'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
- Status
Beanburger
Deep Fried
Plus they also have their own financial interests colouring their views. It's telling just how many conspiracy theory advocates have books published. I doubt they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts.
Beanburger
Deep Fried
Sorry, not sure I follow you?
But that's my point: there is evidence, loads of it.
Now, it is true that there is no proof. But it seems to me that to demand proof in such a case really is irrational skepticism.
And I do think that some people are predisposed to irrational skepticism with regard to conspiracy theories. Some people don't want to believe in them--just as, to be fair, some people do want to believe in them.
I think we see both types of person on threads like this one.
Beanburger
Deep Fried
I agree. And that's why internet discussions are usually fruitless, since opinions tend to become quickly entrenched at polarised ends of the spectrum.
I find conspiraloons idiotic and annoying, but then I also find the "gosh, we'd never have invaded Iraq for oil!!!" brigade equally idiotic and annoying.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I mean stuff like marxism, or even things like why we went to war in iraq, imperialism, etc, and the like; I tried to expalin my views about the structure of society to a friend and he just said this just sounds like a conspiracy theory, when everything i said was actually based on facts which are easily verifiable
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
I am losing count now, most posters like me seem to have an open mind on Maxwell, froggy ‘thinks’ he was murdered, dwyer ‘believes’ he was murdered – has anyone actually dismissed the chance of murder out of hand? 
Beanburger
Deep Fried
Ah right, gotcha. I agree. I mean technically, they could be labelled as conspiracy theories I suppose, but the term has come to mean something more. It's usually applied to theories that are rooted in the irrational.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
The problem with Marxism is that unless it's explained really well it does sound like a conspiracy theory. The difference being that unlike conspiracy theories where it's all about 'them' having 'control' the point in Marxism is that all the 'players' do what they do unconsciously, as part of their everyday life and existance, rather than existing as some kind of super-group IYSWIM.
Beanburger
Deep Fried
I don't know enough about it to hold a view. Always best to keep your mouth shut if you don't know what you're talking aboutI am losing count now, most posters like me seem to have an open mind on Maxwell, froggy ‘thinks’ he was murdered, dwyer ‘believes’ he was murdered – has anyone actually dismissed the chance of murder out of hand?
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
I've just quickly scanned the last few pages and I can't see that anyone has dismissed the idea completely; can you point me to the posts where this has happened?
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
yeah, fair enough i guess.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
For the Maxwell case, I agree. He was up to his neck in fishy business.
The problem is that so many CTers present their bonkers theories as "truth", with zero credible evidence to back them up, at which point demanding proof is perfectly rational and correct.
editor
hiraethified
And there you go again: "believe what I believe or I'll deride you for being mentally unwell."
Quite disgusting behaviour.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Especially after he went overboard.
"Irrational skepticism" wasn't a mental illness the last time I looked.
But I suppose you have a point. After all, no-one here ever suggests that those who believe in conspiracy theories are mentally unwell.
beesonthewhatnow
going deaf for a living
Beanburger
Deep Fried
Very true. They only suggest that those who cling to conspiracy theories rabidly in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary are mentally unwell.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
But, 'pathological' is and you have been throwing that around all over the place.
What Beanburger said.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I don't believe Maxwell was a "Mossad agent", insofar as I don't believe he was employed by the state. What he was, was someone who could get things done, but who was a "cut-out", someone who could be used for stuff that the state of Israel couldn't involve themselves in directly. It wasn't as if he didn't have previous intelligence experience, after all. Like most whores, though, he had more than one client.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
There's no hard evidence that Maxwell was a "Mossad agent", but it's certainly true that Maxwell was an intelligence conduit to both Mossad and Shin Beth, and that he was more than happy to use his contacts in furtherance of the state of Israel's goals, for which there is evidence.
Maxwell was, if anything though, an "independent agent". he was happy to pass stuff to whichever party was most likely to benefit him, and he did enough "favours" for Israel, and for many of the "Warsaw Pact" countries to get very favourable business agreements with them, hence his almost single-handed capture of publishing rights from a couple of the countries.
Meltingpot
Living in our pools we soon forget about the sea
Robert Maxwell
Well, the fact he was given a full state funeral in Israel after he died would seem to point in this direction. They don't do that for just any diaspora Jew.
Here's an extract from his wiki;
"Maxwell was given a funeral in Israel better befitting a head of state than a publisher, as described by author Gordon Thomas:
On 10 November 1991, Maxwell’s funeral took place on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, across from the Temple Mount. It had all the trappings of a state occasion, attended by the country’s government and opposition leaders. No fewer than six serving and former heads of the Israeli intelligence community listened as Prime Minister Shamir eulogized: "He has done more for Israel than can today be said" (Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad, St. Martin's Press, 1999).[15]
A hint of Maxwell's service to the Israeli state was provided by Loftus and Aarons, who described Maxwell's contacts with Czech anti-Stalinist Communist leaders in 1948 as crucial to the Czech decision to arm Israel in their War of Independence that year. Czech military assistance was both unique and crucial for the fledgling state as it battled for its existence."
Well, the fact he was given a full state funeral in Israel after he died would seem to point in this direction. They don't do that for just any diaspora Jew.
Here's an extract from his wiki;
"Maxwell was given a funeral in Israel better befitting a head of state than a publisher, as described by author Gordon Thomas:
On 10 November 1991, Maxwell’s funeral took place on the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem, across from the Temple Mount. It had all the trappings of a state occasion, attended by the country’s government and opposition leaders. No fewer than six serving and former heads of the Israeli intelligence community listened as Prime Minister Shamir eulogized: "He has done more for Israel than can today be said" (Gideon's Spies: The Secret History of the Mossad, St. Martin's Press, 1999).[15]
A hint of Maxwell's service to the Israeli state was provided by Loftus and Aarons, who described Maxwell's contacts with Czech anti-Stalinist Communist leaders in 1948 as crucial to the Czech decision to arm Israel in their War of Independence that year. Czech military assistance was both unique and crucial for the fledgling state as it battled for its existence."
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
That being the case it shouldn't be too difficult for you to point us to the ‘conspiracy denialists’ posts in question.
Basically Phil you started off banging on about of a group of ‘conspiracy denialists’ on urban, who you defined as those that refuse to believe in any possible conspiracy, no matter how much evidence suggests there could be in a particular case.
You were asked to point out the "pathological conspiracy denialists" on here and provide some actual evidence, you attempted a diversion by pointing to another site as being an example of ‘conspiracy denialists’, despite the fact it didn’t fit your definition and had nothing to do with urban anyway.
More recently you brought up the Maxwell case as another diversion, and you seem to be trying to imply this has proved your case with posts like this:
Which is a bit childish to say the least, because no one seems to deny any of that nor disagree that murder was possible, so this has failed to prove your case of ‘conspiracy denialists’ on urban.
So, where are these “pathological conspiracy denialists" and examples of “irrational scepticism” that you keep banging on about, apart from in your head?
Isn’t it time to stop wriggling, prove your claim or drop it?
Kaka Tim
Half Arsed and Slapdash till I Die
If I remember correctly in 'the enemy within' seamus milne states that Maxwell openly boasted about working for british intelligence.
He wasn't a 'secret agent' like james bond, but its entriely credible that he was a 'intelligence asset' for mossad, MI5 and the CIA - someone with contacts who could 'fix' things - and Maxwell would have enjoyed the role as it helped cement his own sense of self importance.
One cant conclude from that that he was offed by mossad - but its certainly a plausible theory. One can say the same about the death of David Kelly. But certainly not about Princess Di.
Conspircay theoirsts seem to think that running around shouting 'que bono?' is argument enough.
He wasn't a 'secret agent' like james bond, but its entriely credible that he was a 'intelligence asset' for mossad, MI5 and the CIA - someone with contacts who could 'fix' things - and Maxwell would have enjoyed the role as it helped cement his own sense of self importance.
One cant conclude from that that he was offed by mossad - but its certainly a plausible theory. One can say the same about the death of David Kelly. But certainly not about Princess Di.
Conspircay theoirsts seem to think that running around shouting 'que bono?' is argument enough.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yep.
Then again, he worked for military intelligence during the war, and they're not over-fond of letting assets go, so for maxwell to have been at the very least a conduit for them would be perfectly reasonable.
There's little doubt he was good at it, too.
It's plausible, although I've always leant toward the "natural causes" argument, solely because the old cunt had massive hypertension which was very badly treated given his fondness for getting pissed.
dwyer said:
Completely agree with this from BB -- multi-directional scepticism is definitely the way forward.
frogwoman said:
Absolutely. Which leads me to suspect that conspiraloons are actually agents of the state, conducting false-flag operations to undermine the credibility of real conspiracy theories.
Heart of the matter. So many CTers undermine genuine and credible investigation, using proper principles of historical, evidence based research into government/establishment wrongnesses.
I did pisstakingly suggest (ages ago) that the only CT I believe in is that CTers are CIA or MI5 agents, something that on further thought isn't completely bonkers. OK, mostly, but the way people like Icke and Jones actually help coverups by making their 'exposes' of them look so mad, doesn't help the 'credibility' of conspiricism in any way.
BTW taffboy earlier up addressed my point from yesterday about CTers undermining their own credibility quite interestingly and thought provokingly I thought. I don't agree with a lot of what he posts but fair do's on being balanced in that post anyway
Beanburger
Deep Fried
Plant.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
Heart of the matter. So many CTers undermine genuine and credible investigation, using proper principles of historical, evidence based research into government/establishment wrongnesses.
I did pisstakingly suggest (ages ago) that the only CT I believe in is that CTers are CIA or MI5 agents, something that on further thought isn't completely bonkers. OK, mostly, but the way people like Icke and Jones actually help coverups by making their 'exposes' of them look so mad, doesn't help the 'credibility' of conspiricism in any way.
BTW taffboy earlier up addressed my point from yesterday about CTers undermining their own credibility quite interestingly and thought provokingly I thought. I don't agree with a lot of what he posts but fair do's on being balanced in that post anyway
yep
People might say the above as a joke but I think from my own research and reading around the subject (or simply by looking at the "about us" and following the fucking links ffs) there is a lot more truth to it than anyone thinks.
dwyer said:
BB I think you're (inadvertantly?) backing up dwer's misdefinitions of and smears about conspiracy-sceptics when you make the bolded point.
People who ridicule the Iraq for Oil hypothesis are not conspiracy-sceptics, they're plain over eager acceptors of an establishment line. Contrary to dwyer's smears and lies that conspiracy sceptics are gullible drinkers in of establishment propaganda, I strongly doubt that you'd find many active conspiracy-sceptics on here who'd substantially disagree (except over particular details maybe?) with the I for O hypothesis.
Being all conspiratorial about '9/11' is most often a different position entirely.
Like you said before, it's perfectly possible, indeed common, to be sceptical of both CTs and governments.
Dwyer's efforts to paint conspiracy sceptics as mindless estabishment-line-regurgitating shill-sheeple
is as much part of his deliberately adopted trolling on the subject as is his smear that they (the sceptics) are mentally unhinged - Status
Similar threads
