Conspiracy theories

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:

Conspiracy theories:

1) The theory: mass immigration is being used to re-engineer society.

Typical response: “Racist scum,” etc.

Now proven to be true.

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.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to Conspiracy theories

  1. subrosa says:

    Your last sentence says it all Stewart. I can see, in the next few years, governments restricting internet activities. How they will do it I don’t know but I have a couple of geeky friends who say it can easily be done.

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    I have heard various things SR, disguised as the usual fighting terrorism, protecting the cheeldren, etc. There is still talk of making it compulsory for all bloggers to have their names and addresses on record. I can imagine this would stop many dissenting voices.

    I fear this is another conspiracy theory which will unfortunately end up being true.

  3. I may address each of your conspiracy theories individually later, but “use the internet to discover the truth”? Really? When you’ll only accept the word of the sites which are saying what you want to hear?

    Stewart, you’ll just have to accept that if there were a crackdown on Internet use, you’d be one of the people who wasn’t silenced. You’re a long, long way away from the truth.

  4. I look forward to that, Ian, if you have the time. The thing is this – you don’t have to accept the truth according to anyone, you can weigh up all the different views and study the available evidence and come to your own conclusions.

    You can’t do that if the internet is censored and state schools teach only what is in vogue politically.

  5. Leg-iron says:

    There will be attempts to control the internet but I don’t care. In the late 1980s I worked in a place that had an internal network and a whole department of clever geeky types charged with keeping it secure.

    Another geeky type who didn’t get on with the main department of geekery set up a ‘rebel network’. It ran along the same wires and used the same resources as the real network but the geek department never spotted it. So they’ll set up controls. Some spotty 16-year-old will find a way past them.

    If they forced bloggers to reveal their names and addresses, it would be a nuisance. All kinds of loonies would contact us. The government and security services already know who we are. Iain Dale publishes a list of political bloggers ranked in order of popularity so they don’t even have to search very hard. Tracking us from there is a doddle. If they wanted to make me, for example, vanish, I would have by now. Stewart uses his real name, he’d be even easier to dispose of.

    Controls will make the internet untrustworthy. Ian, you say Stewart only reads sites he agrees with. Do you read and consider the thoughts of sites you don’t agree with, or do you dismiss them as ‘wrong’ because you know they are wrong? No need to answer. You do the latter. We all do, it’s human nature. I often look at things and think ‘nah’ based on nothing more than my own prejudices.

    However, sites that don’t agree with me exist, and should exist. I could, after all, be wrong. So could they. Both those sites and myself could be wrong, maybe the answer is something neither of us has thought of. If the internet is regulated to exclude any viewpoint regarded as ‘wrong’ by whoever is doing the regulating then discussion stops, research stops, progress stops and critical thought stops. The internet would become the Daily Mail. No more thinking about it, just react to it.

    But then there’ll always be a geek with a way around any regulations. We just need to find the nearest one.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Hi Leg-iron,

    I hope you’re right about the geeks. The elite has used a vast array of successful techniques already to stop people meeting and discussing, like the smoking ban.

    The internet is something that is of common (or no) ownership, but like the air we breathe in and exhale, governments will think it is theirs to control and tax. And people will say, “isn’t the government wonderful for protecting the cheeldren from harm.” The same system that kidnaps children, drugs them up with Ritalin and corrupts their young minds in school.

    Ah, you’ve got me started now!

    I reckon that using my real name offers better protection in the long run. And nobody can threaten to reveal my address because anyone who wants to find me can. Even nutters. They don’t worry me. Ordinary nutters I mean. Nutters employed by the state are a different matter, but as you say, they know where we live anyway. Plenty of folk think I’m the nutter, so would stay away from me!

    I certainly don’t just read sites that I agree with. More often than not, I’m probably on sites that I don’t agree with, like Dawkins, politicians’ blogs and the MSM.

    The elite have been training us to react like Daily Mail readers – like Orwell’s two minutes of hate. For us today, it’s bin Laden and Nick Griffin. Never mind that New Labour has helped kill many more people than the CIA front called al Qaeda, but they have caused more resentment in society than the BNP could ever manage. But, like children at a pantomime, we are presented with the villains to hiss and boo, while the even bigger villains run the show.

  7. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘…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.’

    We will get somewhere when all people accept that they can, not necessarily in our lifetimes. We will get somewhere when all accept that the world is old, the cosmos much older, etc.. We will get somewhere when people stop clinging to false beliefs because these people are so important to their dear little selves that they cannot bear the thought of their own mortality, and because they cannot face the truth about how their own lives have failed, and make the most of what they have left. When they stop being the victims of a conspiracy that tells them that a life unlived is a great life in the eyes of a supernatural being and those who are having a whale of a time in their lives will regret it when they are dead.

    I don’t expect it to happen in out lifetimes. But human intelligence will leave these non-debates behind or perish.

    I’m predicting perish, meself. Not that I wish it on anybody.

  8. Stewart Cowan says:

    How’s it going, Jim? It’s been a few days.

    Tell me this: when did you realise that climate change was largely a scam? That mass immigration was a deliberate measure to destabilise society?

    Do you believe that the CE is right to want Creationism banned from science classrooms? Even when there is as much science to support this worldview as there is to support the TofE?

    Oh, you didn’t realise? That’s because we were deprived of a proper education.

  9. Jim Baxter says:

    You’re the victim of a conspiracy Stewart. I’d have more time for your views if you had nothing to gain from them. But you fear that you have much to lose. I would not deny for a second that ‘science’ goes through phases of denying access to print to those who disagree with ‘current mainstream thought’. The examples where the establishment have done this and have been proved wrong are legion. Legion I tells ya!

    I have NO faith in these people. I question their every conclusion.

    But that’s the key diference between science and religion, as I’ve been saying for a while. You question nothing except that which goes against the Book.

  10. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jim,

    Everybody loses, not just me. How can people not lose when what they are allowed to learn is restricted?

    Why don’t you question the assumptions of the evolutionists? Because assumptions is what their theory is entirely founded on.

    I disagree with your final sentence. Yes, I happen to believe that the Genesis account is historically accurate. It just so happens that the actual evidence can support this just as much, if not more, than it supports the TofE.

    But if folk aren’t given the opportunity to find this out for themselves, mocking will be their default position, but it is mockery out of ignorance.

  11. Stewart,

    If Creationism was taught as a science (it shouldn’t be, it isn’t, but let’s pretend for the sake of the punchline) based upon the evidence for it relative to the evidence for evolution then the teacher would start the first lesson of the first year with “Some people believe life was created by some supreme being. Now I shall teach you science.” and never mention the subject again.

  12. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian,

    That just shows you are not qualified to talk about this.

    Evolutionists need to address their problems with the ‘divine design paradigm’ (I just made up the term). They think things that have been designed must have had a designer – except for living things. Why? Why shouldn’t living things showing clear design also have had a designer?

    It seems to me that this is one of the main stumbling blocks to evolutionists understanding the reality of life.

  13. Stewart

    Living things weren’t designed. They evolved. Why should we pretend that something which evolved was designed?

  14. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian,

    No, why should we pretend that living things evolved when they were designed? Name me something that shows evidence of design that wasn’t designed.

  15. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘Name me something that shows evidence of design that wasn’t designed’

    How about the human brain Stewart? We’ve been here before, you and I, but for the benefit of any new readers, the human brain is a Heath Robinson affair, crosswired, in conflict with itself, full of short circuits, make do and mend add-ons, that no thinking being would have ‘designed’.

  16. Stewart Cowan says:

    Yet, Jim, that badly-designed organ (in your opinion) went on to create a world of sensational works of art, buildings, electronic wizardry and sent spaceships off to photograph the planets.

    Maybe the brain was made correctly after all. What more do you want it to do?

  17. Jim Baxter says:

    It works, when it works, despite its structure not because of it. It is also capable of delusion to pathological degree Stewart. Know what I mean?

    QED.

  18. Stewart Cowan says:

    There is much delusion around, Jim. Just watch the latest speech by the Brown Gorgon. Millions of people will believe this pathological liar whatever he says.

    Just like millions of people still believe the climate change liars and Richard Dawkins!

  19. Jim Baxter says:

    Exactly Stewart. See? We agree. Our brains, by the billion, are seriously faulty.

  20. Stewart Cowan says:

    In that case, Jim, a PC loaded with Windows must have evolved without any intelligent input.

    Actually, that is believable.

  21. English Viking says:

    Get a Mac!

  22. Stewart Cowan says:

    I would have done, but I have loads of programmes for the PC. Although some of them don’t seem to work on Vista. I should get a Mac next time.

  23. Pingback: Conspiracy theories are the new religion « Spinneyhead

  24. I started a comment having a longer look at each of the theories, but decided it was too long and put it on my blog instead.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>