I hate to sound like a Truther...

[Juustin]

I realize this isn't actually true, and probably sounds crazy and far-fetched, but sometimes I find myself entertaining the thought that the entire Truth Movement is a disinformation campaign against the left.

Basically, I'm what most people would consider a "liberal". I've never been a big fan of Bush (although Kerry was a bit too wishy washy for my tastes). I've been skeptical of the Iraq War since the first day it was mentioned, as I felt the reasoning behind it seemed rushed, and seemed to change every day.

However, lately, as I've spent too much time keeping an eye on the Truthers, I think *I'm* getting a little paranoid. I often listen to right wing radio (just because I don't agree with most of it doesn't mean it's not entertaining). Lately any time I hear a caller express an anti-war view, and they start to get worked up/emotional about it, I start to roll my eyes and think "Oh God, probably a truther...". Usually a few seconds later reality kicks in and I think to myself "Wait, I actually agree with this guy's point, and he hasn't really said anything that doesn't make sense, he's just worked up.."

Am I the only one, or has this happened to anyone else? At the end of the day my political views are still the same, I just find that any time I hear a left-leaning person talking (especially if they're young), my first reaction is "probably a truther".

I think the cause of most of it is that most of what the truther's say seems so out of left field, that it completely sounds like they're just trying to make people think they're dumb. I'm thinking about it more today because a truther who's on my myspace friends list (we went to high school together, she's a nice girl and all, and I'm sure she means well, but she's completely misguided) reposted a series of videos titled "Do you believe in coincidences". The beginning of the video mentioned that only 3 steel buildings have collapsed during fires, and do you think it's a coincidence that they fell on the same day, and were owned by the same person? As if to say "nothing else out of the ordinary going on, some people just hanging out on the street, and they happened to notice 3 buildings fall down out of the blue". I just started thinking "NO WAY DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THAT ARGUMENT MAKES SENSE".


OK, </rant>
It's sort of like the theory that Fred Phelps is actually a homosexual who's trying to discredit people who are against gay people.

[zombiebex]

I don't think they're that smart.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Although I understand what you are describing, I haven't experienced it myself. I suspect this is because I tend to just get frustrated with people being smacktards and mentally label them as such. Whereas, I tend to keep truther/twoofer/etc as more of a mental descriptor for someone who is beyond just being ignorant of the facts but continues to be willfully so.

To clarify:
person being worked up (as in your example) = [A]
A = [moron, smacktard, irrational, . . ., Worse]
Worse = [neo-nazi, truther, moon-hoaxer, homophobe, . . .]

Since I view "truthers" as being in a set, that is a subset of A I don't tend to mentally stick somebody in it right away.

It's a more "exclusive" label in my mind. :D

[GreNME]

Since the core "leadership" of most of the truther movements out there are certainly not left-of-center-- I'm talking AJ and similar "constitutionalist" mouthpieces-- I don't agree with the correlation of "left = truther" to begin with. I know what you're talking about, but my thoughts replace "truther" in your words with "rabid idealist" in my mind. I have swayed more to the left over the years, if only by my growing disenchantment with the more aggressive factions in the right, but I still have to say that rabid idealism on either side is what bothers me about both.

[SpaceMonkeyZero]

My working theory is that MIHOPers are right wing, while LIHOPers tend to be left wing. While the MIHOPers are truly deranged by their hatred of authority (and either wishing for anarchy, or for themselves to be the authority), while LIHOPers are derranged by their hatred of Bush, hatred of capitalism (especially big-oil, Haliburton, Blackwater, etc), or just plain dislike of the United States of America (aka the Blame America First crowd).

Now, that's not to say that all right wingers are in the MIHOPers or that all left wingers are LIHOPers. But that they are a subset within. Both MIHOPers and LIHOPers are anti-war (for their own reasons) and again, that doesn't mean anti-war folk are truthers.

They're just subsets.

Of course some are just clueless on politics. Such as the ones I mentioned before that think a Ron Paul Dennis Kucinich ticket is something that could happen.

[dudalb]

Since the core "leadership" of most of the truther movements out there are certainly not left-of-center-- I'm talking AJ and similar "constitutionalist" mouthpieces-- I don't agree with the correlation of "left = truther" to begin with. I know what you're talking about, but my thoughts replace "truther" in your words with "rabid idealist" in my mind. I have swayed more to the left over the years, if only by my growing disenchantment with the more aggressive factions in the right, but I still have to say that rabid idealism on either side is what bothers me about both.

I 1000% agree. The thing that disturbs most about a lot of Bush's critics is that display the same traits I dislike the most in the Bush Administration.
I am afraid if the Dems do win in 2008,which seems very likely,although one can never discount the Dems ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,I am afraid we will just be replacing one set of ideologues with a set of delusions with another.

[T.A.M.]

Since the core "leadership" of most of the truther movements out there are certainly not left-of-center-- I'm talking AJ and similar "constitutionalist" mouthpieces-- I don't agree with the correlation of "left = truther" to begin with. I know what you're talking about, but my thoughts replace "truther" in your words with "rabid idealist" in my mind. I have swayed more to the left over the years, if only by my growing disenchantment with the more aggressive factions in the right, but I still have to say that rabid idealism on either side is what bothers me about both.

I think there should be a new classification for them, as there is some truth to the argument that the their movement comes from both extremes...

On the whole, without a doubt, the bulk of the truth movement leans left. They are young men in their early twenties to late teens, disenfranchised men who hate authority, and hate wealth..that they do not have.

However,

They are led by a collection of Right Wing Vigilante wannabees, has been leftist professors, and academia drop outs...

Occasionally, there is a reasonable, but misled individual amongst them.

TAM:)

[T.A.M.]

I 1000% agree. The thing that disturbs most about a lot of Bush's critics is that display the same traits I dislike the most in the Bush Administration.
I am afraid if the Dems do win in 2008,which seems very likely,although one can never discount the Dems ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory,I am afraid we will just be replacing one set of ideologues with a set of delusions with another.

[politics derail]
As much as I am sure that Hillary COULD lead the USA, and do a good job, I suspect she is the biggest nightmare for the DEMs in terms of winning the presidency. Unlike Obama, Hillary REALLY polarizes the public...you either love her or hate her...I unfortunately think enough hate her, that if played right, a charismatic Republican leader could cause an upset, for what appears like a DEM win in 2008...then we will NEVER hear the end of the truth movement.
[/politics derail]

TAM:)

[GreNME]

I think there should be a new classification for them, as there is some truth to the argument that the their movement comes from both extremes...

On the whole, without a doubt, the bulk of the truth movement leans left. They are young men in their early twenties to late teens, disenfranchised men who hate authority, and hate wealth..that they do not have.

However,

They are led by a collection of Right Wing Vigilante wannabees, has been leftist professors, and academia drop outs...

Occasionally, there is a reasonable, but misled individual amongst them.

TAM:)

I think there are more misled-but-reasonable individuals than get credit for it. A lot of these disenfranchised twenty-somethings eventually work their own way out of the sideways-slightly-tilted view of the truth movements. They either get into positions where they see the wheels of bureaucracy first-hand and gain some perspective, or they learn the science that eventually leads them to question what they thought was "truth" to begin with. I think it's rare that someone becomes convinced from some argument debunking the views or through reading anything about how the truth movement is a bunch of whackos. Instead, I think most people come out of it on their own.

What I find disturbing aren't the truthers, but those other more right-wing-vigilante groups who preach the "Gospel of No Income Tax" and other anti-fed arguments. These are dangerous because they can lead to people being sent to jail for following this CT nonsense. The leaders actually promote people breaking federal law under the assumption that no one will prosecute. The worst part is that tax law is so enormously confusing as it is that you can't even explain in a reduced, logical fashion that "the law" basically means "what the government has established as the law" and not "what Mr. NoTax over there thinks should be the law."

[twinstead]

Justin, REAL truthers don't hate to sound like truthers ;)

[GT/CS]

Here is a thread running at LCF that addresses the same issue. It was started by one of their more interesting members 8bitagent

http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16290

[defaultdotxbe]

although one can never discount the Dems ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory
best phrase ever, lol

[Juustin]

Justin, REAL truthers don't hate to sound like truthers ;)

True. I'm not saying "Oh crap, I think I'm a truther". I just realize it's a silly thought, and it obviously reeks of paranoia. The difference is I don't actually believe it's a conspiracy to discredit the left. It's more just trying to get out of the habit of assuming every person I hear going off on a tangent is a truther.


To address the other point that was brought up, I realize not every truther is a liberal. Like I said, this thought mainly strikes me when I'm listening to silly right-wing call-in talk shows. Usually on shows like that, they wait for liberals to call in with an opposing view point, and in most cases they try to coax them into getting all frustrated and raising their voice. At that point, the token liberal goes off about how Bush is ruining the country, etc, and usually the louder their voice gets, the less logical their arguments get. Some of these are probably actual intelligent people with good points, who just let themselves become provoked and their emotions ruin their argument. So it's not that I think it's just limited to left wing types, I just acknowledge that those are the types usually going off on these shows. At that point, my instinct lately is to think "in 5 seconds or less, he's going to say no steel framed building has ever collapsed due to fire".

[Irony]

You mean LTTMHOP? It's been covered in the comic strip topic.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2957646&postcount=1372

[gumboot]

Truthers (hard core ones, not the band wagon teen angst ones) are rabid extremists. They don't fit on a left-right line, any more than Islamic terrorists do.

-Gumboot

[1337m4n]

I believe the term y'all are looking for is "libertarian". The ringleaders of the Twoof Movement are neither entirely liberal nor entirely conservative.

[Brainster]

I realize this isn't actually true, and probably sounds crazy and far-fetched, but sometimes I find myself entertaining the thought that the entire Truth Movement is a disinformation campaign against the left.

Extremists in any group tend to discredit the group, but that's no reason to chalk the extremism up to a government plot. Groups like ELF discredit the environmental movement, just as the Weather Underground discredited the antiwar movement of the late 1960s-early 1970s.

The Troofers don't discredit the Left so much as they discredit the anti-Bush contingent (which is certainly largely if not exclusively leftist).

My working theory is that MIHOPers are right wing, while LIHOPers tend to be left wing. While the MIHOPers are truly deranged by their hatred of authority (and either wishing for anarchy, or for themselves to be the authority), while LIHOPers are derranged by their hatred of Bush, hatred of capitalism (especially big-oil, Haliburton, Blackwater, etc), or just plain dislike of the United States of America (aka the Blame America First crowd).

You're trying to hard to shoehorn the MIHOP crowd into the Left/Right axis, when it's really a question of Sane/Insane. I would say that the MIHOP crowd is mostly leftist, with some obvious exceptions. Had Al Gore won the presidency in 2000, the MIHOP crowd would mostly be rightist with some exceptions. But they'd still all be nuts.

[Darth Rotor]

» I hate to sound like a Truther...
The trouble with labels is the inherent risk of imprecision.

Truther is a label.

Just be yourself.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I believe the term y'all are looking for is "libertarian". The ringleaders of the Twoof Movement are neither entirely liberal nor entirely conservative.
There are some paleoconservatives in the mix with the libertarians. Some of them trend WN, some trend libertarian.

DR

[1337m4n]

Just out of curiosity, Juustin, do you entertain the notion that Bush stole the 2000 election?

It seems to me that it would qualify as a "conspiracy theory", but many on the left who are NOT Truthers in any other sense of the word seem to believe it (Granted, it is infinitely more plausible than space beams, holographic planes, magic bombs, and impossible flyovers).

[dudalb]

[politics derail]
As much as I am sure that Hillary COULD lead the USA, and do a good job, I suspect she is the biggest nightmare for the DEMs in terms of winning the presidency. Unlike Obama, Hillary REALLY polarizes the public...you either love her or hate her...I unfortunately think enough hate her, that if played right, a charismatic Republican leader could cause an upset, for what appears like a DEM win in 2008...then we will NEVER hear the end of the truth movement.
[/politics derail]

TAM:)

As am American I am ashamed to say it, but as divisive as Hillary is,Obama would be a worse candidate. They are a great many people who though will never say it will never vote for a Black Man for president.
The Democrats have a rare ablity to pull defeat from the jaws of Victory,but they do have one advantage in 2008 in that the GOP does seem to lack a really charismatic candidate. IMHO Giuliani would have the best chance of keeping the White House for the GOP.
.

[ktesibios]

I believe the term y'all are looking for is "libertarian". The ringleaders of the Twoof Movement are neither entirely liberal nor entirely conservative.

I have to disagree. If there's a classification that genuinely fits troofers, and paranoid conspiracy theorists in general, it is right wing authoritarian. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_Wing_Authoritarianism)(Please note that this refers to a set of personality traits; while in the USA people with highly authoritarian-follower personalities tend to adhere to right-wing politics as the term is commonly used, this association is not universal.)

All of the characteristics are there:

Authoritarian submission- (defined as a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives.) Note how PCTers happily allow their entire worldview to be handed down as Revealed TruthTM by the proprietors of conspiracy-industry Web sites, how submissively they avoid being exposed to sources outside that approved in-group and how easy it is to get a gaggle of them to don silly black T-shirts and chant nonsense in unison.

Authoritarian aggression- (a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities.) Note the often-expressed revenge fantasies of people like Kevin Barrett and AJ against their perceived enemies, the hair-trigger eagerness of so many PCTers to brand anyone refuting their dogma as "shill", "disinfo agent" or "COINTELPRO" and the heavy-handed "moderation" characteristic of PCT fora, like LCF or the Prisonplanet forum, where dissenting voices are not only silenced by bans but the moderators gleefully admit to acting for the purpose of suppressing dissent.

These are all examples of aggression-by-proxy, which the Internet has made easy and popular. PCTers aren't yet at the point of acting like the little gaggle of authoritarian followers and heroes-in-their-own-minds who assaulted Carlos Arredondo (http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/downloads/carlos/index.htm) at a demonstration in Washington recently, but the trait shines through quite clearly.

Conventionalism- As you become more familiar with the PCT universe, you'll most likely notice that it has an entire catechism- a body of canonical belief which is nearly universally accepted by all conspiracists. The scratch-a-troofer-and-you'll-find-a-Moon Hoaxer/Holocaust denier/tax nutbar/Illuminati believer phenomenon has often been remarked on here. That so many conspiracists uncritically accept- by convention- conspiracy theories which are outside their apparent areas of interest is an indication of the degree of conventionalism found in this subset of society.

The primary difference between PCTers and the more ordinary authoritarian followers studied by Altemeyer and others is that the folks who most people would think of as authoritarian followers are intensely pro-Establishment, while PCTers cast themselves as vehemently anti-Establishment. However, this is accounted for by which authorities PCTers perceive as legitimate; by defining the conspiracy-theory industry as their legitimate and established authorities, they can demonstrate the three key qualities of authoritarian followers while persuading themselves that they are the opposite. Just as RWAs in the former Soviet Union demonstrated submissive, aggressive and conventionalist adherence to Communist beliefs which are usually classified as "left-wing", PCTers demonstrate the same personality traits in adherence to supposedly anti-Establishment beliefs.

Taken as a whole, I see paranoid conspiracism as an essentially authoritarian phenomenon. While PCTers might wrap themselves in loony-libertarian trappings, their actual tolerance for those different from themselves is no greater than Landover Baptist (http://www.landoverbaptist.org/) level.

Incidentally, if you keep those three characteristics- authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression and conventionalism- in mind while you read, you may notice that they are much more common than you would want to believe. In fact, you may find that there are a lot of authoritarian followers calling themselves "skeptics" and hanging out in this forum.

[danielk]

I believe the term y'all are looking for is "libertarian". The ringleaders of the Twoof Movement are neither entirely liberal nor entirely conservative.

Er, it's true that many of them style themselves as libertarians. But on the other hand we were treated to superb debunking on Hardfire, which is a Libertarian show if the title song is any indication.

I think the political theme we're looking for is simply anything anti-.

[GreNME]

I believe the term y'all are looking for is "libertarian". The ringleaders of the Twoof Movement are neither entirely liberal nor entirely conservative.

"Libertarian" is just another way of saying "part conservative - part liberal" in the grand scheme of things. The idea of libertarianism shifts depending on the issue being discussed.

[leftysergeant]

"Libertarian" is just another way of saying "part conservative - part liberal" in the grand scheme of things. The idea of libertarianism shifts depending on the issue being discussed.

I like the definition "a conservative who wants to smoke dope and get laid."

[BenBurch]

I found out today that many MIHOP-ers may be LaRouchies...

[1337m4n]

I'm not talking about an attitude or personality. I'm talking about the political ideology. You know, minimal government involvement in all sectors.

The Truther ringleaders share much in common with the Libertarian base. They are:

--Anti-war
--Pro-gun
--Anti-Federal Reserve/National Bank
--Anti-UHC
--Anti-Patriot Act
--Skeptical of human-caused global warming (to the point where many believe the idea itself is a government disinfo conspiracy)
--Dangerously anti-income tax (some support deliberate tax evasion)
--Borderline anarchist in some cases
--VIVA RON PAUL!!!111!11!onehundredandeleven!!

And I'm sure there's a hundred other points I missed. Point is, when you compare their overall political ideology with the Libertarian Party platform, it hardly misses a beat. "9/11 Truth", especially the Alex Jones wing, seems little more than a front for anarchism.

[1337m4n]

And, in case it seemed like I was implying that all Libertarians are anarchists, I wasn't trying to. These guys are definitely more extreme than the ordinary Libertarian.

[maxpower1227]

I'm not talking about an attitude or personality. I'm talking about the political ideology. You know, minimal government involvement in all sectors.

The Truther ringleaders share much in common with the Libertarian base. They are:

--Anti-war
--Pro-gun
--Anti-Federal Reserve/National Bank
--Anti-UHC
--Anti-Patriot Act
--Skeptical of human-caused global warming (to the point where many believe the idea itself is a government disinfo conspiracy)
--Dangerously anti-income tax (some support deliberate tax evasion)
--Borderline anarchist in some cases
--VIVA RON PAUL!!!111!11!onehundredandeleven!!

And I'm sure there's a hundred other points I missed. Point is, when you compare their overall political ideology with the Libertarian Party platform, it hardly misses a beat. "9/11 Truth", especially the Alex Jones wing, seems little more than a front for anarchism.

At the risk of derailing (feel free to answer in a PM rather than a post if you deem it necessary)... what's wrong with Ron Paul? I'm certainly no anarchist or truther, but he seems like a fantastic candidate so far. Certainly better than gun-grabbers like Rudy or full-blown Socialists like Hillary or Obama.

[1337m4n]

At the risk of derailing (feel free to answer in a PM rather than a post if you deem it necessary)... what's wrong with Ron Paul? I'm certainly no anarchist or truther, but he seems like a fantastic candidate so far. Certainly better than gun-grabbers like Rudy or full-blown Socialists like Hillary or Obama.

Nothing's "wrong" with Ron Paul any more than most of the other items on my list (ex: pro-gun, anti-Patriot Act) are necessarily "wrong". The point I'm trying to make is that there are vast similarities between Truthers and Libertarians (and more specifically, the extreme anarchist type of Libertarian).

The Truthers do seem unusually obsessed with Ron Paul, though. I've met people who were very enthusiastic about the candidate they supported, but never to the extent that the Truthers are to Ron Paul. It's almost as if he's a god to them.

[DavidJames]

At the risk of derailing (feel free to answer in a PM rather than a post if you deem it necessary)... what's wrong with Ron Paul? I'm certainly no anarchist or truther, but he seems like a fantastic candidate so far. Certainly better than gun-grabbers like Rudy or full-blown Socialists like Hillary or Obama.FWIW, Rudy has flip flopped on his gun position (I'm shocked). As far as your "full-blown Socialists" comment, that is every bit as ignorant as anything any CTist has said in this forum. It is the political equivalent of no planes or energy beam weapons.

[GreNME]

I'm not talking about an attitude or personality. I'm talking about the political ideology. You know, minimal government involvement in all sectors.

I know what you're talking about, and my point remains. Minimal gubmint: conservative (not Replublican). Most social issues: liberal (not Democratic). Fiscal responsibility placed on the individual: conservative (not Republican).

A friend of mine put it nicely when quoting an unknown source: "I wish the Democrats would stop telling me where to put my money, and the Republicans would stop telling me where to put my d!ck."

Libertarianism is a moderate anti-federalist political ideology consisting of both conservative and liberal views. Think of 'conservative' and 'liberal' as two sides of a Venn diagram, with most people in various places in the overlapping moderate section. Libertarians are there also. Very few people are ever fully conservative or fully liberal, though even American liberals tend to be more centrist or conservative than European liberals.

[danielk]

Nothing's "wrong" with Ron Paul any more than most of the other items on my list (ex: pro-gun, anti-Patriot Act) are necessarily "wrong". The point I'm trying to make is that there are vast similarities between Truthers and Libertarians (and more specifically, the extreme anarchist type of Libertarian).

Vast similarities, WTF? Look, you aren't going to find a coherent political ideology because there is none. All you have found is a list of anti positions (let's count pro-gun as basically anti-government) which superficially match libertarian positions. The libertarian label happens to be very broad: for instance, some definitions would include me, many won't.

But what about the other positions and attitudes Truthers usually have? What about the implied anti-corporation attitude (evil oil companies control the US government). And what's all this talk about rounding up dissenters once the Twoofers gain power? Does this sound particularly libertarian to you?

There is absolutely no political ideology to speak of. All I can see is a tendency towards extremism, and ideologically an incoherent mix of anti-attitudes which seem to be taken from all political factions.

[Stellafane]

I realize this isn't actually true, and probably sounds crazy and far-fetched, but sometimes I find myself entertaining the thought that the entire Truth Movement is a disinformation campaign against the left...

If this is true, they've apparently "gone native" to a rather alarming extent.

[maxpower1227]

FWIW, Rudy has flip flopped on his gun position (I'm shocked). As far as your "full-blown Socialists" comment, that is every bit as ignorant as anything any CTist has said in this forum. It is the political equivalent of no planes or energy beam weapons.

Oh... I guess I imagined Hillary saying "we're going to take things away from you for the common good", pushing socialized medicine, etc.

She may not be Socialist to the degree that say, Castro is, but that's certainly not the "political equivalent of no planes or enery beam weapons". Miss "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" definitely has socialist tendencies.

[peteweaver]

I realize this isn't actually true, and probably sounds crazy and far-fetched, but sometimes I find myself entertaining the thought that the entire Truth Movement is a disinformation campaign against the left.

Basically, I'm what most people would consider a "liberal". I've never been a big fan of Bush (although Kerry was a bit too wishy washy for my tastes). I've been skeptical of the Iraq War since the first day it was mentioned, as I felt the reasoning behind it seemed rushed, and seemed to change every day.

However, lately, as I've spent too much time keeping an eye on the Truthers, I think *I'm* getting a little paranoid. I often listen to right wing radio (just because I don't agree with most of it doesn't mean it's not entertaining). Lately any time I hear a caller express an anti-war view, and they start to get worked up/emotional about it, I start to roll my eyes and think "Oh God, probably a truther...". Usually a few seconds later reality kicks in and I think to myself "Wait, I actually agree with this guy's point, and he hasn't really said anything that doesn't make sense, he's just worked up.."

Am I the only one, or has this happened to anyone else? At the end of the day my political views are still the same, I just find that any time I hear a left-leaning person talking (especially if they're young), my first reaction is "probably a truther".

I think the cause of most of it is that most of what the truther's say seems so out of left field, that it completely sounds like they're just trying to make people think they're dumb. I'm thinking about it more today because a truther who's on my myspace friends list (we went to high school together, she's a nice girl and all, and I'm sure she means well, but she's completely misguided) reposted a series of videos titled "Do you believe in coincidences". The beginning of the video mentioned that only 3 steel buildings have collapsed during fires, and do you think it's a coincidence that they fell on the same day, and were owned by the same person? As if to say "nothing else out of the ordinary going on, some people just hanging out on the street, and they happened to notice 3 buildings fall down out of the blue". I just started thinking "NO WAY DOES ANYONE BELIEVE THAT ARGUMENT MAKES SENSE".


OK, </rant>
It's sort of like the theory that Fred Phelps is actually a homosexual who's trying to discredit people who are against gay people.

PLENTY OF STEEL STRUCTURES HAVE FAILED DUE TO FIRE.

Piper Alpha, Mumbai High North, and other steel structures have been completely destroyed by fire.

Please refer your friend to http://www.structuralfiresafety.com

;-)

[Cuddles]

The thing is, truthers aren't actually opposed to any of these things. They are opposed to them in the hands of others. As is demonstrated over and over again, they are not against censorship, they do it all the time, it is only censorship by othersp that they dislike. They aren't opposed to a police state, they are opposed to a police state that doesn't have them in charge. What they actually want more than anything is a police state with them at the top. They aren't opposed to authority, they are opposed to authority that isn't them.

Truthers have a wide range of beliefs, from far left to far right to somewhere in the middle, so there is no point trying to classify them all as one ideology. The only really common theme is that whatever politics they support, it is them that should be at the top. Or at least, if not at the top, following the top around baaaing.