Is conspiracy theory a substitute for political involvement?

**

Mystic

Having a debate involves debating, this often means disagreeing with another’s views (if everyone agreed with everything there would be little reason for debate).

In a debate people put up arguments in support of their position and other agree, disagree, look at the ramifications ask questions etc etc.

What you seem to be implying is that ‘debate’ should be about making statements that should be accepted without question and that if people do question them those people should be ignored?

That is not debate.

The reason for this thread is to see if conspiracy theory is a substitute for political involvement? That is what is seems to be doing.

**

What are these ideas and strategies?

**

You wish to foment a counter-culture. Could you please expand on this?

**

You believe I’m a right-winger? Could you explain why?

**

 

Rat

It would seem you haven’t really thought through your political position.

There seem to be certain contradictions in your statements that don’t add up.

You claim to be apolitical but also a follower of libertarian political philosophy, a political philosophy that is right wing in nature. Its supporters have been referred to disparagingly in the past as ‘Republicans that smoke dope’. Anyone that would look at their ideas would see that they are right wing in content. So your claim to be neither a right-winger nor a left-winger doesn’t stand up to even the smallest amount of scrutiny that it surprises me that you would even try to claim it. Do you actually know what the libertarian political stance is?

**

You call the conspirators that you hate so much, Social Darwinists, the thing is that many people think that the libertarian philosophy is in economic terms is Social Darwinist in nature.

**

As I’ve said libertarian policies are likely to enhance the wealth and power of the banks and wealthy elite’s that you seem to be urging people to curtail.

You it seems agree with this, but you see the removal of wealth to these people as being a power grab rather than a money grab, but really it means the same thing as I’ve stated. So why do you claim to support those libertarian policies?

**

I am not calling for a revolution or an overthrow of the government, because I think it's naive that something like that would be possible until there is a mass-awakening.

So what is it? Are you calling for a revolution when there is enough people (this mass-awakening) or not? If not how are you going to change things and if so how do you stop the conspirators from taking over the movement?

 

The question – Is conspiracy theory a substitute for political involvement?

The answer according to people like Rat seems to be yes.

It is clear that to Rat all political involvement is futile and this is the message he is very strongly trying to preach to anyone that would listen.

He say that he would encourage people to vote.

He then explains that the major political party’s are under the control of conspirators that have agendas that have nothing to do with those partry’s stated aims.

You can vote for them but it doesn’t mean anything.

Message : There is little point in voting for the major political groups.

So can you vote for another party?

He explains that any other political party, institution or movement that threatens to gain power would be taken over by that same powerful conspiracy.


Message : There is little point in voting for anyone.

So is there any other means by which change can be achieved?

Well he thinks that if enough people are informed then there could be a revolution except he will not call for a revolution. What action should these enlightened people take? Well Rat doesn’t know he just knows there is little they can do and if any group or movement tried it would be taken over by the conspirators before it came effective.

Message : Do nothing except to try and convince even more people that political involvement is futile.



Are these healthy messages to be disseminating and I would ask who they are most likely to profit?

 

Balbus,

Yes -- libertarianism might be right-wing in nature (there are many types of libertarianism, BTW), but that doesn't necessarily mean I am out advocating right-wing policies. At the same time, it doesn't mean I don't have my own opinions. The point is, I am out to expose what is the truth. (Or what I believe to be the truth.) Some things go beyond political labels. I try not to get too caught up in that.

Yes -- I do lean more to the right than the left, as I believe in less government, the preservation of national sovereignty, and free market. That doesn't mean I go around labeling myself as a "right-winger," advocating strictly right-wing issues. Most people hear "right-wing" and they automatically think Bush supporter, which I am not. Of course there is a difference between traditional conservatism as practiced by our founding fathers, and neoconservatism, which is socialism disguised as conservatism, which is what neocons like Bush and Rumsfeld practice.

No, libertarianism is economic freedom in the hands of the common man. Socialism, which you advocate, is economic power in the hands of an elite few that have control over everyone else.

BIG difference!

**

You keep saying this like a broken record player, but again -- as with the past five times you've said it -- you are wrong. I am not going to keep explaining myself because I already have five times already, and you keep on ignoring what I say because you have no real retort to anything I say.

Yes, I agree that socialism only benefits the elites by allocating wealth (which equates to economic freedom, hence power) from the people to the corrupt few in power.

Libertarianism entails the belief that people should be able to do what they want with their money, without the government being in control over it. It's called freedom. Apparently, you are opposed to freedom, and would much rather prefer a socialist dictatorship -- as was practiced with Adolph Hitler -- to a free republic.

So keep on advocating tyranny while thinking you're advocating freedom. I don't care.

 

How can you advocate nationalising the banks and call yourself a free-marketer opposed to socialism? The reality is that YOU are opposing economic freedom and YOU are proposing socialist economics.

 

The federalization of currency you are telling me is socialism? How? Nationalization of currency has nothing to do with socialism. Are you telling me that if the Federal Reserve was indeed federally owned, as its name suggests, instead of privately owned by a small banking elite -- which it is -- that would be socialism?

I suppose you believe national sovereignty is socialism too?

 

Like what is happen'n now(War!); I would say that the one prophiting off this,is Bush. His family has great stock in (OIL),and that of(WAR MACHINERY). He's go'n after the gold(he thinks),with the blood from (not himself),but from our fellow man. It don't matter to him that there are starv'n people right here in the states/no place to go/no jobs/everything go'n sky high in cost/it don't matter to him! Thats why we got to get it together/cause no-one else is go'n to! .........get my mean'n?

 

Rightwinger, leftwinger...they're all just labels aren't they. I use them to make a point sometimes, but what it amounts to is what you believe in: self-empowerment, or power over the masses. I choose the former.

Man, I knew you were gonna twist my words. That's how you function, apparently. When I say to ignore some, that's not for those who diplomatically disagree on an issue. No, not at all...no matter how you interpret it. I welcome debate and disagreement. But what you are doing is neither of those. You are disagreeing for the sake of doing it. You act like a spoiled brat no matter how right or wrong you are on a given subject. You are doing it to divert attention away from other ideas. Not every single thread needs to be a debate. What if some threads can be dedicated to those of like mind who want to form an activist group of some kind? With what you are doing, this can NEVER be achievable. And I suspect you know this. So what I'm saying is not to ignore those with honest concerns, but for those such as youself who create tension and disharmony for the sake of creating tension and disharmony. These are common "cointelpro" tactics. I'm not necessarily saying you are an active agent in this regard, but you sure do use some of the same methods, whether consciously or not.

If you want to debate...debate. But don't be a dick either.

 

Mystic

Oh please, do you read what you post?

You claim that I ‘twist’ your words but most of the time I’m only seeking clarity from the jumble of your utterances. A lot of the time I’m trying to actually understand what is it that you are actually trying to say?

For example –

Rightwinger, leftwinger...they're all just labels aren't they.


What do you mean?

I use them to make a point sometimes


What point?

what it amounts to is what you believe in


So what someone believes in is only a label?

So you come up with some other labels.

Re-read your line and think out it, you don’t like the usual definitions of political belief so you wish to invent other labels, doesn’t this seem rather presumptuous?

If these labels are about what someone beliefs are they not important?

As to you own definitions they seem not only inadequate but down right misleading.

self empowerment -

I’ve been a trade union rep and many people felt themselves empowered by being a member of the union. The union was left wing in nature and supported left wing politicians and causes.

power over the masses – to me this brings up the long struggle of left wingers against those conservative and right wing forces that wished to have power over and to suppress the will of the masses.

So what do you mean? think about it and you discover the meaning is hard to find yet I presume you are trying to make a point, so what is it?

**

By the way - The phrase "right-wing" comes from the seating arrangement of parliamentary partisans during the French Revolution. The monarchists who supported the Ancien Régime were commonly referred to as rightists because they sat on the right side of successive legislative assemblies.

**


When I say to ignore some (people, questions) that's not for those who diplomatically disagree on an issue. No, not at all...no matter how you interpret it. I welcome debate and disagreement. –my brackets

What is your meaning here? Are you saying that you wish to choose what questions to answer and which to ignore and then be cheered for this because you have deemed to answer at least some questions. That isn’t a debate it’s public relations, it means never having to answer difficult or revealing questions. It is a means of stifling debate, just choose the questions you can answer or the ones that support your cause disregard those that are difficult or embarrass you.

Not every single thread needs to be a debate. What if some threads can be dedicated to those of like mind who want to form an activist group of some kind?

This is a public debating forum, if you put something on here you are asking for it to be debated. You can if you become a hipforum supporter get your own forum which can be wholly dedicated to your own views and i believe be private.

**

What are these ‘ other ideas’ I’m supposed to be diverting people’s attention from?

**

What are the ideas and strategies you talked about?

**

You wish to foment a counter-culture. Could you please expand on this?

**

You believe I’m a right-winger? Could you explain why?

**

 

Rat

The problem is that you are being disingenuous in the extreme.

You claim to be apolitical and independent but also to be a believer in right wing political views.

But then try to say that this doesn’t mean you advocate right-wing policies?

You then claim that yes you are right wing, but claim this doesn’t mean you a right winger.

Although you admit to championing right wing views.

You then seem to argue that since you don’t support Bush you cannot be labelled a right winger.

But you spend most of your posts pushing anti-left wing arguments.

I can only say that if you are this confused over your political views what does it say about the rest of your thought processes?

**

“libertarianism is economic freedom in the hands of the common man. Socialism, which you advocate, is economic power in the hands of an elite few that have control over everyone else”

What is your argument to back this assertion up?


Quote:
As I’ve said libertarian policies are likely to enhance the wealth and power of the banks and wealthy elite’s that you seem to be urging people to curtail.

“You keep saying this like a broken record player, but again -- as with the past five times you've said it -- you are wrong. I am not going to keep explaining myself because I already have five times already, and you keep on ignoring what I say because you have no real retort to anything I say.”

It is strange that some people think this gambit, this trick works, it doesn’t

If someone makes an assertion or claim and that is questioned, just reaffirming the claim or assertion doesn’t answer the questions or give an explanation.

The questions asked of you still stand in this subject, I will ask again-

If you wish to limited the power of the rich and powerful why support policies that would increase their wealth and power?

 

**

Is conspiracy theory a substitute for political involvement?

The answer seems to remain a resounding yes.

The people involved in it seem to wish to have little involvement in true political debate and in fact seem determined to do all they can to undermine and stifle it.

Not only do they preach that political involvement is futile they seem to desire that this sermon should go unquestioned.

 

Balbus, unfortunately...you are a lost cause. There's no reason to answer any of your questions because as I said in my prior post, you're just here to cause tension. I may not be the best at expressing my thoughts on these forums (the bad vibes do have an effect on my ability to do so) but at least I'm being honest with my intentions. You, on the other hand, are here to stir up tension. You're nothing but a trouble maker. Reply to that.

 

I dont know about being a substitute for political involvement, its certainly a substitute for thinking. I came accross some of the theories behind area 51 the other day, and i couldnt stop laughting. The USAF must be pissing themselves, there was the evidence out there to decipher what went on at area 51 but now its an object of such ridicule we'll never know. I dont know if this is true but I heard the first refernce to UFO's after Roswell came from a USAF spokesperson. If this is true (does anyone here know?) it was a stroke of genius but at the same time illustrates the danger of conspiracy theory.

 

I cannot speak for PR, but while I think that some of his views-and mine as well-may reflect the views of those of the JBS, we may part ways with regard to JBS views regarding civil liberties restrictions. Such examples are evident with regarding restricting 'alternative' unions, 'sodomy-laws' preservations, abortion restrictions, strong immigration restrictions, high tariffs to protect american industries and other businesses, just to name a few.

www.thenewamerican.com

 

Yeah you might want to check his thread on undocumented aliens to see how he feels about immigration - he's looking more John Birch all the time.

 

Mystic

But this is the very problem how can anyone know if you’re honest, if you evade honest questions?

Of course, and I do stress this, that is not to say you are being dishonest.

However it seems to becoming clear that the conspiracy theory that has been appearing around the forum is just a politically motivated smear campaign. As a supporter of it I’m sure you took it in good faith and I’m sure the fact that you are unwilling to answer questions has nothing to do with dishonesty and has some other roots.

Yours

Balbus.

 

I have a hard time replying to posts that are enormously long because it's hard to remember each and every individual question buried deep within it. But I'll be honest, I usually don't read extra-long replies. If you ask me something, keep it short so I can be concise. And I also apologize for the insult (you being a lost cause)...you're not. I get easily annoyed...mostly because of the likes of Kandahar, not you.

As for a smear campaign, I assue you I wouldn't have the emotional strength to keep that up. It's a waste of time traditionally practiced by the right. As for a political agenda...well, obviously! We want fundamental changes to our way of life. I'm sick of being bogged down by the 9-5 work week and money in general. I want a society without a top-down exchange of money. I'm an anti-capitalist first and foremost (when it comes to what I'm anti). I'm also "pro" many things like individual freedom which the United States government refuses to even consider, let alone allow.