Conspiracy theories revisited

One of Real Street’s regular commentators, Ian Pattinson, has tried demolishing the arguments I made on my recent post about various conspiracy theories by posting his thoughts on his own blog.

I left a reply there, but like he says about his comments, he didn’t want to waste them on someone else’s blog!

Ian seems to have some peculiar ways of looking at this. He says that conspiracy theories tend to say more about the theorists than the alleged conspirators. While this might be true of bizarre and unfounded notions people sometimes have, when there is lots of evidence for a more believable answer to issues like the attacks on 9/11, it is those who refuse to believe anything other than what the government and mainstream media tell them that need to get out more.

Ian says, I’m going to approach the examples cited by asking two questions- If the theorists are correct, what do the conspiracists get out of it? and Why might the theorists want to believe in this particular conspiracy? Very basically, most people want to know the truth and like to see justice done. Theorists don’t necessarily want to believe in conspiracies just for the sake of it.

Even the word conspiracy suggests mental illness to some people, but the reality is that the world is full of conspiracies. People read about them in newspapers every day!

Conspiracy ‘theorists’ don’t invent things they want to happen – they think something is amiss with the official story and look for other possibilities – based on evidence, testimonies, motives, logic, common sense and lessons from history.

Anyway, I told Ian I was going to demolish his arguments faster than a controlled demolition on 9/11.

The numbered items in bold were my five original proposals, and underneath each are Ian’s replies in italics, followed by my thoughts.

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

What do the conspiracists get? Errrrm. What do they get? According to the theory the mostly white, mostly christian engineers of this massed social change get a country where they lose a lot of their privileges because their constituents are less like, and less likely to vote for, them. And we know how willing MPs are to give up their privileges.

Why might the theorists believe in this conspiracy? Because they’re racists? Because they don’t like immigration? Possibly, as a great many of them claim to be christians, they’re scared by falling church attendance and don’t want to have to fight for believers with a younger, louder religion.

These engineers aren’t ‘Christian’. If they were, they wouldn’t be dismantling our Judeo-Christian laws and culture. Because this has been key to our success as a nation, it is being dismantled to your detriment and mine.

If you think only Christians will be affected by Islam, you’re kidding yourself.

BTW, this re-engineering has been ADMITTED! You have a problem with facts and admissions on record.

“2) The theory: climate change is not primarily manmade, but is a ruse to impose a world government which will tax and control us.”

What might the conspiracists get? They’d get to pay more tax. Which I’m sure they really want to do. The scientists will get to keep the funding which pays for their research. Even though they could be better off working in the private sector. I have a problem with the repeated line about paying more tax. The people who’ll pay more tax are the ones who are too dumb to find ways to make their lives more efficient. Those who cut their carbon emmissions will find they’re paying less money to corporations, and the government, so they will have more money for themselves and be financially more secure.

Why might the theorists believe in this conspiracy? See the last bit above about people too dumb to make their lives better.

You think only dumb people will pay higher taxes? I wouldn’t like your tax bill then (sorry, obvious joke). The FACT (not theory) is that a world government is being set up to collect taxes and make laws. This means that very soon, this global government scam plus the EU means that the British will have practically no say at all in how we are governed.

And you think they will not tax you heavily. I would laugh were it not so tragic.

“3) The theory: the BBC is a propaganda machine for liberals and socialists.”

What might the conspiracists get? The licence fee cut by the next Conservative government. Though that will probably happen anyway.

Why might the theorists believe in this conspiracy? Because Fox News is Fair and Balanced.

Which is the reason I don’t pay for a TV licence. Anyway the BBC has ADMITTED to certain biases and prejudices.

“4) The theory: the 9/11 attacks were an inside job.”

What might the conspiracists get? The satisfaction of having turned real life into the opening sequence of the first X Files Movie.

Why might the theorists believe in this conspiracy? Racism? Brown people couldn’t possibly have organised something this big, it has to be the work of the Illuminati and/or the Jews. (An early 9/11 conspiracy theory had all Jewish workers in the World Trade Centre being called up and told not to go in to work that day.) An inability to grasp reality. Given all the genuinely horrible, stupid, illegal and dangerous stuff the Bush regime did, why on Earth do some people need to make stuff like this up?

Racism? Let me guess, you had a New Labour/BBC “education”. If you’re not following the political whims of the day, you’re a ‘racist’, ‘misogynist’, ‘homophobe’ or ‘xenophobe’. It’s difficult to argue with people who don’t have an argument.

As for TV, did you know that the CIA plants storylines into popular programmes? E.g. that bloke out the X-Files, also did the Lone Gunmen, Dean Haglund, admitted this. One episode of the Lone Gunmen is about a hijacked jet heading for the twin towers and it was aired shortly before 9/11. It’s how they operate – by putting notions into people’s minds so that when the real thing happens, they are more likely to accept it – even something so obviously fake as the official 9/11 report. Again, CIA involvement in the media is well known.

“5) The theory: the Theory of Evolution is a 19th Century misunderstanding, which is now clear from modern scientific discoveries.”

What might the conspiracists get? Confused, given that modern discoveries strengthen and refine the Theory of Evolution.

Why might the theorists believe in this conspiracy? Fear that science, and increased understanding of it, will undermine their religion. Inability to visualise a simple and elegant theory. The writer of the post is a Creationist, so this is a favourite subject of his. He claims masses of evidence for his belief, but can never present any that stands up to scrutiny.

The inventors of this theory could never have imagined how complex life is. They thought a living cell was just a blob of goo, rather than something as complex as a city.

If scientists understood the *limits* of evolution, i.e. that changes can be made by random mutations, but not in such a way that, for example, new organs are created, then they would have to ditch the theory. But it is as ingrained in our society as Islam is in Saudi Arabia. If you want to talk about “new religion” it is evolution theory or climate change.

Humanists/’atheists’ like to think that, as non-believers, they are enlightened, but they have to believe in something regarding who they are, where they came from and where they are going, even if it makes no sense.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

51 Responses to Conspiracy theories revisited

  1. JuliaM says:

    There are good arguments against all of those conspiracy theories. It’s a shame Ian didn’t make any…

  2. Stewart Cowan says:

    I win then, Julia, and so do my explanations…

    I believe that in many ways, the proles are kept in the dark just as much as when the Church of Rome kept Galileo under house arrest.

  3. I’ve answered these in my own comments section. But I’ll quickly add. The “admission” of re-engineering society is nothing of the such. But you know that really, because you got it from the Daily Mail.

    I don’t think you invent a scientific theory. I was going to say you invent conspiracy theories, but I think “conjure out of thin air” sums it up better. Darwin didn’t know about DNA or most of the stuff about cell biology that we know now. Yet everything that has been learned since has strengthened his original work and confirmed his genius.

    I’ll leave believing in something nonsensical to the creationists. I understand the Theory of Evolution is the best explanation for how life, well, evolved.

  4. JuliaM says:

    “But you know that really, because you got it from the Daily Mail.”

    Because your belief that everything you read in the ‘Daily Mail’ must therefore be lies is based on…what?

    Seems a lot like faith to me… ;)

  5. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ian,

    The admission that Labour used immigration to re-engineer society came from Andrew Neather, who is a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. It has since been further clarified.

    What I was saying is that it was once a ‘conspiracy theory’ but now it has been proven to be a fact – an actual conspiracy – our ‘leaders’ have conspired to rid us of our culture in order to sell us out.

    Same thing with the climate change scam – being used to forge a world system.

    Does that not make you mad?

    The BBC is also playing a part in destroying our culture – that’s admitted too.

    I am saying that some things were once theories, but are now facts. The last two – the 9/11 official story and the Theory of Evolution – are still believed by probably 3/4 of the population. Soon everyone will know that they too are nonsense.

  6. Stewart Cowan says:

    Julia,

    Ian’s saving having to think – by offering up the classic modern insult about believing everything in the Daily Mail. At least some of us don’t believe everything we were indoctrinated with at school and through a lifetime of staring at the BBC.

  7. Julia M

    It’s based upon a history of hyperbole from the Daily Mail which can easily be debunked by anyone who bothers to do a little research. They’re particularly bad when it comes to climate science and immigration.

    That second link also dismantles Stewart’s assertions about Andrew Neather. Indeed, Neather himself has said of the manufactured outrage-

    “Somehow this has become distorted by excitable Right-wing newspaper columnists into being a “plot” to make Britain multicultural.

    There was no plot.”

    So the man who “admitted” there was a plot, hasn’t admitted there was a plot. In fact, he has said the exact opposite.

    None of Stewart’s conspiracy theories have been proven. The closest anyone’s come is a headline in a tabloid that’s based upon a deliberate misinterpretation of the facts.

  8. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    Still no answer to the observable, repeatable thing?

    BTW It is not a conspiracy that Labour used mass immigration in an attempt to achieve their socio-political aims, it is a fact. (That really is observable!)

    A draft of the original Cabinet Office report has now been published following a freedom of information request by Migrationwatch. It contains six references to social policy, all of which were removed from the later, published version.

    One deleted paragraph said a framework was needed to ‘maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s social and economic objectives’.

    Labour has always justified immigration on economic grounds and denied it was using it to foster multiculturalism. Suspicions of a secret agenda rose when Andrew Neather, a former government adviser and speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett, said the aim of Labour’s immigration strategy was to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

  9. Jim Baxter says:

    the Theory of Evolution… still believed by probably 3/4 of the population.

    200 years ago nobody believed it and about 95% believed the Bible explained our origins. Trend analysis isn’t really your thing Stewart. I wouldn’t go into business for myself if I were you. With your powers of insight you’d probably pick a line that globalisation will make obsolete.

  10. JuliaM says:

    Well, Ian, I’m sure that’s what Neather says now. It’s exactly what I’d say now, if I were him…

    I’m sure you know why. Don’t you?

  11. Jim Baxter says:

    Wait a minute? What’s happened to me orrible blue shape? It’s an orrible yellow shape now, not even 9 carat I’d say.

  12. Jim Baxter says:

    Oh, it’s back. All very odd.

  13. Stewart Cowan says:

    English, I am grateful for helping Ian understand the truth about New Labour and immigration.

    Ian is clearly the sort of person who cannot discern things for himself, even as obvious as this, but trusts people in the government and media to tell him what’s what.

  14. Stewart Cowan says:

    Julia,

    Mr Neather wouldn’t be the first person to make a remarkable U-turn of his version of events. It’s not like there are any bullies in his party…

    And anyway, he clarified the situation afterwards by saying that social engineering was part of the agenda and as English says, it’s all come out into the open again.

  15. Stewart Cowan says:

    Jim,

    You can’t blame me for this one. I have put my finest engineer onto the case (okay, it was me) and it turns out you typed your email address wrongly and so you got a different ghastly-looking design.

    Still, it makes your blue one look nicer!

  16. Stewart Cowan says:

    Ah but Jim, on the last survey I saw, more young people believed in Creationism than old fogies like me. Don’t know how reliable it was, but I suggest that more people these days are seeing that the TofE is in trouble.

    I am in business for myself and you’re right. When we have a global government, there won’t be any national flags. In fact, I’m waiting patiently for the EU to announce a ban on all flags but their glorious crown of 12 stars.

  17. Jim Baxter says:

    Don’t know how reliable it was.

    Neither do I but I’d be prepared to guess.

    As for the horrible blue shape yellow shape blue shape – I suspect a conspiracy.

    Speaking of horrible, where’s old Hagar tonight then?

  18. Stewart Cowan says:

    *Actually*, Jim, Tom Harris was so incensed when I left a comment on his blog about the survey that he did a post about it. He has some very funny ideas for someone who calls himself a Christian.

    P.S. Don’t know where English is. He might be building a mighty fire if it’s another cold one there. I’ve just had to turn the central heating off down here on the Scottish Riviera!

  19. Jim Baxter says:

    Tom Harris has some funny ideas all right. Either you’re a Christian or you’re not – believe it all or believe none of it.

  20. Stewart Cowan says:

    Just added the link to my previous comment there Jim.

  21. English,

    You’re the one trying to pretend evolution hasn’t been observed and replicated.

    Read the comment directly above yours. And this as well, where someone bothered to read the original memo- rather than panicking about what Migrationwatch and the Mail selectively quoted from it- and found a bit which says-

    “This study is for discussion purposes only and does not constitute a statement of Government policy. In particular, this study is intended to be the start of a process of further research and debate – by identifying both what we know from existing data sources and analysis, and where further analysis is required.”

    So, not Government policy.

    Julia M,

    Because there wasn’t a plot? Because people with an agenda pretended he’d said something he didn’t say?

  22. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    WOW, you really are a special person. According to you, evolution as described in my post has been observed AND replicated in a lab. You are the only person on the planet to see it though, so I assume a Nobel prize is in the offing. Posting tosh won’t make it true, nor will sounding arrogantly confident on a point. Even Goebbels knew that some people would never go along with his rot, that’s why they had to go.

    RE: Gov lies, spin, propaganda, etc;

    You keep voting for your own destruction, keep dreaming that what is happening in my back yard won’t happen in yours.

    I was not talking about a MEMO, I was talking about an official gov document that was very heavily edited and needed an FOI request to get to the truth.

    Regardless of gov documents, I have the evidence of my own eyes to tell me that something is amiss. Massive (and I mean massive) immigration has virtually guaranteed Labour numerous seats, so long as they continue to suck on the multi-cult teat. The other parties are aware of this and play the same suck-up games. The longer it goes on, the less resistant we become.

    If you are young enough ( I’m sure you are) the day will most certainly come when you wish for more men like me, instead of the bearded wonders that will stand with a knife to your throat (as you kneel).

  23. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    I agree. I just tried to leave a comment on this dreadful man’s blog, but he appears to have disabled comments from such as me.

    In the the words of the Lord Jesus Christ; ‘ He that is not with me is against me: and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.’

    It must be plain to a blind man on a charging horse where this venal little man’s allegiances lie; with himself.

  24. Jim Baxter says:

    Stewart,

    Yes, I remember it now. I see I even threw in me own tuppunceworth. Typing was especially bad on that occasion I see.

    Quite so English, one thing or the other – no picking and choosing.

    I wouldn’t say that Tom is a venal little man. I know you mean ‘little’ in the sense of his outlook – you’d have to because he’s a big blogger in person. Nor venal realy, which sets him apart from nearly all of his parliamentary colleagues. Blinkered though; thinks Blair is a great man. And I don’t know why he calls himself a Christian either – maybe that is indeed venal – a convenient show. Philosophically, he sounds more like a Sikh.

  25. English,

    Your first question was about the Big Bang, which is an entirely different branch of science. The questions you’re so proud of open with one which proves you don’t know what you’re talking about. So I chose to ignore them.

  26. The super secret, super scary conspiracy document which only a Freedom of Information request could free is online at http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/pdfs/BP9_28_Migration_economicSocialAnalysis2.pdf

    Second paragraph, second page. This is not government policy.

    Your conspiracy theory is dead. Give it up, you’re just making yourselves look like fools.

  27. Jim Baxter says:

    In any case, he LHC is all about replicating some of the big bang, just as fusion experiments replicate conditions in the sun. The latter don’t have to replicate the sun itself to, er. shed light. Neither will the LHC have to jump-start the second universe to tell us a lot about how the one we think we know started.

  28. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    How’s that DNA/RNA thing doing?

  29. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    The Hadron Collider is a massive pile of scrap which will prove nothing, which is exactly what it has done so far. I accept that it HAS proved that the EU know how waste gazillions of pounds on tat.

  30. Jim Baxter says:

    English,

    It will prove nothing to you, of that I am sure.

  31. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    Once again, you are correct.

  32. Henry says:

    listen to conspiracy radio with Paul A. Drockton M.A.!

  33. English,

    Explain the “DNA/RNA thing” in enough detail to show you haven’t cribbed it from a collection of Creationist talking points and I’ll go off and find the facts which prove you wrong. If you can’t, I won’t bother.

  34. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    What did I say about all that Googling? It’s bad for your eyes, apparently.

    I have neither the time nor the inclination to post acres of data that prove that the two most complicated codes known to man are interdependent and therefore they must both have come into existence at the same time. Spooky, eh?

    Perhaps the reason you have ignored my question for days and, when pressed on the issue, decide you can’t be bothered is because you are at as much of a loss to explain this as that dreadful Dawkins fellow. It was fun to watch him dig a big hole trying to though.

    PS Cribbed? Moi? A bit rich from you sir.

  35. English,

    you have nothing, so you’re making excuses. I’ve been ignoring your questions because the first one, which you thought was oh so clever and about evolution was about the Big Bang- something entirely different. Having proved yourself clueless your questions weren’t worth answering.

  36. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    Name calling is a sign of a weak argument.

  37. English,

    Which would be why you’ve been doing it since the start.

    You’ve presented nothing to explain any of your claims. No explanations, no supporting data, nothing. You’ve just made wild assertions, then moved on when it’s been explained why they’re wrong. I’ve explained my reasoning, done research and linked to relevant information. I think it’s entirely fair to ask you to show what you’re basing your claims on, and that the only reason you won’t is that you secretly know they’re empty.

    So please explain yourself. If you’re as right as you claim to be it shouldn’t be so hard.

  38. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    The only wild assertions made are by yourself. You try to call opinion fact, you appear desperate to deny claims I have not made, You have absolutely NO answers to the questions I pose.

    Linking to this, that, or indeed, the other, proves nothing. Your sad scramblings for evidence are embarrassing.

    PS. How that DNA/RNA thing doing? Let me guess, you haven’t a clue. You could post to an answer, but they are very, very hard to come by.

    PPS How’s your porno novel doing?

    PPPS What names have I called you?

  39. English,

    I’ve had answers to all your questions, which is why you’ve had to change them so often. Every time I show the false basis of one of your assertions you promptly drop it and grasp for another.

    The “DNA/RNA thing”? Who says the two had to be created together exactly as they are? But even if you can come up with a plausible answer to that, the reply is simple.

    Off the top of my head- The combination only had to come into existence once, in all the billions of years of billions of simultaneous chemical reactions going on on the face of this planet. Once the combination was there for passing information from generation to generation it automatically had an advantage over the chaos around it- first step of evolution- and it cascaded.

    The full explanation’s going to be more complex, but I bet it has similar elements. And my simplified version makes far more sense than “Some figment of my imagination made it happen.”

    The porno graphic novel was last year. You’re not likely to be the audience, but if you secretly do want to buy it, I publish my adult stuff under the Mary Tales banner at Lulu.

    More recently I’ve published a satire on technothrillers. There’s other stuff in my store.

    Today saw the first page of my sci-fi comic go online.

    Busy busy busy.

  40. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    What names have I called you?

  41. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    Reverse engineering that which already exists and then claiming it as proof of evolution is quite simply ludicrous.

    You asked ‘Who says the two had to be created together exactly as they are?’. Well, Dawkins for one. The idea that one of the most complicated (boy, are they complicated!) codes ever known to man could spontaneously appear is pushing it. To say that another appeared as well, at some indeterminate place and time, some time later, well that really is unlikely in the extreme. To say that they both appeared at the same time, in the same place and then just happened to become interdependent on each other (which would need to happen if you want to stick to the fairytale of evolution) is utterly absurd.

    PS Do you actually read my comments? I just wondered, because you seem to think that continually linking to sites that support your fantasies will prove your case, when it obviously does not, as I have pointed out previously. I can link too, but what is the point? I want your opinion. I presented you with a question you admitted you did not know the answer to. You then automatically assume both the premise and the conclusion wrong and set about trawling sites to find ‘evidence’ to substantiate your pre-conceived ideas. If your mind is so closed, further discussion is pointless.

    PPS for the third time, what names have I called you?

  42. English,

    I’m not linking for your benefit, though you would benefit from reading a few of the links with an open mind. They’re for other people to read, to show them there’s evidence which shows why your assertions are wrong.

    Opinion’s all well and good, but it’s not fact. And you don’t just opine, you make statements which you want to be accepted as facts. But you don’t back them up, and the more you do that, the weaker they sound.

    I’m not interested in trawling through your comments on various threads to find all your attempts at insults.

  43. Oh, and I don’t “automatically assume both the premise and the conclusion wrong”. It’s just that they have been, so consistently, that it’s becoming a good basis to start from.

  44. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    As you have made unsubstantiated claims, refused to answer direct questions, blithely ignored contrary fact, attempted to gloss over the shortcomings of both your argument and attitude, repeatedly linked to other peoples opinions (not facts) because you appear unable to think for yourself, denied claims I have not made, misrepresented my position and last but not least, inferred that I am a liar, I see no point in discussing this further.

    ‘Opinion’s all well and good, but it’s not fact. And you don’t just opine, you make statements which you want to be accepted as facts. But you don’t back them up, and the more you do that, the weaker they sound.’ – Exactly, I’ve been telling you that for weeks.

    PS It makes not a blind bit of difference to me if my opinion is accepted as fact or not. It most certainly will do to the reader.

  45. Jim Baxter says:

    ‘PS It makes not a blind bit of difference to me if my opinion is accepted as fact or not. It most certainly will do to the reader.’

    Not this reader.

    Missed me, haven’t you?

  46. English Viking says:

    Dr Baxter,

    Yes, I have.

    I meant that the reader will find out, to his loss, that he was wrong at some point in the future. Those that set their faces against God in the here and now are obviously comfortable with their rebellion.

    I am not entirely convinced that you are comfortable, but perhaps I am mistaken.

  47. English,

    You don’t like being proven wrong, do you?

    You don’t want to continue the discussion precisely because I can think for myself and am not willing to blindly accept your worldview as you think I should. That I can back up my reasoning with facts not just from my own experience but collected by many, many others obviously annoys you as well.

    In fact, that whole paragraph where you list my supposed failings could more easily be applied to your behaviour in all the discussions I’ve had with you.

  48. English Viking says:

    Mr Pattinson,

    You appear to have descended to the level of your supposed ancestors and resorted to mimicry, along with the inane and childish ‘I’ve won’ attempt at closing an argument you can never win, because you cannot prove your theories.

    It seems it is a comfort to you to repeatedly state that you have got proof, even when it is obvious to all that you have only the opinions of others who vaguely fit in with your evolutionary fantasies. Your trawling for ‘evidence’ on the RNA thing and your silence on Dawkins’ well publicised failing in this area are proof that you are do the very things you accuse me of, namely crib nonsense from sites that are anti-creation only and then post links to stuff you have not the vaguest idea on how to explain, then call this proof.

    ‘In fact, that whole paragraph where you list my supposed failings could more easily be applied to your behaviour in all the discussions I’ve had with you.’ – I’ve never inferred that you are a liar, except of course unless you wish to continue to assert that I have, in which case, you are.

  49. English,

    I’ll never convince you, because you have closed your mind. People who can tell the difference between fact and opinion, on the other hand, will look at what I have said and what I have shown you and be able to understand that there is an irrefutable case for evolution.

    As for my opinion, since you go on about it so much. All of these conspiracy theories Stewart thinks have been proven correct are nonsense. The theorists are the ones who want to keep the truth hidden by trying to shout down their opponents and confuse the issue with lies and fabrications.

    Creationism is more of a conspiracy than any of the ones Stewart and yourself have latched on to. It’s a deliberate attempt to keep people ignorant because people who are informed are more likely to turn away from religion. If that happens they can’t be as easily controlled or tapped for money. The religious groups selling this nonsense don’t want to lose their power or earnings so they’re getting more belligerant in their attempts to silence science.

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>