I left a long comment on Leg-iron’s post, The Tory vote-losing technique, which I am reproducing here. He is talking about the modern phenomenon of shouting down your opponents and calling them names rather than engaging them in intelligent dialogue. He asks whether those, like climate change ‘atheists’ and those warning about mass immigration, were right all along. Here are my thoughts:
1) The theory: mass immigration is being used to re-engineer society.
Typical response: “Racist scum,” etc.
2) The theory: climate change is not primarily manmade, but is a ruse to impose a world government which will tax and control us.
Typical response: “You climate change deniers will kill millions of people,” etc.
Data now shown to have been falsified for political reasons and that the planet hasn’t been warming for years. A world government is being set up to make laws, collect taxes and implement carbon trading which will impoverish and probably destabilise the West. As planned.
It is claimed that the large amount of land given over to the farming of biofuels has already caused millions to starve.
3) The theory: the BBC is a propaganda machine for liberals and socialists.
Typical response: “Get a life, you sad man. By the way, did you see EastEnders last night?” Etc.
As if it wasn’t obvious enough anyway, we have revelations about Dr Who being used to try and topple Maggie Thatcher. The BBC is admittedly anti-Christian and pro-Muslim. There is also admittedly a disproportionate number of homosexuals in the Corporation, which, of course, is evident in the output.
4) The theory: the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.
Typical response: “You’re an anti-Bush, American-hating scumbag with no respect for the victims’ families,” etc.
While numbers who deny the official story are increasing, many still have to overcome their aversion to facing up to the terrible truth that buildings don’t turn to powder just because they are hit by planes. Building 7 wasn’t hit by a plane, yet also came crashing down into a neat pile of rubble. If it was science fiction you wouldn’t believe it, so why do so many still believe it when it is told in truth? Especially considering the history of false-flag operations carried out by Western governments.
5) The theory: the Theory of Evolution is a 19th Century misunderstanding, which is now clear from modern scientific discoveries.
Typical response: unprintable (based on replies to my posts on Richard Dawkins’ blog, from which I am now banned).
Not widely known as a conspiracy theory due to the alleged wealth of evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution. When supporters realise that evolution has its limits, e.g. that mosquitoes can become resistant to insecticides, but they never ever become anything other than what they have always been: mosquitoes, then we will get somewhere.
Here’s another part of the conspiracy: the Council of Europe want Creationism banned from science classrooms. Not just because they dispute the science, but because they reckon that, “If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights”.
And of course, nobody is allowed the ‘right’ to have access to all streams of thought and knowledge, only those which our masters graciously allow us access to, like fraudulent global warming claims and other distractions that would make the Nazi propaganda minister, Joseph Goebbels, explode with ecstasy.
I would say this. We should enjoy the freedom to use the internet to discover the truth while we still have the opportunity.