How Many Still Believe That All Conspiracies Are Bunk

  • Thread starter jumpincactus
  • Start date
  • Tagged users None
jumpincactus

jumpincactus

Premium Member
Supporter
11,612
438
You all know what I am talking about, the ole tinfoil hat thinking and stories that cause you to give pause and question the normal narratives we are force fed by msm.

I will state up front that not all conspiracy theories are factual. But don't let that allow you to dismiss every one that has a different way of looking at things as a nutso or crack pot. Don't get me wrong, I don't subscribe to folks or their wild stories who make a profit from spinning crazy azz shyt, alex J anyone. But don't let the few crackpots keep you from doing critical thinking when dissecting the facts that are presented with any CT you come across.

Keep in mind all crimes typically begin as a conspiracy. Many folks sit in prisons due to being found guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime.

The term conspiracy or conspiracy theorist's was coined back in the early 60's as part of a pysop operation to discredit or place a ???? mark over the head of the person that was getting too close to the truth considering that most public knowledge is disseminated thru the msm who controls the narrative. Challenge the narrative of those in power and you are swiftly discredited or crushed and your career ruined. Remember he who controls the narrative and propaganda controls the masses. For example remember after 9/11 how effectively the msm and certain individuals in the pentagon and executive branch used false narratives concerning irag to galvanize a grieving nation to invade a sovereign nation without any solid evidence there were actually any WMD's

It was all proved later to be nothing but lies to build a pretext for the invasion. There is lots of money in war folks.

Here is some more information I invite you peruse and come to your own conclusions as to whether all people that speak truth to power are really out of their minds.


In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative

Conspiracy Theorists USED TO Be Accepted As Normal
Democracy and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories.

The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories.

But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed.

The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967
That all changed in the 1960s.

Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.

The dispatch states:

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.


The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.



3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:



a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.


4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:



a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.


b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …


c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.

f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….


5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

CIA-conspiracy.jpg


Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:




    • Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy



    • Have people friendly to the CIA attack the claims, and point back to “official” reports



    • Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable



    • Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”



    • Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active



    • Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate



    • Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories



    • Accuse theorists of being politically motivated



    • Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories
In other words, the CIA’s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations.

But Aren’t Conspiracy Theories – In Fact – Nuts?
Forget Western history and CIA dispatches … aren’t conspiracy theorists nutty?

In fact, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven based on the specific evidence:

Federal and all 50 state’s codes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for people who commit conspiracies.



But let’s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about “conspiracies”. Let’s look at what American judges think.



Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the word “Conspiracy”. This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw.



Specifically, I got the following message:

“Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents.”

From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term. There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the request.



So I searched again, using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy”. I hoped that this would not only narrow my search sufficiently that Westlaw could handle it, but would give me cases where the judge actually found the defendant guilty of a conspiracy. This pulled up exactly 10,000 cases — which is the maximum number of results which Westlaw can give at one time. In other words, there were more than 10,000 cases using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy” (maybe there’s a way to change my settings to get more than 10,000 results, but I haven’t found it yet).



Moreover, as any attorney can confirm, usually only appeal court decisions are published in the Westlaw database. In other words, trial court decisions are rarely published; the only decisions normally published are those of the courts which hear appeals of the trial. Because only a very small fraction of the cases which go to trial are appealed, this logically means that the number of guilty verdicts in conspiracy cases at trial must be much, much larger than 10,000.



Moreover, “Guilty of Conspiracy” is only one of many possible search phrases to use to find cases where the defendant was found guilty of a lawsuit for conspiracy. Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and 743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.



Of course, many types of conspiracies are called other things altogether. For example, a long-accepted legal doctrine makes it illegal for two or more companies to conspire to fix prices, which is called “Price Fixing” (1,180,000 results).



Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been hundreds of thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the United States.



Finally, many crimes go unreported or unsolved, and the perpetrators are never caught. Therefore, the actual number of conspiracies committed in the U.S. must be even higher.



In other words, conspiracies are committed all the time in the U.S., and many of the conspirators are caught and found guilty by American courts. Remember, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.



Indeed, conspiracy is a very well-recognized crime in American law, taught to every first-year law school student as part of their basic curriculum. Telling a judge that someone has a “conspiracy theory” would be like telling him that someone is claiming that he trespassed on their property, or committed assault, or stole his car. It is a fundamental legal concept.



Obviously, many conspiracy allegations are false (if you see a judge at a dinner party, ask him to tell you some of the crazy conspiracy allegations which were made in his court). Obviously, people will either win or lose in court depending on whether or not they can prove their claim with the available evidence. But not all allegations of trespass, assault, or theft are true, either.



Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving any other legal claim, and the mere label “conspiracy” is taken no less seriously by judges.

It’s not only Madoff. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this, this, this, this and this.

Time Magazine’s financial columnist Justin Fox writes:

Some financial market conspiracies are real …



Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.

And what about the NSA and the tech companies that have cooperated with them?

But Our Leaders Wouldn’t Do That
While people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies – they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.

But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies. For example, Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote:

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials ….

But Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans
A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the beans” if there were really a conspiracy.

But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains:

It is a commonplace that “you can’t keep secrets in Washington” or “in a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you’re likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.” These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn’t in a fully totalitarian society. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

History proves Ellsberg right. For example:





    • A BBC documentary shows that:
There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression”

Moreover, “the tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers.” Have you ever heard of this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?




    • 7 out of the 8 giant, money center banks went bankrupt in the 1980′s during the “Latin American Crisis”, and the government’s response was to cover up their insolvency. That’s a cover up lasting several decades



    • Banks have been involved in systematic criminal behavior, and have manipulated every single market



    • Governments have been covering up nuclear meltdowns for fifty years to protect the nuclear industry. Governments have colluded to cover up the severity of numerous other environmental accidents. For many years, Texas officials intentionally under-reported the amount of radiation in drinking water to avoid having to report violations



    • The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this.) But the public didn’t learn about it until many years later. Indeed, the the New York Times delayed the story so that it would not affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election



    • The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office. Dick Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly disclosed recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy
Moreover, high-level government officials and insiders have admitted to dramatic conspiracies after the fact, including:




    • Supporting terrorists to promote geopolitical goals



    • Supporting false flag terror
The admissions did not occur until many decades after the events.

These examples show that it is possible to keep conspiracies secret for a long time, without anyone “spilling the beans”.

In addition, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a “need-to-know basis”, along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won’t even know the big picture at the time they are participating.

Moreover, those who think that co-conspirators will brag about their deeds forget that people in the military or intelligence or who have huge sums of money on the line can be very disciplined. They are not likely to go to the bar and spill the beans like a down-on-their-luck, second-rate alcoholic robber might do.

Finally, people who carry out covert operations may do so for ideological reasons — believing that the “ends justify the means”. Never underestimate the conviction of an ideologue.

Conclusion
The bottom line is that some conspiracy claims are nutty and some are true. Each has to be judged on its own facts.

Humans have a tendency to try to explain random events through seeing patterns … that’s how our brains our wired. Therefore, we have to test our theories of connection and causality against the cold, hard facts.

On the other hand, the old saying by Lord Acton is true:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

Those who operate without checks and balances – and without the disinfectant sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability – tend to act in their own best interests … and the little guy gets hurt.

The early Greeks knew it, as did those who forced the king to sign the Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers and the father of modern economics. We should remember this important tradition of Western civilization.

Postscript: The ridicule of all conspiracy theories is really just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful.

The wealthy are not worse than other people … but they are not necessarily better either. Powerful leaders may not be bad people … or they could be sociopaths.

We must judge each by his or her actions, and not by preconceived stereotypes that they are all saints acting in our best interest or all scheming criminals.
 
PhatNuggz

PhatNuggz

2,123
163
One guess who came up with the term Conspiracy Theory

I was pondering this yesterday

What if: decades of political mudslinging and cat fights with little getting done for we the people, were/are/is intended as a distraction?
After all the deep state owns the media, ergo, THE NEWS, and what do we see
reagan, raegan, reagan, carter, carter, carter, bush,bush,bush, clinton clinton, clinton, w, w, w, obama, obama, obama, and now (the only president in history whose own party is against him, giving those with eyes to see a peek under the hood. Why would both parties be so obvious, including parts of the cia, fbi , and doj... is this more than circumstantial evidence that they in actuality ONE party, AND that Michael Jackson’s last song that got him killed title is,,,, are you ready for it? They Don't Care About Us? Frankly, Im surprised they never scrubbed it from all media

And if true what might likely be going on around thee world? The following probably isn’t 100% accurate or the author would probably be suicided, but it seems the deep state world control is in jeopardy
For some this will be hard to get your mind around. Don’t delete, save it and read it whenever you feel the need
2018-06-04
Takedown of Israel may be imminent as NATO withdraws protection
By Benjamin Fulford Weekly Reports 199 Comments

Tectonic shifts in the geopolitical landscape continue at a dizzying pace around the world as the satanic Khazarian mob is being systematically removed from all world power centers, multiple sources agree. The situation has proceeded so far that the Khazarian big Kahuna, Israel, may soon be liberated from the satanists, Pentagon sources say. In Europe the changes of government last week in Italy, Spain, and Slovenia mean that only a rump of France, Germany, and Holland remain under Khazarian control, the sources say.

The liberation of the West is necessary to ensure that the East/West negotiations taking place in Singapore next week do not result in a one-China world order replacing the Khazarian mafia at the top of the world, the sources say.

Let us start by looking at the situation in Israel, where top satanist leader Benjamin Netanyahu, like his predecessor Adolf Hitler, is now holed up in a bunker as he prepares for his inevitable defeat. The public statement last week by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that the alliance wouldn’t come to Israel’s defense in case of attack by Iran was a visible sign of the imminent regime change in Israel.
https://nypost.com/2018/06/02/nato-chief-says-alliance-wont-protect-israel-if-iran-attacks/


More important is what was left unsaid, according to Pentagon sources, which is that “NATO will not defend this illegitimate Zionist entity from the [Russian] bear.” In any case, Netanyahu and his regime have lost the support of most real Jews (as opposed to closet satanists) because of their murderous behavior.

This public denouncement of Israel comes as Saudi Arabia prepares to announce Mutaib bin Abdullah as its new ruler, replacing Zionist stooge Bin Salman, who was assassinated on April 21st, Pentagon sources say.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...d-once-seen-as-throne-contender-idUSKBN1D40VG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutaib_bin_Abdullah

This is important because it means control of the Saudi oil, the mainstay of the petrodollar, has fallen out of Zionist hands, the sources say. For sure, Bin Salman, who was in the press daily until gunfire erupted in his palace on April 21st, has vanished from public view. A public announcement will be needed, though, to confirm what these sources are saying.

However, a different Pentagon source came forward last week with related news that could affect the management and ownership of most publicly listed Western corporations. According to this source, the military backers of the Trump regime are considering giving Leo Wanta and his people control of the $26 trillion in funds they claim were illegitimately taken from them by the Bush faction of the Khazarian mob. Wanta has been invited to Washington, DC this week to discuss these funds, the source says. “If they are going to get this money for Wanta, they are going to have to take it from Vanguard,” the source says. Vanguard (Bush?), together with State Street (Rockefeller?) and Blackrock (Rothschild?) control most major Western corporations.
http://theconversation.com/these-three-firms-own-corporate-america-77072
https://steemit.com/news/@sione/the...world-yet-you-ve-probably-never-heard-of-them

The U.S. military move to take over Vanguard, and possibly State Street as well as Blackrock, may be in preparation for a showdown with a Eurasian alliance over control of the world’s financial system. In this context, the summit next week between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, is about far more than just peace in the Korean peninsula. According to the Gnostic Illuminati, Kim Jong-un is in fact the leader of an alliance that controls China as well as much of East Asia.

Regardless of whether or not this is true about Kim, a look at the overall world situation leaves it beyond a doubt that the U.S.-dominated Western military-industrial complex and a Eurasian alliance are negotiating a new way to run the planet.

The key as to who will come out on top looks increasingly like it is being held by India. India has a young population roughly equal in size to China’s rapidly aging population. That’s why the U.S. side has been trying to convince India to join an alliance with itself, Japan, Australia, and Indonesia to “contain China.” The U.S. last week renamed their Pacific Command the Indo-Pacific Command as a part of their appeal to India.

The Chinese, however, seem to have the upper hand, in that India has joined with Russia and China as part of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a Eurasian military and economic alliance.

Last week Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, speaking at the Shangri La dialogue in Singapore, made it clear that India was not interested in playing great power games, saying “Asia of rivalry will hold us all back. Asia of cooperation will shape this century.” We recommend reading Modi’s not-too-long speech in its entirety at the link below:
http://mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statemen...e_Address_at_Shangri_La_Dialogue_June_01_2018

In any case, the Shangri La meeting in Singapore is just one of several high-level gatherings taking place in the run-up to the Kim/Trump summit next week. This week will also see a G7 (public Western government) summit meeting in Canada, as well as a Bilderberg (secret Western government) meeting in Italy, as the West tries to coordinate its stance in the big power negotiations with Asia next week.

So let us turn back now to the situation in the West, starting with Europe. First of all, it is probably no coincidence that the Bilderberg meeting this year is taking place in Italy, since the new regime there is opposed to the Euro and is thus an existential threat to the Union as it now stands. In basic terms, the economic math makes it very obvious that Southern Europe (Spain, Italy, Greece, and Portugal) would be better off without the Euro, and this is a reality the secret elite will inevitably have to face. Furthermore, the fall of the Nazi house of Bush means there is no longer any serious Western military-industrial backing for the German-centered EU project as it now stands. The collapse, however, will take place in slow motion.

The other issue there is that Slovenia (Melania Trump’s homeland) has now joined Poland and Hungary in electing a regime that is opposed to the current EU policy of mass immigration, mostly from Muslim countries. The overall trend is that central Europe is now joining Southern Europe in moving away from EU domination by Germany (plus French lackeys), albeit for different reasons. The UK, with its Brexit, has also already said no to the EU. Clearly, a deeply divided Europe is in no position to represent the West in big negotiations with the East.

The other key G7 power center, Japan, is also in deep disarray, because the regime there is viewed by the Asian underworld as a colonial slave government. The North Koreans are seen as the legitimate government for Korea and Japan, Japanese right-wing sources say, and that is why the Japanese have been excluded from U.S./North Korean negotiations. Furthermore, the Bush proxies like Richard Armitage (Barbara Bush’s cousin) have lost power, meaning there is a vacuum in the U.S. colonial control grid in Japan.

It is in this context that we must look at Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on European as well as Japanese and Canadian steel and aluminum. The aim is use this measure to force a change in the economic governance of the West. In a sense, Trump is right to say that if the U.S. has a trade deficit of $800 billion a year, then winning a trade war is a no-brainer.

However, what he is just realizing is the U.S. economy was allowed to be hollowed out by huge trade deficits because the owners of the current petrodollar-centered financial system were mostly either not American, or else not patriotic Americans. Our sources suggest that’s why the move with Wanta, if true, may be a sign that Trump is finally finding the right target. If Trump can get control over the system that is based on the U.S. dollar, Euro, and yen, he will be in a much stronger position to negotiate a new global financial/political architecture with the Eurasian alliance. His regime just needs to round up a few more oligarchs and he might just be able to pull it off. On that front, steady progress continues, Pentagon sources say.

For one thing, “The #2 leader of sex cult NXIVM, actress Allison Mack, may have sung to take down Hollywood and Bronfmans,” the sources say. The Bronfman family got rich selling booze to Al Capone and now is one of the main controlling families of media giants like AOL – Time Warner.

The other big Zionist media entity under attack is Disney. “ABC’s Roseanne Barr was ‘martyred’ to take down [Barack] Obama handler Valerie Jarrett and her defender Disney CEO Bob Iger, and her cancelled show may be picked up by Fox,” say Pentagon sources. Furthermore, they add, “Harvey Weinstein and his former employer Disney et al. may be charged with RICO violations for running a criminal sexual enterprise, as Trump may even nationalize that cultural icon to protect children.”

Also, in Washington, DC, “Deep state and Zionist agents are history, as the Department of Defense takes over the security clearance process for the whole of government to allow only white hats and patriots,” the sources say.

What all this means is that the military government behind Trump is solidifying its position as representative of the West in negotiations with the Eurasian alliance.

However, Trump needs to learn that bullying and table-pounding do not go over well in Asia. China has made it clear it will meet the U.S. halfway, but that any attempt by Trump to bully his way into a deal will backfire, issuing a statement that read, in part:
“All economic and trade outcomes of the talks will not take effect if the U.S. side imposes any trade sanctions, including raising tariffs.”
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-06/03/c_137227287.htm

Nonetheless, all the moves described above represent a fundamental change of direction in how the world is governed now that the Zionist apocalyptic nightmare is ending. Humanity is being freed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Source:
https://benjaminfulford.net/2018/06...may-be-imminent-as-nato-withdraws-protection/
 
RippedTorn

RippedTorn

482
93
In America the word conspiracy and the word theory are often swapped. Lol its funny. "There's a conspiracy theory against me man!"Thats my conspiracy anyway. Lol

Very obvious the phrase is used to devalue opinions. Because no one even uses it properly lol.
 
jumpincactus

jumpincactus

Premium Member
Supporter
11,612
438
In America the word conspiracy and the word theory are often swapped. Lol its funny. "There's a conspiracy theory against me man!"Thats my conspiracy anyway. Lol

Very obvious the phrase is used to devalue opinions. Because no one even uses it properly lol.
indeed the term was coined to devalue or place a question mark over the head of the person/s that were/are getting too close to the "truth" Anymore even truth is devalued and we live in an alternate reality. You can see that up on the hill all the time...…..
 
K

kansabis

1,427
263
Everything heard and spoken is only half truth anyways,everything will be filtered through individual brains and points of view,if you use the broad examples of religion and politics,people will believe things without anything more than someone saying it that they put faith and trust into that person's words. Others such as myself tend to question everything,even reality itself. But with that said I've been into conspiracy theories for quite sometime and find them very interesting,mainly because their is always some truth in everything and possibilities are endless,nothing seems to amaze or shock me anymore.
 
1diesel1

1diesel1

Staff
Supporter
10,087
438
797D3BC9 191C 42C7 A1F8 3CBBB5BA058F
Conspiracy’s only exist in the mind of the one that makes it up. All the others are just followers of the conspiracy he or she created. I wise man once told me your only as smart as you think....I think? That’s all I got to say about that.
A259D63C A3F0 4BB8 AAC7 CA10EED02981
 
jumpincactus

jumpincactus

Premium Member
Supporter
11,612
438
Everything heard and spoken is only half truth anyways,everything will be filtered through individual brains and points of view,if you use the broad examples of religion and politics,people will believe things without anything more than someone saying it that they put faith and trust into that person's words. Others such as myself tend to question everything,even reality itself. But with that said I've been into conspiracy theories for quite sometime and find them very interesting,mainly because their is always some truth in everything and possibilities are endless,nothing seems to amaze or shock me anymore.
Well said bro. I always say part of whats wrong with the younger folks is they aren't being taught to think "critically" and "Question Everything" ...…. Something us old schoolers cut our teeth on. "Big Brother" really was watching, but no one listened...… :cool:
 
Smegal

Smegal

233
63
As with any conspiracy theory there is never any proof. I personally have lived an x files kind of life for the past 40 years. Working with the government and military on black projects. And no I can't give any proof, my handlers will censure all my communications. But I can tell you that many of the "conspiracy theories out there are probigated by the government to dilute the truth that some how always leaks out. Many of the theories I've read have a small bit of fact surrounded by a lot of speculation. Somethings are hard to believe as they may contridict what you've been told or come to believe. As molder says ,the truth is out there.
 
Frankster

Frankster

Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
5,190
313
Conspiracy theory is used by the rich and powerful as a wedge to win over weak minded people to their side. It's a recruitment tactic of capitalism and propagating the lie of "whiteness" and "superiority". Conspiracy theory is a vehicle driving fascism.

Conspiracy Theory is a political tool in the box to manipulate and divide by any means necessary. It's a mental construct. One more modern dichotomy of mankind. It's like talking about how time doesn't exist. ie. When physicists say that time doesn't exist they mean one of two things: 1) The passage of time is an illusion; 2)Time isn't fundamental. ... We can only form memory about things from a time where entropy was smaller, so we can't remember the future.

grains of different truths; make reality blurry.


It's all founded in the mythos of "Whiteness"; as a human people. White doesn't exist; (never existed) but in the Western American mind; it does. This explains my perspective on this subject well. ie. Europeans as a "United White" race. It wasn't always so. The very first (European) people(s) migrating over here to the America's were actually escaping that shit... (pushed out of Europe) But it followed them.

99.9% of everyone is brain washed one direction or another. we purposely delude ourselves for a reason. (self perseveration). People believe what is most coinvent to believe. What fits into their world views; makes us appear in a self-flattering light.



Nazism; and the big lie. All in the very same vein. Just a slightly different iteration of it.

The big lie (German: große Lüge) is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth, used especially as a propaganda technique. The German expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, to describe the use of a lie so colossal that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously." Hitler claimed that the technique was used by Jews to blame Germany's loss in World War I on German general Erich Ludendorff, who was a prominent nationalist political leader in the Weimar Republic.

Nazis' big lie was their depiction of Germany as an innocent, besieged land striking back at international Jewry, which the Nazis blamed for starting World War I. Nazi propaganda repeatedly claimed that Jews held power behind the scenes in Britain, Russia, and the United States. It further spread claims that the Jews had begun a war of extermination against Germany, and used these to assert that Germany had a right to annihilate the Jews in self-defense.

The source of the big lie technique is this passage, taken from Chapter 10 of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf.

But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.

My my, how history likes to repeat itself....

All this was inspired by the principle – which is quite true within itself – that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods.

It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

— Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, vol. I, ch. X

Hitler's biggest lie was his revisionist claim that Germany was not defeated in war in 1918, but rather was betrayed by internal groups.
 
Last edited:
Frankster

Frankster

Never trust a doctor who's plants have died.
Supporter
5,190
313
indeed the term was coined to devalue or place a question mark over the head of the person/s that were/are getting too close to the "truth" Anymore even truth is devalued and we live in an alternate reality. You can see that up on the hill all the time...…..
And I'm "quoting" Hitler here;
Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think there may be some other explanation.
 
Grobogen1victim

Grobogen1victim

13
3
You all know what I am talking about, the ole tinfoil hat thinking and stories that cause you to give pause and question the normal narratives we are force fed by msm.

I will state up front that not all conspiracy theories are factual. But don't let that allow you to dismiss every one that has a different way of looking at things as a nutso or crack pot. Don't get me wrong, I don't subscribe to folks or their wild stories who make a profit from spinning crazy azz shyt, alex J anyone. But don't let the few crackpots keep you from doing critical thinking when dissecting the facts that are presented with any CT you come across.

Keep in mind all crimes typically begin as a conspiracy. Many folks sit in prisons due to being found guilty of conspiracy to commit a crime.

The term conspiracy or conspiracy theorist's was coined back in the early 60's as part of a pysop operation to discredit or place a ???? mark over the head of the person that was getting too close to the truth considering that most public knowledge is disseminated thru the msm who controls the narrative. Challenge the narrative of those in power and you are swiftly discredited or crushed and your career ruined. Remember he who controls the narrative and propaganda controls the masses. For example remember after 9/11 how effectively the msm and certain individuals in the pentagon and executive branch used false narratives concerning irag to galvanize a grieving nation to invade a sovereign nation without any solid evidence there were actually any WMD's

It was all proved later to be nothing but lies to build a pretext for the invasion. There is lots of money in war folks.

Here is some more information I invite you peruse and come to your own conclusions as to whether all people that speak truth to power are really out of their minds.


In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative

Conspiracy Theorists USED TO Be Accepted As Normal
Democracy and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories.

The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories.

But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed.

The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967
That all changed in the 1960s.

Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories. The dispatch was marked “psych” – short for “psychological operations” or disinformation – and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.

The dispatch states:

2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.


The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.



3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:



a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by … propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.


4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:



a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.


b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …


c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.

f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….


5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

CIA-conspiracy.jpg


Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:





    • Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy



    • Have people friendly to the CIA attack the claims, and point back to “official” reports



    • Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable



    • Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”



    • Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active



    • Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate



    • Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories



    • Accuse theorists of being politically motivated



    • Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories
In other words, the CIA’s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations.

But Aren’t Conspiracy Theories – In Fact – Nuts?
Forget Western history and CIA dispatches … aren’t conspiracy theorists nutty?

In fact, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven based on the specific evidence:

Federal and all 50 state’s codes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for people who commit conspiracies.



But let’s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about “conspiracies”. Let’s look at what American judges think.



Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the word “Conspiracy”. This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw.



Specifically, I got the following message:

“Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents.”

From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term. There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the request.



So I searched again, using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy”. I hoped that this would not only narrow my search sufficiently that Westlaw could handle it, but would give me cases where the judge actually found the defendant guilty of a conspiracy. This pulled up exactly 10,000 cases — which is the maximum number of results which Westlaw can give at one time. In other words, there were more than 10,000 cases using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy” (maybe there’s a way to change my settings to get more than 10,000 results, but I haven’t found it yet).



Moreover, as any attorney can confirm, usually only appeal court decisions are published in the Westlaw database. In other words, trial court decisions are rarely published; the only decisions normally published are those of the courts which hear appeals of the trial. Because only a very small fraction of the cases which go to trial are appealed, this logically means that the number of guilty verdicts in conspiracy cases at trial must be much, much larger than 10,000.



Moreover, “Guilty of Conspiracy” is only one of many possible search phrases to use to find cases where the defendant was found guilty of a lawsuit for conspiracy. Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and 743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.



Of course, many types of conspiracies are called other things altogether. For example, a long-accepted legal doctrine makes it illegal for two or more companies to conspire to fix prices, which is called “Price Fixing” (1,180,000 results).



Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been hundreds of thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the United States.



Finally, many crimes go unreported or unsolved, and the perpetrators are never caught. Therefore, the actual number of conspiracies committed in the U.S. must be even higher.



In other words, conspiracies are committed all the time in the U.S., and many of the conspirators are caught and found guilty by American courts. Remember, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.



Indeed, conspiracy is a very well-recognized crime in American law, taught to every first-year law school student as part of their basic curriculum. Telling a judge that someone has a “conspiracy theory” would be like telling him that someone is claiming that he trespassed on their property, or committed assault, or stole his car. It is a fundamental legal concept.



Obviously, many conspiracy allegations are false (if you see a judge at a dinner party, ask him to tell you some of the crazy conspiracy allegations which were made in his court). Obviously, people will either win or lose in court depending on whether or not they can prove their claim with the available evidence. But not all allegations of trespass, assault, or theft are true, either.



Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving any other legal claim, and the mere label “conspiracy” is taken no less seriously by judges.

It’s not only Madoff. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this, this, this, this and this.

Time Magazine’s financial columnist Justin Fox writes:

Some financial market conspiracies are real …



Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.

And what about the NSA and the tech companies that have cooperated with them?

But Our Leaders Wouldn’t Do That
While people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies – they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.

But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies. For example, Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote:

Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials ….

But Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans
A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the beans” if there were really a conspiracy.

But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains:

It is a commonplace that “you can’t keep secrets in Washington” or “in a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you’re likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.” These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn’t in a fully totalitarian society. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public. This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

History proves Ellsberg right. For example:






    • A BBC documentary shows that:
There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression”

Moreover, “the tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers.” Have you ever heard of this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?





    • 7 out of the 8 giant, money center banks went bankrupt in the 1980′s during the “Latin American Crisis”, and the government’s response was to cover up their insolvency. That’s a cover up lasting several decades



    • Banks have been involved in systematic criminal behavior, and have manipulated every single market



    • Governments have been covering up nuclear meltdowns for fifty years to protect the nuclear industry. Governments have colluded to cover up the severity of numerous other environmental accidents. For many years, Texas officials intentionally under-reported the amount of radiation in drinking water to avoid having to report violations



    • The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this.) But the public didn’t learn about it until many years later. Indeed, the the New York Times delayed the story so that it would not affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election



    • The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office. Dick Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly disclosed recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy
Moreover, high-level government officials and insiders have admitted to dramatic conspiracies after the fact, including:




    • Supporting terrorists to promote geopolitical goals



    • Supporting false flag terror
The admissions did not occur until many decades after the events.

These examples show that it is possible to keep conspiracies secret for a long time, without anyone “spilling the beans”.

In addition, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a “need-to-know basis”, along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won’t even know the big picture at the time they are participating.

Moreover, those who think that co-conspirators will brag about their deeds forget that people in the military or intelligence or who have huge sums of money on the line can be very disciplined. They are not likely to go to the bar and spill the beans like a down-on-their-luck, second-rate alcoholic robber might do.

Finally, people who carry out covert operations may do so for ideological reasons — believing that the “ends justify the means”. Never underestimate the conviction of an ideologue.

Conclusion
The bottom line is that some conspiracy claims are nutty and some are true. Each has to be judged on its own facts.

Humans have a tendency to try to explain random events through seeing patterns … that’s how our brains our wired. Therefore, we have to test our theories of connection and causality against the cold, hard facts.

On the other hand, the old saying by Lord Acton is true:

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

Those who operate without checks and balances – and without the disinfectant sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability – tend to act in their own best interests … and the little guy gets hurt.

The early Greeks knew it, as did those who forced the king to sign the Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers and the father of modern economics. We should remember this important tradition of Western civilization.

Postscript: The ridicule of all conspiracy theories is really just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful.

The wealthy are not worse than other people … but they are not necessarily better either. Powerful leaders may not be bad people … or they could be sociopaths.

We must judge each by his or her actions, and not by preconceived stereotypes that they are all saints acting in our best interest or all scheming criminals.
This the kind of content im here for.
 
Top Bottom