New World Order
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
This is untrue because it is an ad hominem.
This is a strawman argument. No one claimed he was illuminati.
I think that if you knew all this stuff about conspiracy theory as you claimed, you wouldn't be posting these blatantly dishonest conspiracy theorist positions. In other words, if your truth is so compelling, there should be no reason to demagogue or insult to communicate it.
If you're talking about the FED, it was. The Jekyll Island origin isn't conspiracy.
Oh sure. Be reasonable and insightful. How dare you!
I listened once in a while, I check his youtube channel now and again to see if anyone decent was interviewed. He hasn't done a decent interview in ages, with the exception of Marc Faber. The new format where he takes calls all the time, mostly from complete morons, the sort that are being mocked in this thread is horrible entertainment. No one really wants to listen to John in Tallahassee ramble about how his neighbor saw a black sedan outside a coffee shop.
The unbearable thing is how he exaggerates. Say he has an article. He exaggerates what it says, then he exaggerates how many articles there are saying the same things. It's impossible to use him as a source of information because even the credible things he presents, he presents them without credibility.
Not exactly - I was just making the general point that keeping secrets is extremely difficult.
It is easier when there is an "us vs. them" conflict especially with a difference in geography. Keeping D-Day secret in WWII was no small task but it was easier because of the physical separation of mainland Europe and Britain (and the exceptional work of intelligence officials who managed to uncover an entire German spy ring and turn - or execute - all of it's members).
Keeping a secret in a homogenous society - such as inside a country - is much, much harder. If a certain NWO movement did exist the conspiracy would have to be vast. It might be split into cells and minimal information exchanged except for at top levels - but at some point it would be compromised because the very members of it would be the ones affected by the long term outcome.
The repeated whistle-blowing in large corporations and in the US government for lesser infractions/cover-ups leads me to believe that any truly large scale conspiracy could not remain secret.
Keeping secrets is hard, but theres another thing to note.
This idea of a hyper-competent government is a complete farce. Our government full of incompetence, and to think they are competent enough to hide secrets is a complete joke. It appeals to fantasy.
This idea of a hyper-competent government is a complete farce. Our government full of incompetence, and to think they are competent enough to hide secrets is a complete joke. It appeals to fantasy.
Well obviously if the government was hyper-competent, no one would ever question it.
But setting up these two extremes is the strawman. I don't think anyone has staked out either position in this discussion.
Everyone knows that governments lie, they get busted on it. Some lies take longer than others to come out. Until then, people speculate because (1) they generally don't trust government, and (2) despite their lack of competency implementing secrecy, governments are not transparent.
The thing which has caused conspiracy theorizing to explode is the internet. People no longer only get one mainstream opinion, delivered from text books and television talking heads. What has changed in the last 15 years is that there is now ALWAYS at least two sides to every story. I don't remember that being the case when I was growing up.
There was how it was, and that was that. No one disputed whatever the majority of people seemed to believe (this applies to religion as well). To do so, risked social ostracism (kooks, crazies, truthers etc.). The internet gives us the relative anonymity and convenience to discuss things we might not be comfortable discussing with our families or peer groups.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident remained secret for 30 years. I'd say that was a pretty significant cover up.
Saying the government is incompetent and therefore incapable of keeping a secret is a joke. It's not like there are memo's circulated throughout the government detailing the conspiracies and telling everyone to shoosh about it. Normally it's only a small handful of people involved in any type of conspiracy. Expecting thousands of people in government to keep a secret is foolish, but expecting a handful of people to be able to keep something secret is entirely reasonable.
It also gives kooks and crazies a veil of legitimacy because it's so easy to portray legitimacy online. A spiffy website, claims of expertise, PhDs, years in the field, an organization.
Fundamentally though, a lot of these theories depends on suspect logic.
You have people like Benjamin Fulford gaining traction on the internet. Have you read any of his claims? Secret ninjas, the ghosts of his forefathers writing physical letters
Conspiracy Planet - Illuminati - Chinese Secret Society vs. Rockefeller-Illuminati
If you had to rank Fulford's legitimacy on a scale of 1-10 where would you put him?
Holy shit some of you guys on the first page are crazy. The Federal Reserve is the biggest "conspiracy" government can pull off, and they can only pull it off because they have ... control of currency.
Also, I want to repeat what guerilla said in case anyone wants to quote some more Marx in this thread. What Marx said may or may not have been true - no more or less likely than what you or I say, but the fundamental assumption of the labour theory of value that Marx built almost all his observations off of is demonstrably untrue.
This is the labour theory of value. From this, flows basically everything else Marx ever published.
This is the labour theory of value. From this, flows basically everything else Marx ever published.
I think that is part of the growing pains of the net. We're just now starting to sort out "trust" online, and it will maybe be another 10 years until trust becomes workable, where it will be very hard for people to bullshit because false claims will be researched and debunked virally.
Almost all social norms are based on suspect logic. I think it is an affliction of our species. Instead of realizing our potential, we have allowed ourselves to be infantilized with violence, sex and mindless entertainment. When one reads the quality and rigor of thought of men during the enlightenment, and compare that to the thinkers and leaders of today, it almost appears to me that we've taken steps backward from knowledge and the pursuit of understanding.
I don't read stuff like this, so I'm not sure why I am being asked. It appears to have a legitimacy of zero because he doesn't try to substantiate his claims.
Where do you rank him?
As someone who has lived in Japan, I think he is full of crap.
Some of the way he tells the stories just does not sound like reality. Certainly does not sound like any Asian thinking I have been around.
Not that I have gone to meetings with thousands of Yakuza and Triads.
Supposedly they were going to kill Rockefeller if they did not stop the Wars, Economic Implosions, and biological genocide against asians.
Was there some deal for only part of that?
I really think they would just mail a few letters to get them timestamped on the outside saying we are pissed and we are going to kill rockefeller, do that before the letters were delivered, and then state your demands or else more bigwigs get it.
Alex jones is great i hate how people talk shit about him. I thought alex might not be the real deal but he always has bob chapman on so it shows me he is for real. Bob chapman is the real deal and only deals with people who are the same.
So...can anybody argue that pure capitalism is not self-destructive? With the accumulation of wealth always going into a smaller and smaller number of hands, doesn't this erode the purchasing power of the working class along with their faith in the capitalist system? Since there is no unregulated capitalist system operating (that I am aware of) I guess it's just theory, but it seems to hold true, and inevitably lead to more regulation in an attempt to reign it in.
btw - I'm not espousing Marx (we know communism doesn't work), just attributing that theory to him because I think it was his and I'm too lazy to research it. He probably stole the theory from someone else, but it seems to hold true, and I would argue that socialism (and regulations) is the result of governments trying to control capitalism in an attempt to prevent it from eating itself.
btw - I'm not espousing Marx (we know communism doesn't work), just attributing that theory to him because I think it was his and I'm too lazy to research it. He probably stole the theory from someone else, but it seems to hold true, and I would argue that socialism (and regulations) is the result of governments trying to control capitalism in an attempt to prevent it from eating itself.
