'Conspiraloons' in the ascendancy?

[taffboy gwyrdd]

But no one can say what it actually is or how it will operate.

Blagsta and Butchers. I'm going from memory here, but I recall that it was not utterly devoid of substance - rather merely flimsy in substance. Central planning comes into it, I'm sure the advocates would aspire to this being democratic and to some degree consensual and I'm not sure how administrative regions would break down. However, the resource based economy is hardly a new proposal - it is this basis of many alternatives to modern capitalism, I seem to recall it also was the basic proposal in Ragged Trousers Philanthropists and in as much presumably drew on early socialism.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Stop being so bloody defensive taffboy.

You yourself have at times acknowledged, quite sensibly, that the more 'eccentric' espousers of some of the wilder conspiracy theories are a liability to those theories you see as justified being taken seriously.

You'd be doing yourself a much better favour by accepting that some CTers are anti semitic or come close to it, and that Icke has made dodgily borderline anti semitic references.

It's not accusing you personally of being anti semitic to point this out, and you're doing yourself no favours by reacting as if people are making such accusations. They're not.

I know it's not aimed at me personally WoW, but the accusation against Zeitgeist is still utterly groundless. I have listened to way too many hours of Alex Jones and never once heard him say anything anti-jewish, if any of his callers phones up to say something like "it's all the jews / masons / vatican" or whatever he cuts them off and gives them short shrift. What was interepreted as Icke being anti-semitic when he talked about lizards was pretty much shown in the John Ronson film (where he was banned from some Canadian broadcast) to be Icke really meaning lizards, and we've all been round this a million times.

Anti-semitism does exist in conspiracy theory historically, but I think historically is the watchword and it is fading out. Anti-semitism is irrational and irrelevant, I think it is increasingly seen as such. What is far more prevalent (though not among conventional CTers) is Islamaphobia.

The pages of our scum tabloid press are replete with conspiracy theories about some Sharia takeover or plot by evil immigrunts, but they would be told by their editors to scoff at any idea that (for instance) secret services sometimes engage in false flag attacks.

So it bothers me that people see anti-semitism where it almost certainly isn't, it stifles debate.

There is plenty to criticise banking practices for and it's complete hogwash to have to look over ones shoulder for fear of being accused of hating Jewish people.

Blagstas attack on Zeitgeist was groundless. The firsrt 2 original themes of the films are relgion and finance are totemic in what had influenced society and it's workings over hundreds and thousands of years.

The last part, 911, is totemic in defining much of this century so far. That is almost certainly why these topics were chosen, not some weird and expensive way of crowbaring in an attack on Jewish people without hardly mentioning them. Blagsta's charge is founded on little more than paranoia.

ETA: I have mixed feelings about the film btw, I am not mounting some defence of it because I consider it immensly important or anything.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

smokedout

"did david icke never say that a jewish cabal instigated world war two?"

Honestly don't know. Got a link? I know there's a theory that WW2 was a set-up and guess that some would happily impose anti-semitism on to it whether it was there or not.


"were the protocols of zion mnot used as anti-semetic propaganda?"

Over 100 years ago a bunch of fake documents were used as anti semite propaganda, yes. What does this prove? Very little really, except that some people long ago were gullible.

"is icke's book The robot Rebellion not based almost entirely on the protocols?"

Don't know, not read it. He's sillier than I thought if it is.


"does fritz springmeier not claim that the illuminati are headed by the Rothschilds?"

Springmeier, from what I have seen, is a fundie Christian loon. Some of them hate jews, some of them love 'em. I don't know who, if anyone, heads the illuminati, or indeed which definition of the illuminati is the most useful. Lots of people say it's the Vatican - does that mean they want to stick Catholics in gas ovens or something?

I do know that the Rothschilds figure fairly prominently, that is not a comment on their faith or ethnicity. To treat it as such would be fairly Macarthyite.

"does alex jones not repeatedly babble on about the Rothschild/Warburgs?"

Ditto. What has their faith / ethnicity got to do with it. He babbles on about Bush and Obama - he babbles on about all sorts of people. The vast majority aren't Jewish.

"is there no similarity between the baby eating bankers of Icke and the blood libels used by antisemites throughout history?"

Icke doesnt especially ascribe "baby eating" to bankers. And I'm not defending him or his viewpoints, I just find the anti-semite charge to be a diversion.

"have kollerstrom and many others attempted to deny the holocaust as part of a great conspiracy?"

holocaust denial is bollocks. What does this tell us? next to fuck all.

Instead of always fighting the last war we should focus on today's myths surrounding faith and ethnicity. As I say, Islamaphobia is rampant while anti-semitism has generally and thankfully abated in our society in recent generations (despite some disturbing "blip" increases here and there)

ETA: Much of the venal hatred of modern banking in the US stems from the rigged formation of the Federal Reserve in 1913. The involvement of certain families in that is indisputable and their faith / ethnicity need neither be here nor there. One of the most well known films covering this is "Freedom to Fascism" by Aaron Russo. I know he's jewish and that, but he must MUST be an anti-semite, in the subtext at least. Possibly as bad as Marx, especially as he is clearly not fond of fascism.

Some people have gone very far through one looking glass while accusing others of going through another one.

 

[editor]

Icke and Jones are fucking idiots and you've got to have several screws loose in the head to swallow any of their lunatic claims.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Icke and Jones are fucking idiots and you've got to have several screws loose in the head to swallow any of their lunatic claims.

Generalised attacks are lunatic. Jones claims the banks have ripped us off.
Are you going to launch a defence of the banks ed?

Oh hang on, you'd have to have a screw loose to swallow a lunatic claim - that makes sense. Are you saying all their claims are lunatic, or just the ones you disagree with? Plenty i&J say is certainly lunatic. That is not what is being discussed in recent posts. What is being discussed is alledged anti-semitism.

 

[Sgt Howie]

Conspiracy theories are what happens when a bunch of sad sacks sit about in their bedrooms all day and their only tenuous connection to the outside world is through the internet. Icke and Jones and co understand this process and have made good livings exploiting it.

If these sad sacks all got girlfriends tomorrow the troof movement would vanish like a hologram plane on 9/11.

 

[ernestolynch]

Anyone who criticises banking is borderline anti-semitic IMO.

 

[audiotech]

Icke and Jones are fucking idiots and you've got to have several screws loose in the head to swallow any of their lunatic claims.

Icke comparing himself to Jesus on Wogan some years ago tells you all you need to know about this idiot. He should have stuck to presenting snooker programmes.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Anyone who criticises banking is borderline anti-semitic IMO.

Vince Cable hates jews. Spread the word.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Conspiracy theories are what happens when a bunch of sad sacks sit about in their bedrooms all day and their only tenuous connection to the outside world is through the internet

No one conspires in the real world. That's a relief. Anti CT rhetoric is as likely to be founded on arbitary cod psychology as much CT rhetoric.

 

[Sgt Howie]

No one conspires in the real world. That's a relief. Anti CT rhetoric is as likely to be founded on arbitary cod psychology as much CT rhetoric.

Come on, I've had a look on the David Icke forum. Do you honestly believe the overwhelming majority of its posters ever get any?

 

[existentialist]

No one conspires in the real world. That's a relief. Anti CT rhetoric is as likely to be founded on arbitary cod psychology as much CT rhetoric.

Bollocks.

Unless we're going to start getting into hair-splitting about what constitutes a conspiracy theorist, it's pretty bloody evident that 99.9% of the criticisms of CTers are nothing to do with "arbitrary cod psychology" and everything to do with seeing something that walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and calling it a duck.

I have to say that this post is itself a classic example of the CT modus operandi: ignore all the glaring idiocies - total absence of evidence for the claims, ridiculous appeals to authority at the same time as the CTer is calling his protagonists "sheeple" for following the "authority" of non-conspiraloon sources, instant recourse to ad hominem the minute the argument looks like it's not going the CTer's way, etc - and focus on some tiny speck of information that's at best tangential to the debate.

And that, I'm afraid, is what I think your "arbitrary cod psychology" remark is: even if someone IS looking for a psychological basis for conspiraloon behaviour, that's never the main thrust of the debate about CT ideas. In fact, rather than sneering at it, you should perhaps be applauding the efforts of some to try and get a better understanding of a mindset which yields some pretty peculiar behaviours.

 

[existentialist]

If these sad sacks all got girlfriends tomorrow the troof movement would vanish like a hologram plane on 9/11.

That's quite a big "if", though, isn't it?

Could it be that the situation actually works the other way around - conspirary theories as substitute for non-existent (hey, hologram!) girlfriends...?

 

[butchersapron]

Blagsta and Butchers. I'm going from memory here, but I recall that it was not utterly devoid of substance - rather merely flimsy in substance. Central planning comes into it, I'm sure the advocates would aspire to this being democratic and to some degree consensual and I'm not sure how administrative regions would break down. However, the resource based economy is hardly a new proposal - it is this basis of many alternatives to modern capitalism, I seem to recall it also was the basic proposal in Ragged Trousers Philanthropists and in as much presumably drew on early socialism.

No, there is nothing. Nothing.

This is madness.

I seem to recall it also was the basic proposal in Ragged Trousers Philanthropists and in as much presumably drew on early socialism.

 

[editor]

Generalised attacks are lunatic. Jones claims the banks have ripped us off.

Anyone who takes the unmitigated drivel that dribbles out of the mouths of loons like Jones and Icke seriously needs their head examined.

If you really want to find out what's really going on in their world, they're just about the last people to ask.

 

[articul8]

maybe the CTists are Jews deliberately making absurd borderline anti-semitic claims to throw people off the scent

 

[Blagsta]

Blagsta and Butchers. I'm going from memory here, but I recall that it was not utterly devoid of substance - rather merely flimsy in substance. Central planning comes into it, I'm sure the advocates would aspire to this being democratic and to some degree consensual and I'm not sure how administrative regions would break down. However, the resource based economy is hardly a new proposal - it is this basis of many alternatives to modern capitalism, I seem to recall it also was the basic proposal in Ragged Trousers Philanthropists and in as much presumably drew on early socialism.

Yes, but what is it?

 

[Blagsta]

I know it's not aimed at me personally WoW, but the accusation against Zeitgeist is still utterly groundless. I have listened to way too many hours of Alex Jones and never once heard him say anything anti-jewish, if any of his callers phones up to say something like "it's all the jews / masons / vatican" or whatever he cuts them off and gives them short shrift. What was interepreted as Icke being anti-semitic when he talked about lizards was pretty much shown in the John Ronson film (where he was banned from some Canadian broadcast) to be Icke really meaning lizards, and we've all been round this a million times.

Anti-semitism does exist in conspiracy theory historically, but I think historically is the watchword and it is fading out. Anti-semitism is irrational and irrelevant, I think it is increasingly seen as such. What is far more prevalent (though not among conventional CTers) is Islamaphobia.

The pages of our scum tabloid press are replete with conspiracy theories about some Sharia takeover or plot by evil immigrunts, but they would be told by their editors to scoff at any idea that (for instance) secret services sometimes engage in false flag attacks.

So it bothers me that people see anti-semitism where it almost certainly isn't, it stifles debate.

There is plenty to criticise banking practices for and it's complete hogwash to have to look over ones shoulder for fear of being accused of hating Jewish people.

Blagstas attack on Zeitgeist was groundless. The firsrt 2 original themes of the films are relgion and finance are totemic in what had influenced society and it's workings over hundreds and thousands of years.

The last part, 911, is totemic in defining much of this century so far. That is almost certainly why these topics were chosen, not some weird and expensive way of crowbaring in an attack on Jewish people without hardly mentioning them. Blagsta's charge is founded on little more than paranoia.

ETA: I have mixed feelings about the film btw, I am not mounting some defence of it because I consider it immensly important or anything.

You might want to re-read btw.

 

[Blagsta]

Generalised attacks are lunatic. Jones claims the banks have ripped us off.
Are you going to launch a defence of the banks ed?

Oh hang on, you'd have to have a screw loose to swallow a lunatic claim - that makes sense. Are you saying all their claims are lunatic, or just the ones you disagree with? Plenty i&J say is certainly lunatic. That is not what is being discussed in recent posts. What is being discussed is alledged anti-semitism.

You still don't get it. It's not specifically the banks. You're putting the cart before the horse. Unless you think the banks can be reformed to be "nicer" and everything will be hunky dory?

 

[existentialist]

Yes, but what is it?

He could tell you, but he'd have to kill you afterwards...

 

[Blagsta]

It's more likely he'll tell me to watch a 45 minute video, after which I'll be none the wiser.

 

[Sgt Howie]

maybe the CTists are Jews deliberately making absurd borderline anti-semitic claims to throw people off the scent

 

[frogwoman]

There's a good reason why anti-semitism has been decribed as "the socialism of fools" and it isn't because the people believing in it are fools. It's precisely because of this elevation of bankers as a great evil above everything else

 

[smokedout]

No one conspires in the real world. That's a relief. Anti CT rhetoric is as likely to be founded on arbitary cod psychology as much CT rhetoric.

so who do you think is secretly controlling everything and how are they linked?

 

[frogwoman]

I wrote an essay when I was at uni which covered exactly this subject and the fact that far-right conspiracy theories tend to go into a "conspiracy theory of history" which normally involves bankers as a convenient scapegoat without ever questioning the structure of capitalism or class/labour relations itself.

 

[Blagsta]

I wrote an essay when I was at uni which covered exactly this subject and the fact that far-right conspiracy theories tend to go into a "conspiracy theory of history" which normally involves bankers as a convenient scapegoat without ever questioning the structure of capitalism or class/labour relations itself.

Bingo!

That's the problem with taffy's analysis. It's all about the bankers. What about production, private property etc?

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Bingo!

That's the problem with taffy's analysis. It's all about the bankers. What about production, private property etc?

I think Frogwomans thesis is broadly correct, but there's more to my analysis than that to be fair, I count myself as being on the left but a discussion about CTs is far more likely to focus on their angle. Also, the scale of the 2008 banking heist makes the issue more pertinent currently.

There is plenty of room to pitch an anarchist or libertarian perspective at a textbook CTist and swing them round to a less myopic view. Socialism has more of a problem because of general and CT misconcpetions about the "s" word.

 

[smokedout]

There is plenty of room to pitch an anarchist or libertarian perspective at a textbook CTist and swing them round to a less myopic view. Socialism has more of a problem because of general and CT misconcpetions about the "s" word.

but surely you were making the case for left wing CTers just a few posts ago

 

[frogwoman]

Also conspriacy theories always tend to present people like mine owners, big industrial firms and the like as more "honest" than evil evil bankers, because at least they aren't making money out of money etc

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

so who do you think is secretly controlling everything and how are they linked?

I don't think any single group is controlling things. There are clearly competing elites and the anglo-american one was very dominant for a very long time. That appears to be on the wane now and Russian, Chinese and Japanese elites, secret societies etc. are just as likely to have sway now, especially in their parts of the world. They are certainly very pissed off with the US it seems.

I won't post screeds on this here and now, and apologise for being OTT in response to your (IMO OTT) accusations against Zeitgeist. But I'll give a teeny weeny example - that incident 18 months ago where Mandelson and Osborne turn out to have been on a yacht together with a Russian oligarch, A banker (I think) and Karimov's daughter (he is the Ukranian dictator who Craig Murray kicked off about, had people boiled alive) - this is the type of little gaggle who probably tries to stitch things up along the way - all the while Mandelson and Osborne will pretend to be on different "sides". They are both on the same side, the side of the elite. I see the problem as being chiefly capitalism and capitalist with all the strutural and social baggage that goes with it. I'm sure that meeting was bog standard corruption and oligarch stitch up - the fact that involved an unelected man who "runs the country" when Brown is away and the possible future chancellor should be pretty disturbing. Another thing on Mandelson: His return was hailed as mysterious after he twice resigned over sleaze. It's not so mysterious if you consider that within a few days he, as business secretary, oversaw scores of billions being spooned out to banks.

And that's small stuff. Bildeberg might get up to bigger stuff again, it's certainly less accountable than the WTO, IMF et al - and they are bad enough.

But in order to keep control the elite may have to engage in some darker deeds again.

That false flag terror has been used by right wing authoritarians like the US Gladio stuff in 70s Italy or Russian secret services more recently is historical fact, not paranoid lizard gibber.

As with nuclear leaks, we are obviously only ever told about the ones that get discovered. It is reasonable to assume that black-ops and false flags are a phenomena that occur at least occasionally.