i prefer the phrase "the brainwashed masses"

or the "believers"
or the gullible
or the suckers
or the easily taken in
or the easy marks
or the highly susceptible to influence
or the overly trustful
or the unskeptical
or the unsophisticated
or the unsuspecting

or the ones who lack proper suspicion

naive, ignorant, childish

Alright Thucy, can you suggest a better term than "anti-conspiracists"?

I can suggest that the term doesn't apply at all. Just ebcause some of us don't believe all conspiracy theories doesn't mean we don't believe any of them. It isn;t a black and white "I believe in or don't believe in conspiracies". I believe there are a number of conspiracies and some have come to light. I just don't believe the truthers views on the 9/11 attacks and I don't believe the folks who claim we never made it to the moon. I do believe there is a conspiracy of some sort in *both* Kennedy assassinations, however, so your term is inaccurate at best and intentionally provacative at worst. It denies the possibility of a person like me existing.

what i suggest is to stop taking conspiracy theories seriously

there is a difference between a cover-up and a conspiracy. 9/11, the moon landing, the kennedy assassination, those are conspiracy theories, and they bear all the hallmarks. watergate was no conspiracy - it was uncovered, not theorized upon for 40 years.

I used to totally believe in the RFK conspiracy. Then I read up on William Pepper and looked at sources that investigated from a non-knee-jerk conspiracy outlook. I suggest you do the same, Tolstoy. There is little doubt in my mind now that the more outlandish ideas like hypnotic CIA plots are not true. Probably not even a second shooter, but I'm not totally convinced and even then it just would mean Sirhan Sirhan is protecting another person, not that the Illuminati or whoever orchestrated the deal.

thucydides

your definitions of coverup and conspiracy are not really different at all. the real difference is whether or not it is admitted-to by the corporate press. if watergate werent uncovered you would be calling it a conspiracy now. if iran contra werent uncovered you would call it a conspiracy. or gladio. or any of the others.

so you dont know what you are talking about.

on the subject of the term to use. and actually this is an interesting point. draugner admits that it is not black and white so you cant label the group of people who believe any propaganda that is fed to them. do you all agree with that statement? because if you do then you have to likewise agree that you should not put a label on people who tend to question the propaganda. so if you cant use a phrase like "brainwashed official story believers" then you shouldn't use a phrase like "conspiracy theorists"

Good point, Invictus and Thucy. My personal view is we don't have the whole story. The conspiracy is a cover up (and let's face it, a cover up is one form of conspiracy).

He's talking about conspiracy theories as opposed to cover-ups/conspiracies. Watergate was absolutely a conspiracy since people planned to commit a crime. You know, the real definition of a conspiracy. Saying Princess Di was killed by Prince Philip is a conspiracy theory since it's an absurd idea that people refuse to give up on despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. It may not be a fair or precise distinction, but that's that Thucydides was getting at. At least, that's what I got out of his post.

invictus

your post makes no sense. are you saying if it is likely to be true then it is just a coverup? or what? if it involves "conspiracy" then it is a coverup as opposed to a conspiracy theory? whatever you are saying it is nonsense.

You can't read. I'm talking about the distinction between a "conspiracy," properly understood, and a "conspiracy theory."

i thought we were talking about the difference between "coverup" and "conspiracy"? so now the difference between a theory and a fact, is that what you mean? ok i agree. there is a difference between a theory and a fact. but to assume all theories are false until it has been proven is kind of stupid. but actually some critically important things have been proven. like for example some details about 911.

i think its funny how details about these "conpiracies" are laughed at. then later proven to have been correct. but the public doesnt care. but just says "oh yeah ok that was correct, but you cant question this new narrative we came up with to explain away that concession we just made or you are crazy".

I don't think blankflag understands what the word "conspiracy" means and how as a general term it means something quite distinct from what the phrase "conspiracy theory" tends to imply.

anyway even though chomsky is kind of manipulated and believes official narratives about all so-called 'conspiracies' he does make some important points. particularly when he talks about how the elite set the language. think about it, what does 'conspiracy theory' mean to the general public and why does it mean that? if i use a phrase like 'media unquesioners' or something it sounds odd just because it is not in the language. and it is not in the language because of choices the elites made.

you have these think tanks and other groups that pick a term like 'conpiracy theory', they choose one that they can take the definition of and modify to suit a political or ideological purpose and run with it, and even though their argument may have nothing behind it, they benefit from their control over the language.

Not between theory and fact. Between "conspiracy" and "conspiracy theory." Believing 9/11 was a conspiracy is merely to believe the facts. Members of al Qaeda conspired to bring down the World Trade Center and attack targets in the Washington, DC area. Believing in a 9/11 conspiracy means wild leaps of logic and willful ignorance of the tomes of evidence points to bin Laden and his organization as being behind it all.


But if you are cretinous enough to buy into conspiracy theories then I shouldn't expect you to realize how misguided they are and how divorced from the real meaning of conspiracy they are.

Bingo, yebellz.

ok so i either believe "conspiracy theories" or do not? that is i either believe in what the media and government say happened in an event or dont? there is no in-between? they use to call that "heresy" back in the day. how we have evolved.

Believing in a 9/11 conspiracy THEORY means wild leaps of logic and willful ignorance of the tomes of evidence points to bin Laden and his organization as being behind it all.

A fatal typo on my part, as far the argument goes.

tomes? ok, i am sure there are people who believe bin laden was somehow behind it all and the 'conpiracy' was that the intelligence community had some prior knowledge that something would happen. are those people conspiracy theorists? maybe you need to tell me who exactly is in this ostracized category of people.

If, after the evidence is presented which proves you wrong, you insist on clinging to your theory, then you're a moron and your conspiracy theorist views can be safely ignored. There may have been a time where believing anyone besides Lee HArvey Oswald killed JFK was a legitimate, sensible position to hold. But that time has passed in the wake of evidence accumulated by true scholarly research and exhaustive professional investigation, not net surfing by amateurs. Same with 9/11 and Princess Diana and pretty much anything else you can think of. Bad people do bad things in secret and people lie, but when you cling to conspiracy theories that have been proven false you're nothing but a crazy person.

that is a poor definition. because actually on 9/11 or global warming or jfk or pretty much any of these popular "conspiracy theories" the people who continued to cling to their theory after major parts of the theory were systematically disproven were those believing the official narratives.

the media takes advantage of the public's ignorance though. they keep repeating that this part of the "conpiracy theory" was disproven, or that part was. and unfortunately the vast majority of the public do not know the details about the official theories and where the flaws are and where things have been disproven and since changed. so there is this idea drilled into peoples heads that somehow new evidence is proving the official narrative rather than disproving it.

this is useful. actually i need to come up with a list of facts in the official narrative of 911 that were disproven.

one i can think of right now is the list of terrorists on the planes. some were proven to have been still alive, so apparently not the hijackers. the theories about how the buildings collapsed, particularly wtc7 changed repeatedly. and now they have just given up and classified their model of how wtc7 collapsed so that we cant question it any further. i told you those couple of details about the "bin laden" raid that were disproven and changed. but there are so many more things that were disproven. i am just really tired right now and cant think of them off the top of my head.

Blankflag --- SHUT THE FUCK UP you fucking loud-mouthed asshole. You are KILLING THE FUCKING THREAD because everyone sees you're god-damned name and leaves the thread alone.

They are NOT reading your bullshit.

You are NOT adding to the discussion...you are fucking KILLING the discussion.

You fucking retard.

"You can't read."

Now that's a fact.

If it weren't for posts like Krellin's, I'd never know Blankflag was posting. After reading his comments, though, I'm really glad I muted that guy long ago.

ok so is george orwell a conspiracy theorist then too?

Krellin, shut your mouth.

WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU TO TELL BLANKFLAG TO SHUT UP???!!!!

Where the fuck do you get off trying to censor speech, you little ingrate? Honestly, blankflag is making more sense than all of you who are unwilling to even question your dogmas. I give the +1 to that mothafucka for heart, creativity, and intelligence.

Please do go on.

i think we all need to calm down. conflict is a prime way to get an agenda passed. which is why they always want people to start fighting violently with each other. aka divide and conquer.

anyway about orwell i was going to put down some of his quotes, such as

War against a foreign country only happens when the moneyed classes think they are going to profit from it

but i am getting tired now. so i may get off the computer and do something more productive. i feel like i spent some valuable time on a live game and didnt get around to adding anything new to my site, unfortunate. oh well.