'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
- Status
dwyer said:
editor said:
The phrase 'atheist fundamentalists' = yet more proof positive, if any were needed, that dwyer is still trolling away in this thread as if his internet life depended on it.
Oh, it does
Badger Kitten said:
As is pretty bloody obvious, dwyer's ONLY motive on this thread is to attack conspiracy sceptics. He has no genuine interest at all in arguing the merits/demerits of tthe actual theories, just to deflect/derail the discussion away from conspiracies, away from criticism of/scepticism about them, and towards his trolling insistence that it's the conspiracy sceptics (and only them) who are the barking ones.
A few pages ago, editor picked up on another of dwyer's direct attacks on me personally and read him the riot act. Which is fair enough in itself but his occasional anti-WoW stuff is IMO the very least of his offences.
And there's certainly no evidence of mental imbalance among our conspiracy denialists is there?
But of course William doesn't really believe that conspiracy denialists are models of rational sanity. How could he? Evidence to the contrary stares out of his shaving mirror on a daily basis.
editor
hiraethified
Ah, I see you're adding 'mental imbalance' to your growing list of ad hominems and general personal slurs.
For the fifth or sixth time: could you name some of the 'plentiful' people here who are purportedly suffering from this curious "irrational skepticism" and who are "pathological conspiracy denialists" and could you support these claims of yours with some documented examples?
Well I perceive something of a contradiction here.
On the one hand, you criticize me for resorting to the ad hominem. On the other, you ask me to name the individuals I regard as pathological conspiracy denialists.
Well since you ask: William is a prime example of such a person. He clearly has no idea about the substantive issues under debate--indeed one suspects that he has little idea about anything beyond the price of real ale. Rather, his opposition to conspiracy theories fulfills a profound psychological imperative for him.
I would be happy to expound upon the mental forces that have driven him to this position, but I feel I should pause at this stage to ensure that taking the debate in this direction will meet with your approval.
Should I continue?
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Christ, you really are a pompous arse Dwyer
editor
hiraethified
You have precisely zero evidence, expertise or right to suggest that WoW suffers from a 'mental imbalance' or that he possesses "irrational skepticism" and is a "pathological conspiracy denialist."
It's become glaringly apparent you're only interested in pursuing your deeply unpleasant campaign of bullying which, frankly, has long overstepped the mark of usual website banter and is now beginning to look like a worryingly obsessive topic for you. You've been repeatedly warned and banned over it in the past, yet still you continue.
Some observers may even conclude that perhaps you should be looking closer to home for examples of pathological behaviour. I'd just like it to stop. Now, please.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
but he can prove the existence of godChrist, you really are a pompous arse Dwyer
I think the dwyer post quoted by editor is simply self confirmation from dwyer of my earlier point about his true motives in posting on this thread.
I'm far less bothered about his attacks on me personally though, than I am about his general approach to threads like this. Adopt a deliberately 'contrarian' 'position' that he has no genuine belief in, and only for maximum shit stirring -- and that goes far beyond his occasional attacks on me, the latter just come when I or others point out what he's up to.
I'm far less bothered about his attacks on me personally though, than I am about his general approach to threads like this. Adopt a deliberately 'contrarian' 'position' that he has no genuine belief in, and only for maximum shit stirring -- and that goes far beyond his occasional attacks on me, the latter just come when I or others point out what he's up to.
There's plenty of evidence to suggest that there was a conspiracy surrounding Maxwell's death. Not, I hasten to add, any kind of proof, but more than enough to allow a reasonable person to detect various fishy smells.
Why for example was he given a state funeral?
And what did Yitzak Shamir mean when he observed, in his eulogy: "he has rendered greater services to the state of Israel than I can say today?"
I think I know what he meant. Is this too far off topic or shall we pursue it further?
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
The world awaits your wisdom.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
Not releated to the current spat, but returning to the OP.
IIRC the post seems to be dividing speakers at the conference into "less" and "more" acceptable ones, including Norman Baker in the latter category.
But anyone who knows Norman Baker's book knows that for all his conservative methodolgy he does go into some very shady areas like Project Coast bio-weapons project in South Africa and the huge amount of weird deaths among microbiologists. He also quotes the research of Michael Ruppert, the CIA whistleblower who established the role of the CIA and LAPD in selling crack on the west coast (IIRC it was to fund the contras). Ruppert is a very interesting guy on 911.
Likewise, Cynthia Mckinney is hardly a loon, and certainly a hero for her personal sacrifices for the people of Gaza. Her questions on 911 are pertinent, reserved and non-loon.
There are many areas like this where stuff can be proved (Gladio false-flags, Project Paperclip etc, fed reserve history etc.) and once something is fully documented it can be argued not to be a CT at all.
CTers often draw on evidence more than speculation. Only fair to point this out.
IIRC the post seems to be dividing speakers at the conference into "less" and "more" acceptable ones, including Norman Baker in the latter category.
But anyone who knows Norman Baker's book knows that for all his conservative methodolgy he does go into some very shady areas like Project Coast bio-weapons project in South Africa and the huge amount of weird deaths among microbiologists. He also quotes the research of Michael Ruppert, the CIA whistleblower who established the role of the CIA and LAPD in selling crack on the west coast (IIRC it was to fund the contras). Ruppert is a very interesting guy on 911.
Likewise, Cynthia Mckinney is hardly a loon, and certainly a hero for her personal sacrifices for the people of Gaza. Her questions on 911 are pertinent, reserved and non-loon.
There are many areas like this where stuff can be proved (Gladio false-flags, Project Paperclip etc, fed reserve history etc.) and once something is fully documented it can be argued not to be a CT at all.
CTers often draw on evidence more than speculation. Only fair to point this out.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Which, is partly why I maintain an open mind, but he was also a fraudster that had got himself in the financial shit and about to be found out, so plenty enough reason for him to want a way out.
As far as services to Israel are concerned, this could easily have been to do with his connections to Czech leadership, which could have resulted in their decision to arm Israel for the War of Independence.
We will never know.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
here's the answer to the Maxwell riddle IMO: Fuck knows.
>>736
I dispute that last sentence taffboy, if the way CTs are posted about here, and on most of the more 'committed' CT websites, is anything to go by anyway.
To my mind the greatest weakness of a lot of CTers is their extremely cavalier approach to evidence, and the way they so often draw so indiscriminately on very dubious websites/sources.
There must be a few more sensible? supporters of CTs around who despair at times at how often other CTers shoot themselves in the foot, and damage the credibility of their case so much, by relying on such self evidently crazy websites ...
I dispute that last sentence taffboy, if the way CTs are posted about here, and on most of the more 'committed' CT websites, is anything to go by anyway.
To my mind the greatest weakness of a lot of CTers is their extremely cavalier approach to evidence, and the way they so often draw so indiscriminately on very dubious websites/sources.
There must be a few more sensible? supporters of CTs around who despair at times at how often other CTers shoot themselves in the foot, and damage the credibility of their case so much, by relying on such self evidently crazy websites ...
8den
No I'm pretty sure that was 8ball...
Exactly, theres no evidence Maxwell was killed, or committed suicide. No witnesses, no forensics, or anything.
editor
hiraethified
Yes. But Dwyer just knows, and that's all the evidence he needs.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Indeed, leaving sensible people to have an open mind and CTs to knowing he was murdered.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
perhaps he did it, if he's so certain
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Because he'd acted as a facilitator in the UK and France for Israeli businessmen for at least 4 decades, amongst other things.
What do you believe that Shamir meant?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That and his health was poor.
Not definitively, but plenty enough stuff has come to light over the last decade or so for us to know that he was an unofficial "fixer" for Israeli business, as well as using his media outlets to push the Israeli line (just as Mr. R. Desmond tries to nowadays).
I think Maxwell was a Mossad agent, and that he was working for the Zionists even before Israel was founded. As Claphamboy suggested, I think he orchestrated the Czech arms deal that enabled them to win the war of independence, and that he'd been their most valuable single asset ever since.
editor
hiraethified
Any credible proof here or are just trotting out random thoughts?
Neither.
Actually this seems to me a good test case of who is a pathological conspiracy denialist.
Obviously, there will never, ever be any proof that Maxwell was a Mossad agent. Nature of the beast.
However, anyone who is knowledgeable about his biography, the history of Israel, Zionist ideology and the way secret services in general operate will have at least a strong suspicion that he was.
Anyone who finds this idea inherently improbable is, in my view, psychologically predisposed to irrational skepticism with regard to conspiracies.
taffboy gwyrdd
Embrace the confusion!
This is an interesting and important point.
As someone who looks into CTs a lot and thinks aspects are plausible I would say some things bother me a bit, but the classic CT response would be to say there is a lot counter-intel pro out there
Stuff like 911 Hologramers can be a bit of a pain, but few I can think of give it much cred. I really don't know what the fuck is going on with Shayler, and there is a lot of other weirdness out there.
And this is without even going near some of the Project Camelot and New Age type stuff.
One CT that does get my goat for 2 reasons is the idea that we are changing the climate is a scam.
The CT says that human caused climate change is a made up phenomena to tax and control us.
The truth is that it is a real phenomena used to tax and control us. A classic example of a half truth ending up worse in effect than a lie.
I dont trust the capitalist governments one fucking inch on ecology, that doesnt mean I'm going to close my eyes to some big ecology issues.
On the other hand, "CTers" can be relied upon to be very anti stuff like genetic engineering and Codex Alimentarius.
Speaking again to the header about "ascendancy" - FWIW I think it has some truth in it. The OP invites comparrison to the moderate rise in fascism - in terms of numbers I'd say that might be so, but the organisation and motivations are entirely different. CTers are certainly brighter than the average fascist supporter and are often very liberal.
Fascism and CTs both pupport to be anti-establishment, though the former pupport is a total lie.
The crash in establishment cred has fed them both. fascism is a growing problem but if push comes to shove many a CTer would be onside with revolutionary sentiment. Your average CTer in the UK strikes me as more left/liberal than those in the states who are, more than anything, constitutionalists or libertarians more than traditional "right wing".
Even though we think of them as "right wing" these people claim, with some substance, to be taking on the kind of fascism we saw under Bush. Naomi Klein's "10 steps to a fascist america" video is excellent on this, and she aint no archetypal loon. They would also correctly point to Project Paperclip and the various evil doings of clan bush going back to at least the nazi period, along with the massive international terrorism (and other human rights abuses) of the CIA since WW2.
It doesnt obviously help that fascists do use CT agendas to their own ends and have concocted quite a few down the years themselves, but in short a rise in fascism bothers me greatly, a rise in people rejecting the establishment narrative per se, and asking more questions about accepted versions of events, does not.
- Status
Similar threads
