WTC 7 NIST Report. It's annoying when they do it; it's annoying when you do it. Please stop.

Your annoyance is your problem, no-one else's.

Furthermore, I've never put "thermal expansion" in "irony quotes".

[stilicho]

It's true that malinvestment doesn't require any conspiracy, but it's also true that investment requires capital, and when the primary source of capital originates from thin air, it's a cause for speculation.

You could have stopped right before the first comma. Malinvestment doesn't require a conspiracy. Sufficient concentration of capital for the products of mechanisation and industrialisation requires institutions such as corporations and banks (or governments in the absence of corporations). I doubt you'll find an economist alive or dead who would disagree with me.

Speculation is simply the process of valuing assets or net income differently.

The speculation as witnessed in the US stockmarket circa 1920-1929 could not have occurred without the corresponding monetary inflation - it would not have been possible at the same scope. The recent speculation which resulted in the doubling of US housing prices from 2000-2005 couldn't have occurred as it did without the Fed inflating the money supply.

Right. Instead, local banks unencumbered by regulation would have inflated the money supply and accommodated speculation. Solvent banks would have come in and picked up the pieces. That's how things worked before central banking and regulation.

The Federal Reserve should have acted sooner than it did. So should have regulators. I'd read a brief by one of the member reserve institutions as early as 2001 warning of undercapitalised banks. I assume we are in agreement that the regulations are there but that the authority was not exercised as it should have.

Speculation can occur for a number of reasons, but only monetary excess sets the stage for truly epic periods of boom and bust.

And this is certainly one of the reasons for the decline in the value of the US dollar after the beginning of 2003. It seems there are more variables in a modern economic system than you are willing to account for. I am not sure why you concentrate only on the money supply.

Being the consummate conservative, I don't expect an adequate recovery until late 2010, so you can probably shelve your concerns for a couple of years. In the meantime, the gold reselling industry is booming. If you have the financing in place, you can probably pick up the stuff at 60 cents on the dollar.

[Tippit]

You could have stopped right before the first comma. Malinvestment doesn't require a conspiracy. Sufficient concentration of capital for the products of mechanisation and industrialisation requires institutions such as corporations and banks (or governments in the absence of corporations). I doubt you'll find an economist alive or dead who would disagree with me.



No, it doesn't require the existence of corporations in their current form, nor does it require the existence of banks in their current form. In fact, prior the Federal Reserve Act, most corporations in the United States were self-financing, having little to no need for the NY banks. The Fed changed all that with the cartelization of the banking system. Just because malinvestment doesn't require a conspiracy, doesn't mean conspiracy isn't the norm. For every "toxic asset" bought by the US taxpayer, there is a greedy banker making out like a bandit. The politicians who claim to represent the public are knowingly looting from the public, using the "too big to fail" scare tactic as an excuse.



Right. Instead, local banks unencumbered by regulation would have inflated the money supply and accommodated speculation. Solvent banks would have come in and picked up the pieces. That's how things worked before central banking and regulation.



Yes, because the only alternative to the Federal Reserve System and bank regulation is narrowly defined by you.



The Federal Reserve should have acted sooner than it did. So should have regulators. I'd read a brief by one of the member reserve institutions as early as 2001 warning of undercapitalised banks. I assume we are in agreement that the regulations are there but that the authority was not exercised as it should have.



Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Maybe they'll get it right the next time. Or, it will all be forgotten in a generation or two.



And this is certainly one of the reasons for the decline in the value of the US dollar after the beginning of 2003. It seems there are more variables in a modern economic system than you are willing to account for. I am not sure why you concentrate only on the money supply.



Because supply is relatively important in the supply/demand model. Go figure.



Being the consummate conservative, I don't expect an adequate recovery until late 2010, so you can probably shelve your concerns for a couple of years. In the meantime, the gold reselling industry is booming. If you have the financing in place, you can probably pick up the stuff at 60 cents on the dollar.

That's great, but my basis in gold is 27 cents on the dollar.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Your annoyance is your problem, no-one else's.

Furthermore, I've never put "thermal expansion" in "irony quotes".

It took you a week to come up with that lame response? At least Ultima1 and homeland incoherency get their trolling done in one session.

[JihadJane]

It took you a week to come up with that lame response? At least Ultima1 and homeland incoherency get their trolling done in one session.

Have you given up content?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Stop trolling, JihadJane.

[The Platypus]

What would it take for you to believe that there ISN'T a Vast Evil Conspiracy?

From what I have seen, many of them are so deep into their paranoid delusions that it will take professional mental help.

[1337m4n]

What would it take for you to believe that there ISN'T a Vast Evil Conspiracy?

From what I have seen, many of them are so deep into their paranoid delusions that it will take professional mental help.

That may be the best answer. I say that because whenever Truthers describe some event as being caused by some conspiracy, they always have a "heads I win, tails you lose" attitude towards things. For instance:

Stock market goes down? The NWO did it.
Stock market goes up? The NWO did it.

Gas prices go up? The NWO did it.
Gas prices fall? The NWO did it.

Bush will impose martial law and stay in office forever, thanks to the NWO.
Obama wins in a fair election? The NWO did it.

There will be a false-flag attack before the election, done by the NWO.
There wasn't? The story itself was just clever disinfo by the NWO.

Swine Flu? It's gonna kill us all, because the NWO want us all dead.
It wasn't so bad after all? Just NWO fearmongering to distract from their evil plans.


That's why I would really, really like to know, just what standards I need to meet before Truthers will concede that there ISN'T a Vast Evil Conspiracy. How is one supposed to falsify these conspiracy theories? Seven pages and no real answers, unless you count unrealistic demands for things I can't do and that will never happen.

[stilicho]

No, it doesn't require the existence of corporations in their current form, nor does it require the existence of banks in their current form. In fact, prior the Federal Reserve Act, most corporations in the United States were self-financing, having little to no need for the NY banks. The Fed changed all that with the cartelization of the banking system. Just because malinvestment doesn't require a conspiracy, doesn't mean conspiracy isn't the norm. For every "toxic asset" bought by the US taxpayer, there is a greedy banker making out like a bandit. The politicians who claim to represent the public are knowingly looting from the public, using the "too big to fail" scare tactic as an excuse.

Have you ever seen the financial statements of a nineteenth-century company? There was no P&L. Depreciation of assets was non-existent. Independent auditing was virtually unheard of.

Is this really your alternative to modern accounting?

It sounds from your last sentence that you just don't like paying taxes. Welcome to the club. Just don't extrapolate that into a fantasy world about how much better things were (they weren't) in an era that you scarcely understand.

Yes, because the only alternative to the Federal Reserve System and bank regulation is narrowly defined by you.

Not my job to support an alternative. It's yours.

That's great, but my basis in gold is 27 cents on the dollar.

You're reselling at that valuation? Honestly, that is impressive. We can only get about 60 to 70 per cent profit. It's a really great time to be retailing the stuff.

[stilicho]

Stop trolling, JihadJane.

In case you haven't noticed, most of JihadJane's JREF posts are on purpose-built trolling threads (3-word, 9-word, etc add-ons). This version happens to be its 5-word trolling thread.

[Galileo]

We've answered your "what would it take" question, (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=139111) now it's time for all you conspiracy theorists to answer ours.

What would it take for you to believe that there ISN'T some elite cabal that secretly controls all world affairs and has numerous secret evil plans to build concentration camps and etc etc etc.

What counter-evidence would you accept? What would convince you that there is no all-powerful "NWO"?

Rational theories have falsifiability. If there is nothing in your infinite imagination that could possibly falsify your theory, then it is not a "theory" at all; it is superstition and religion.

some common sense on the JREF forum.

:eek:

[JihadJane]

Stop trolling, JihadJane.

Is that you conspiracy theory, Cl1mh4224rd?

[QUOTE=stilicho;4675900]In case you haven't noticed, most of JihadJane's JREF posts

[rambaldi]

Quite telling, only two Conspiracists dared to answer... I wonder why...

[se7ensnakes]

If people were educated to the mechanics of money creation in high school, would let me believe that maybe there is not a conspiracy. But that is not what is. If you go to cashiers around the country and ask them if they accept federal reserve notes very few will know what a federal reserve note is. Most people have no clue what fractional reserve banking is, or how money is created. The day i see sustain criticsm of the federal reserve board of governors making headlilnes, or the end of fractional reserve banking to 100% reserve banking...then I will admit there is no conspiracy.

[se7ensnakes]

it is not that the stock market goes up or that it goes down, but having privilige information as to when it is going to go up or down.

[se7ensnakes]

You have to be blind not to see how banks control lawmakers. Banks, in fact, are priviliged. Let me site an example.
In the town I live there are many foreclosures. The Federal Government sent money to the county to create jobs, but also to maintain the foreclosed properties. Now I am real estate investor and many of the homeowners that could not service the money owed to me left so I had to file bankruptcy. Meanwhile the county is ready to fine me if i dont maintain the grass, keep the home looking respectable. But the banks get a free handout from the federal government and the county to maintain the property, mow the lawn, go inside and fix the dry wall, etc. The banks dont have to pay but i do. We are both private entities, why is one privilige and the other is not?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

O.o

Who are you talking to...?

[LightinDarkness]

O.o

Who are you talking to...?

I think most CTers just like to see their words in print. It makes them feel like they are doing something against those

eeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllll llllllllllllllll

banks, governments, corporations, and all the other shadowy groups which conspire and plot to keep them down.

[JihadJane]

I think most CTers just like to see their words in print. It makes them feel like they are doing something against those

eeeeeeeeeeeeevvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllllll llllllllllllllll

banks, governments, corporations, and all the other shadowy groups which conspire and plot to keep them down.

Yes, it's weird because banks, governments, corporations and boys clubs are gggggggggggggggooooooooooooooooooooooooooodddddddd dddddddd.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Your annoyance is your problem, no-one else's.

Furthermore, I've never put "thermal expansion" in "irony quotes".

You've put progressive collapse in irony quotes, which is even more deliciously stupid.

[1337m4n]

If people were educated to the mechanics of money creation in high school, would let me believe that maybe there is not a conspiracy. But that is not what is.

Lessons in basic grammar and sentence structure are given in elementary school, not high school.

If you go to cashiers around the country and ask them if they accept federal reserve notes very few will know what a federal reserve note is.

Did you actually TRY asking cashiers if they accept federal reserve notes?

If you did, the confused stares they gave you were because of the absurdity of your question, not because they didn't know the answer ("hello, do you accept dollar bills?" durrrr).

If you didn't, then you have no evidence for your claim.

Most people have no clue what fractional reserve banking is, or how money is created.

Least of all conspiracy theorists. I will bet that you had never even heard the phrase "fractional reserve banking" until you heard your favorite conspiracy peddler use the phrase. Me, I learned it in high school Economics, which was a MANDATORY class at my school.

it is not that the stock market goes up or that it goes down, but having privilige information as to when it is going to go up or down.

Your grammar is so poor that I can't even begin to guess at what you're talking about. When you use a pronoun, the noun that the pronoun refers to should appear somewhere in the same paragraph. What is "it"?

You have to be blind not to see how banks control lawmakers. Banks, in fact, are priviliged. Let me site an example.
In the town I live there are many foreclosures. The Federal Government sent money to the county to create jobs, but also to maintain the foreclosed properties. Now I am real estate investor and many of the homeowners that could not service the money owed to me left so I had to file bankruptcy. Meanwhile the county is ready to fine me if i dont maintain the grass, keep the home looking respectable. But the banks get a free handout from the federal government and the county to maintain the property, mow the lawn, go inside and fix the dry wall, etc. The banks dont have to pay but i do. We are both private entities, why is one privilige and the other is not?

Judging by your terrible grammar, it's probably because you're an illegal immigrant.

[LightinDarkness]

Yes, it's weird because banks, governments, corporations and boys clubs are gggggggggggggggooooooooooooooooooooooooooodddddddd dddddddd.

False dichotomy logical fallacy.

You've been debunked...again. Going for the world record?

[abenja1]

Yes, it's weird because banks, governments, corporations and boys clubs are gggggggggggggggooooooooooooooooooooooooooodddddddd dddddddd.

Since this thread has come back, I will ask you again, where is your evidence that the NY Times was major mouthpiece for the Bush admin? You probably won't answer, which I'll assume is your way of saying "I love to slander and libel and lie about everyone who I don't like."

[JihadJane]

Since this thread has come back, I will ask you again, where is your evidence that the NY Times was major mouthpiece for the Bush admin? You probably won't answer, which I'll assume is your way of saying "I love to slander and libel and lie about everyone who I don't like."

Read it.

Enjoy your assumptions.

[JihadJane]

Since this thread has come back, I will ask you again, where is your evidence that the NY Times was major mouthpiece for the Bush admin? You probably won't answer, which I'll assume is your way of saying "I love to slander and libel and lie about everyone who I don't like."




It just struck me that maybe you have forgotten why I ignore your endless, solipsistic pleadings, abenja1. The realization filled me with pity.

I have decided to grant you a small temporary, amnesty and give you a couple of scraps to sate your hunger, illustrating the New York Times' Bush mouthpiece role:

'Mumbai, the NYT's revisionism, and lessons not learned'

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/28/nyt/


'The New York Times' Disgraceful Role as a Bush Mouthpiece against Venezuela'

http://alterdestiny.blogspot.com/2008/11/new-york-times-disgraceful-role-as-bush.html


You could also read this recent article:

'E-Mail Surveillance Renews Concerns in Congress',

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?_r=4&hp

linked to by Carolyn Baker ( http://carolynbaker.net ) under the heading:

'US GOVERNMENT HAS TOTAL EMAIL SURVEILLANCE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION'

and this response to her heading and the article:

"Your heading is no doubt absolutely true. And, given that fact, this NYT article is a very good example of the subtlety of the deception of such an article and of the “independence” of the NYT in general.

Nowhere in the article does it even imply that ALL our Email communications are being examined in the sense of being passed thru filters with certain data-mining capabilities and (probably) archived.

Starting with the no-doubt-correct assumption that ALL of them are in fact being examined, the NYT article gives the following deceptive subtext:


That the NSA is a legitimate, benign governmental body working to keep us safe;

That the Congress has real oversight power of what the NSA is doing;

That there is an independent court-structure in place to protect the people from blanket surveillance;

That the “war on terror” is a legitimate undertaking simply concerned with the protection of the American people;

That the NY Times is an independent “watchdog” news source, reporting on possible violations of law by the NSA.


There are probably more, but that’s just off the top of my head. I thought this was a good example of how the propaganda ministry works – how it targets the subconscious while relating predominantly factual information on the surface, thus giving the impression of truth while brainwashing us with un-truth."


I hope this helps your studies. If you want any more, abenja1, you'll have to withdraw your deranged allegations. My pity has expired now!

:h2:

[stilicho]

'The New York Times' Disgraceful Role as a Bush Mouthpiece against Venezuela'

http://alterdestiny.blogspot.com/2008/11/new-york-times-disgraceful-role-as-bush.html


At the same time, the New York Times was instrumental in revealing alleged Bush Administration ties to the failed coup plotters:

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/17/world/us-cautioned-leader-of-plot-against-chavez.html

So is this the same New York Times you claim to be the mouthpiece of the Bush Administration? It appears, if anything, that the New York Times prints news on its front page (the article I showed you on the same coup attempt) and opinions on its opinion pages.

I expect you'll withdraw your impudent accusations immediately.

[LightinDarkness]

It just struck me that maybe you have forgotten why I ignore your endless, solipsistic pleadings, abenja1. The realization filled me with pity.

Actually, the real reason is because you can't prove the assertion, because you made it up.

[JihadJane]

Actually, the real reason is because you can't prove the assertion, because you made it up.

Wrong.

[LightinDarkness]

Wrong.

Actually, you saying something is "wrong" is usually a good indication that people are, in fact, quite right.

[dudalb]

I think Jihad Jane is coming from the viewpoint that everything and everybody in the "Establishment" is part of a evil conspiracy to oppress "The People" and all the infighting we see between the Dems and GOP, etc, are just a puppet show to distract people from THE TRUTH.
Thus she has no problem with saying that a paper like the NYT which has shown considerable hostility to the Bush Adminsitration is really supporting the Bush administration. This kind of baloney is a very common belief among the CTers, as most of you know.
I would really like Jihad Jane to explain exactly what the hell her solutions to our problems are. I think it is some wierd form of Anarchy, but I'm not sure.

[UNLoVedRebel]

She knows 9/11 conspiracy theories are stupid. But a conspiracy theory in which you can blame the American and the Jews! Too good for her to pass up.

[JihadJane]

Actually, you saying something is "wrong" is usually a good indication that people are, in fact, quite right.

Whatever. In this case, you are wrong. Your psychic powers have failed you.

[abenja1]

It just struck me that maybe you have forgotten why I ignore your endless, solipsistic pleadings, abenja1. The realization filled me with pity.

I have decided to grant you a small temporary, amnesty and give you a couple of scraps to sate your hunger, illustrating the New York Times' Bush mouthpiece role:

'Mumbai, the NYT's revisionism, and lessons not learned'

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/28/nyt/


'The New York Times' Disgraceful Role as a Bush Mouthpiece against Venezuela'

http://alterdestiny.blogspot.com/2008/11/new-york-times-disgraceful-role-as-bush.html


You could also read this recent article:

'E-Mail Surveillance Renews Concerns in Congress',

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/us/17nsa.html?_r=4&hp

linked to by Carolyn Baker ( http://carolynbaker.net ) under the heading:

'US GOVERNMENT HAS TOTAL EMAIL SURVEILLANCE OF THE ENTIRE POPULATION'

and this response to her heading and the article:

"Your heading is no doubt absolutely true. And, given that fact, this NYT article is a very good example of the subtlety of the deception of such an article and of the “independence” of the NYT in general.

Nowhere in the article does it even imply that ALL our Email communications are being examined in the sense of being passed thru filters with certain data-mining capabilities and (probably) archived.

Starting with the no-doubt-correct assumption that ALL of them are in fact being examined, the NYT article gives the following deceptive subtext:


That the NSA is a legitimate, benign governmental body working to keep us safe;

That the Congress has real oversight power of what the NSA is doing;

That there is an independent court-structure in place to protect the people from blanket surveillance;

That the “war on terror” is a legitimate undertaking simply concerned with the protection of the American people;

That the NY Times is an independent “watchdog” news source, reporting on possible violations of law by the NSA.


There are probably more, but that’s just off the top of my head. I thought this was a good example of how the propaganda ministry works – how it targets the subconscious while relating predominantly factual information on the surface, thus giving the impression of truth while brainwashing us with un-truth."


I hope this helps your studies. If you want any more, abenja1, you'll have to withdraw your deranged allegations. My pity has expired now!

:h2:

Finally JJ. Thanks for posting something other than childish retorts. And trust me. You have more of my pity since you believe its funny when truthers make violent threats against debunkers, but back on topic.

I see no hard evidence from these articles saying that the NY Times is a mouthpiece of the Bush admin. These people who have written these articles seem to just not like coverage of certain stories. That is understandable.

However how about stories like Abu Gahrib, NSA Wiretap, CIA prisons etc... How did those stories help the Bush admin?

[stilicho]

I would really like Jihad Jane to explain exactly what the hell her solutions to our problems are. I think it is some wierd form of Anarchy, but I'm not sure.

JihadJane has expressed sympathy for Michael C Ruppert and intolerant outrage towards anyone who questions his credentials, his research methods, or his conclusions. These conclusions would include the removal of modern institutions and replacement with a sort of a Justice League of Inexperienced Ideologues and he's specified the Dalai Lama, Dick Gregory, and Helen Caldicott. One may also assume that these benevolent executioners will preside over the enforced population reduction that JihadJane has endorsed here several times.