Top Ten Conspiracy Theories

[Red Phoenix]

There's another comment from the page here that I think has some good points :

 

I can't pretend to understand the deep details of this science. What I do know something about is the ways in which people on all sides of these questions allow their social and political ideologies to creep into their arguments and their motivations.

 

Possibly Richard Dawkins is right that all of this is BS (I doubt it, based on my limited understanding, but the "math" is outside my expertise), but it seems pretty clear Dawkins is motivated by more than a search for truth... he truly detests certain kinds of people and certain ways of thinking, an emotional state not conducive to clarity and self-examination.

 

Likewise, some of the people jumping at epigenetics have a sociopolitical mindset which must put an asterisk by their ready acceptance - they are deeply convinced that genetics has provided intellectual cover for highbrow right wing thinking for over a century. They're not wrong about that, but that doesn't prove or disprove the science.

 

We can see the same pattern with neuroscience. The biggest cheerleaders often have an unhealthy relationship with what I will call in shorthand technocratic power. And the loudest detractors often have a reflexive dislike of anything which might challenge their ideas about human agency.

 

I admit my own bias against BIG solutions that seem to flow too quickly from scientific insights and discoveries. You found a correlation or a mechanism from an fMRI of a bunch of brains? Great, doesn't mean you understand the mind, or that your branch of science should be used as cover by Stanford grads who want to take over public education. On the other hand: you see that Monsanto is deceptive and wants total control of the food supply? Excellent, tell us about it, work against it, but it doesn't prove that all genetic manipulation is harmful.

 

Science is critical and has changed the world, perhaps mostly for the better, with some big exceptions. But the exceptions are largely nothing to do with the method, and everything to do with money, power, career, and the eternal self-deceptions of traumatized human psyches. That doesn't make it all okay. What's needed is greater education about science, and credible counterweights to the USE of science by governments and corporations. Science in the public interest simply isn't the prevailing reality, even though we benefit from many advances. In this way, science in the institutional sense is no different from any other area of human endeavor... it needs watching, and we had better all get to know it better. It doesn't need either uncritical acceptance or reflexive rejection.

 

 - - -

 

Again, the link might not work too well, it should do after refreshing though (or refreshing a few times, not sure what's wrong) :  http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/19/epigenetics-dna--darwin-adam-rutherford#comment-56002426

[Rico1304]

Read the first sentence.

[Red Phoenix]

Read the first sentence.

 

Of what? Not sure what you're referring to. You mean the comment quoted in my last post? "I can't pretend to understand the deep details of this science." If so I don't see what the issue is with that.

 

Also : this would've probably been better in the Darwin vs The Bible thread or something. I've actually grown to loathe this thread a bit so I have bias I guess (maybe I'd be fine if it was more on topic and not so full of arguments), but at the same time this is mostly about evolutionary science, and not conspiracies. Not whining, just a bit confused as to why you chose this thread.

[Son of L8]

From the comment you quoted:

 

 
Adam Rutherford isn't really an authority on genetics, he's your typical agenda-driven Guardian columnist armed with a subscription to New Scientist.
 

 

Rutherford does actually hold a doctoral degree in genetics from UCL. I don't know what's required to become an authority on genetics, but I imagine that's a pretty good first step.

 

On the article, it was a dreadfully shit piece of science writing, but his conclusion is still sound: it said we need lots more good research on this stuff, and don't let crackpot new-age mysticism get in the way of doing it and doing it properly. Good message to take away, even if the delivery was appalling.

[Red Phoenix]

From the comment you quoted:

 

 

Rutherford does actually hold a doctoral degree in genetics from UCL. I don't know what's required to become an authority on genetics, but I imagine that's a pretty good first step.

 

On the article, it was a dreadfully shit piece of science writing, but his conclusion is still sound: it said we need lots more good research on this stuff, and don't let crackpot new-age mysticism get in the way of doing it and doing it properly. Good message to take away, even if the delivery was appalling.

 

Thanks, didn't realize that. I still think he's with a group of journalists and scientists that are overly biased against areas like epigenetics, but I don't see how that's going to change very quickly. If these people focused even a little on scientists overly clinging to the gene-centered view I'd be fine, but there's just a near total lack of balance for me. Anyway, I get that people might not agree, it's just my own take on it. Can't be doing with arguing in this thread again, especially after spending quite a while trying to avoid it (it's now over 3 months since I've argued here, and I'd only posted since then to link something that was about conspiracy fiction back in May.)

[Red Phoenix]

You know what, I'm fucking out of here before anything even has a chance to start. Rico, if you're bothered about science and evolution, bump the Darwin thread.
 
Seeing as we're on the subject though, I may as well bring it back on topic, and with Darwin included! I don't believe or disbelieve any of this, and I don't have to. It's a theory. It might be out there, but so are plenty of others here. This is what the thread was originally about : out there conspiracy theories, and none of us needed to try and rationalize and/or explain what we'd linked if we didn't want to. How the thread got so fucked up I can't clearly remember, nor do I want to.
 

Stormtroopers For Darwinism

The public does not seem at all aware of the fact that the scientific establishment has a double standard when it comes to the free flow of information. In essence, it goes like this... Scientists are highly educated, well trained and intellectually capable of processing all types of information, and they can make the correct critical distinctions between fact and fiction, reality and fantasy. The unwashed public is simply incapable of functioning on this high mental plane.

The noble ideal of the scientist as a highly trained, impartial, apolitical observer and assembler of established facts into a useful body of knowledge seems to have been shredded under the pressures and demands of the real world. Science has produced many positive benefits for society; but we should know by now that science has a dark, negative side. Didn't those meek fellows in the clean lab coats give us nuclear bombs and biological weapons? The age of innocence ended in World War II.

That the scientific community has an attitude of intellectual superiority is thinly veiled under a carefully orchestrated public relations guise. We always see Science and Progress walking hand in hand. Science as an institution in a democratic society has to function in the same way as the society at large; it should be open to debate, argument and counter-argument. There is no place for unquestioned authoritarianism. Is modern science meeting these standards?

In the Fall of 2001, PBS aired a seven-part series, titled Evolution. Taken at face value, that seems harmless enough. However, while the program was presented as pure, objective, investigative science journalism, it completely failed to meet even minimum standards of impartial reporting. The series was heavily weighted towards the view that the theory of evolution is "a science fact" that is accepted by "virtually all reputable scientists in the world", and not a theory that has weaknesses and strong scientific critics.

The series did not even bother to interview scientists who have criticisms of Darwinism: not "creationists" but bona fide scientists. To correct this deficiency, a group of 100 dissenting scientists felt compelled to issue a press release, "A Scientific Dissent on Darwinism", on the day the first program was scheduled to go to air. Nobel nominee Henry "Fritz" Schaefer was among them. He encouraged open public debate of Darwin's theory:

Some defenders of Darwinism embrace standards of evidence for evolution that as scientists they would never accept in other circumstances.

We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to archaeology and anthropology, where "scientists" simply refuse to prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of "the facts". It would be naive to think that the scientists who cooperated in the production of the series were unaware that there would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwin's theory.

Richard Milton is a science journalist. He had been an ardent true believer in Darwinian doctrine until his investigative instincts kicked in one day. After 20 years of studying and writing about evolution, he suddenly realised that there were many disconcerting holes in the theory. He decided to try to allay his doubts and prove the theory to himself by using the standard methods of investigative journalism.

Milton became a regular visitor to London's famed Natural History Museum. He painstakingly put every main tenet and classic proof of Darwinism to the test. The results shocked him. He found that the theory could not even stand up to the rigours of routine investigative journalism.

The veteran science writer took a bold step and published a book titled The Facts of Life: Shattering the Myths of Darwinism. It is clear that the Darwinian myth had been shattered for him, but many more myths about science would also be crushed after his book came out. Milton says:

I experienced the witch-hunting activity of the Darwinist police at first hand, it was deeply disappointing to find myself being described by a prominent Oxford zoologist [Richard Dawkins] as "loony", "stupid" and "in need of psychiatric help" in response to purely scientific reporting.

(Does this sound like stories that came out of the Soviet Union 20 years ago when dissident scientists there started speaking out?)

Dawkins launched a letter-writing campaign to newspaper editors, implying that Milton was a "mole" creationist whose work should be dismissed. Anyone at all familiar with politics will recognise this as a standard Machiavellian by-the-book "character assassination" tactic. Dawkins is a highly respected scientist, whose reputation and standing in the scientific community carry a great deal of weight.

According to Milton, the process came to a head when the London Times Higher Education Supplement commissioned him to write a critique of Darwinism. The publication foreshadowed his coming piece: "Next Week: Darwinism - Richard Milton goes on the attack". Dawkins caught wind of this and wasted no time in nipping this heresy in the bud. He contacted the editor, Auriol Stevens, and accused Milton of being a "creationist", and prevailed upon Stevens to pull the plug on the article. Milton learned of this behind-the-scenes backstabbing and wrote a letter of appeal to Stevens. In the end, she caved in to Dawkins and scratched the piece.

Imagine what would happen if a politician or bureaucrat used such pressure tactics to kill a story in the mass media. It would ignite a huge scandal. Not so with scientists, who seem to be regarded as "sacred cows" and beyond reproach. There are many disturbing facts related to these cases. Darwin's theory of evolution is the only theory routinely taught in our public school system that has never been subjected to rigorous scrutiny; nor have any of the criticisms been allowed into the curriculum.

This is an interesting fact, because a recent poll showed that the American public wants the theory of evolution taught to their children; however, "71 per cent of the respondents say biology teachers should teach both Darwinism and scientific evidence against Darwinian theory". Nevertheless, there are no plans to implement this balanced approach.

It is ironic that Richard Dawkins has been appointed to the position of Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University. He is a classic "Brain Police" stormtrooper, patrolling the neurological front lines. The Western scientific establishment and mass media pride themselves on being open public forums devoid of prejudice or censorship. However, no television program examining the flaws and weaknesses of Darwinism has ever been aired in Darwin's home country or in America. A scientist who opposes the theory cannot get a paper published.

The Mysterious Origins of Man was not a frontal attack on Darwinism; it merely presented evidence that is considered anomalous by the precepts of his theory of evolution.

Returning to our bastions of intellectual integrity, Forest Mims was a solid and skilled science journalist. He had never been the centre of any controversy and so he was invited to write the most-read column in the prestigious Scientific American, "The Amateur Scientist", a task he gladly accepted. According to Mims, the magazine's editor Jonathan Piel then learned that he also wrote articles for a number of Christian magazines. The editor called Mims into his office and confronted him.

"Do you believe in the theory of evolution?" Piel asked.

Mims replied, "No, and neither does Stephen Jay Gould."

His response did not affect Piel's decision to bump Mims off the popular column after just three articles.

This has the unpleasant odour of a witch-hunt. The writer never publicly broadcast his private views or beliefs, so it would appear that the "stormtroopers" now believe they have orders to make sure "unapproved" thoughts are never publicly disclosed.



Taboo or not Taboo?

 

So, the monitors of "good thinking" are not just the elite of the scientific community, as we have seen in several cases; they are television producers and magazine editors as well. It seems clear that they are all driven by the singular imperative of furthering "public science education", as the president of the Cambrian Institute so aptly phrased it.

However, there is a second item on the agenda, and that is to protect the public from "unscientific" thoughts and ideas that might infect the mass mind. We outlined some of those taboo subjects at the beginning of the article; now we should add that it is also "unwholesome" and "unacceptable" to engage in any of the following research pursuits: paranormal phenomena, UFOs, cold fusion, free energy and all the rest of the "pseudo-sciences". Does this have a familiar ring to it? Are we hearing the faint echoes of religious zealotry?

Who ever gave science the mission of engineering and directing the inquisitive pursuits of the citizenry of the free world? It is all but impossible for any scientific paper that has anti-Darwinian ramifications to be published in a mainstream scientific journal. It is also just as impossible to get the "taboo" subjects even to the review table, and you can forget about finding your name under the title of any article in Nature unless you are a credentialled scientist, even if you are the next Albert Einstein.

To restate how this conspiracy begins, it is with two filters: credentials and peer review. Modern science is now a maze of such filters set up to promote certain orthodox theories and at the same time filter out that data already prejudged to be unacceptable. Evidence and merit are not the guiding principles; conformity and position within the established community have replaced objectivity, access and openness.

Scientists do not hesitate to launch the most outrageous personal attacks against those they perceive to be the enemy. Eminent palaeontologist Louis Leakey penned this acid one-liner about Forbidden Archeology: "Your book is pure humbug and does not deserve to be taken seriously by anyone but a fool." Once again, we see the thrust of a personal attack; the merits of the evidence presented in the book are not examined or debated. It is a blunt, authoritarian pronouncement.

 

Source : http://rense.com/general22/br.htm

[Red Phoenix]

Darwin was an alien!

 

Just posting back because I found a nice list of conspiracy theories, on rational wiki of all places! The page states : "Most of the theories in the list below are crackpot, but a few, sadly, are reasonable and a couple are almost certainly true."

 

Of course they add ridicule, etc, it's sometimes funny though and expected on that wiki anyway. It's still a good list : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

 

Ok, done posting for now, meaning I'm not responding to any posts aimed at me incase arguments start again. It usually starts off with a simple question, or two, or three, but we know how it's usually ended up when two sides have tried to have a conversation here over most of the last year. I can't be doing with it. So if something is really bugging you and you need to ask, just pm me. Later.

[Sugar Ape]

Darwin was an alien!

 

Just posting back because I found a nice list of conspiracy theories, on rational wiki of all places! The page states : "Most of the theories in the list below are crackpot, but a few, sadly, are reasonable and a couple are almost certainly true."

 

Of course they add ridicule, etc, it's sometimes funny though and expected on that wiki anyway. It's still a good list : http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories

 

Ok, done posting for now, meaning I'm not responding to any posts aimed at me incase arguments start again. It usually starts off with a simple question, or two, or three, but we know how it's usually ended up when two sides have tried to have a conversation here over most of the last year. I can't be doing with it. So if something is really bugging you and you need to ask, just pm me. Later.

You sure you won't respond to any more questions in this thread?

[Rico1304]

Christ, I only linked an article, who cares which thread it's in?

[setreal]

Stormtroopers For Darwinism

 

We have seen this same "unscientific" approach applied to archaeology and anthropology, where "scientists" simply refuse to prove their theories yet appoint themselves as the final arbiters of "the facts". It would be naive to think that the scientists who cooperated in the production of the series were unaware that there would be no counter-balancing presentation by critics of Darwin's theory.

 

Source : http://rense.com/general22/br.htm

 

Riveting stuff.

[Denny Crane]

So that UN speech Cameron made last summer could become law.

 

Anyone who believes that 7/7 or has doubts about other similar events is considered a non violent extremist.

 

The agreed definition of extremism, which the Home Office will use

to decide who to blacklist, is this:

 

The vocal or active opposition to fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and the mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs. We also regard calls for the death of members of our armed forces as extremist.

 

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BP_HJfd_gvE

[VladimirIlyich]

Democracy? What would those fuckers know about it.

[Spy Bee]

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/04/mysterious-siberian-crater-may-have-spaceship-in-it/

 

Mysterious Siberian Crater May Have Spaceship In It

[Spy Bee]

This website is very good http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

You sure you won't respond to any more questions in this thread?

Troll, etc.

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

This website is very good http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/

What an absolute load of wank.

[setreal]

 

http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/04/mysterious-siberian-crater-may-have-spaceship-in-it/

 

Mysterious Siberian Crater May Have Spaceship In It

 

 

Top notch journalism on show there.

[Rico1304]

This website is very good http://thecoincidencetheorist.com/

Ha ha, read the stuff on the Boston bombers and Family Guy!

[dennis tooth]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dl2av7pztpM

[Red Phoenix]

Top notch journalism on show there.

 

It probably originated from here, or some other site running the same story on April 1st, so an April fools by the looks of it.

[Red Phoenix]

One here on the dangers of a Technocracy.

 

Disclaimers : I don't believe every word of this, and I don't think it's all right. I think it has some points that are valid. I don't have to answer what I think is or isn't right about this, nor do I have to get into some type of circular argument trying to defend it. The source link is in the title, not at the end.

 

 

Technocracy and the scientific matrix

 

By Jon Rappoport

 

“The creative power of the individual is downplayed or even viewed as ‘injuring the group.’ This is no accident. The whole basis of a controlled society depends on people seeing themselves as powerless and surrendering to ‘the needs of the collective.’ This amounts to a political religion—but these days, it’s ridiculously dressed up as Science, as if collectivism were a series of formulas derived from physics and biology.” (The Underground, Jon Rappoport)

 

As my readers know, I write a great deal about imagination, the individual, and independent thought.

 

Some might think these “issues” are peripheral to the elite takeover of the planet, but in fact they are central.

 

Let’s start here. As author Patrick Wood makes clear, technocracy is really all about establishing a scientific dictatorship. As he also points out, the dictatorship is based on false science.

 

For example, the sales-pitch called manmade global warming, which is a jumble of unproven data-mush used to create, in the long run, a worldwide system of energy allotment. Patrick Wood also sees through to the fact that ultimately, every individual would be monitored for energy consumption, and strict limits would be set, in order to “save the planet” from frying. The ever-expanding Surveillance State, including the so-called smart grid, exists in order to make this energy-monitoring possible.

 

Technocracy is actually a mirage of science. And it begins with the false notion that the brain, an organic piece of machinery, is the mind and the only source of consciousness. As I’ve demonstrated, this “scientific” assertion is absurd. (See also this.) But it suits the goal of exercising complete control over the population:

 

 

“We must change the functions of the brain, make it ‘more peaceful’, make it into an adjunct of a super-computer which can automatically provide truthful answers to all important questions.”

 

Independent thought (and thus independent character) and imagination aren’t emanations from the brain. They aren’t the accidental output of sub-atomic particles whirling in space.

 

Independent thought and imagination are not made out of energy whose flow and ebb operate according to rigid “laws of nature.”

 

Independent thought and imagination are free, which is to say, non-material.

 

And that upsets the entire applecart of technocracy.

 

Their goal of scientific dictatorship stems from the belief that humans, such as they are constructed, will always opt for war and destruction. Therefore humans must be re-engineered. Of course, this belief involves a major element of sham, since modern war is looked at, from the top of the food chain, as a business and, therefore, starting and funding wars on all sides equals enormous monetary profits.

 

When an individual deploys his imagination widely enough, he realizes he is far more than a series of social constructs and interactions. He travels into new territory, where the future he invents and works toward is intensely liberating.

 

Sacrifice shot through with guilt is not an item on his agenda. If anything, he wants to raise others out of the swamp of guilt. Nor is he preoccupied with attaining and maintaining victim status.

 

So he is a threat to the collective and should be…altered to fit the requirements of the Brave New World.

 

He must be a “company man,” whose loyalty to the corporation or the government is absolute. He must exude the perfume of “share and care,” as if it comes from the depths of his soul, rather than being sprinkled to hide his true thoughts.

 

He must submit to all manner of alterations, to “harmonize” his brain with all other brains in the Hive.

 

He must affect an attitude of gladness toward the salvation of All in this synthetic world.

 

Mix together a few drops of New Age rainbow philosophy, a few drops of self-immolation, a few drops of infinite social tolerance, a few drops of faith in a super-computer that hooks people up to Truth, and you have it: a grinning grotesque mask of delight.

 

Technocrats see human beings as constructs that need to be reconfigured. As pieces on a game board whose latitude of action must be reined in and diminished.

 

This is not science. This is totalitarianism dressed up to look like science.

 

To get humans to go along with this program, they must be convinced to look at themselves as…what? As small.

 

Variations on the “small” theme: “I’m just trying to get by.” “I’m trying to fit in.” “I’m a piece of something larger.” “I’m basically a member of a group.” “I’m a consumer.” “I do my job.” “I follow orders.” “You can’t expect much out of life.” “I’m a permanent victim.” “I need a leader.”

 

To the degree that you can enlist such people in any number of social causes, the long-term result will always be the same: more submerging of the powerful individual, more group-think, less creative innovation.

 

On the other end of the spectrum, imagination unleashed takes off from the well-worn platform of What Already Exists and invents new, dynamic, and innovative realities.

 

The secular religion of science-technology-materialism is obsessed with defining humans as biological machines who “need to be reprogrammed” to fit the requirements of a super-controlled society. Algorithms, computer models, and flow charts are applied to these “human machines” to regulate their actions. Individual freedom is looked upon as a wild card and an unpredictable variable which, therefore, must be eliminated.

 

What better way to eliminate it than to say it is an illusion in a materialistic world?

 

Technocrats assert that data are the ultimate Holy Grail, and by building a vast computer to which human brains can be connected, all important problems can be solved. This is the techno-view of reality itself: a series of problems that need to be solved. But of course, that is a staggeringly short-sighted view.

 

Reality is made, invented, imagined beyond the problem-solution formulation. It is made by the creative impulse which, at every leap forward, wipes out a whole host of former problems.

 

In developing my collection, Exit From The Matrix, I included dozens of imagination exercises that, among other benefits, opens up “the leap,” by which the individual invents new realities and futures.

 

There is the fake Brave New World and the actual Brave New World. The fake version settles on reprogramming humans to fit into an overall pattern of top-down control. The actual version liberates individuals so they can create realities that express their most profound and unalloyed desires.

 

At the secret heart of every organized religion (including the technocratic secular religion) lies the premise: “what you desire is illusory and harmful to yourself; it must be put aside in favor of a more ‘universal’ desire that comes from ‘a higher place’.”

 

And of course, it just so happens that leaders are always there to define what that universal desire is, explain it, legislate it, propagandize it, and enforce it.

 

That’s called a clue.

 

The architects of the technocratic society are not at the center of things. You are the center. And you, and you, and you, and you. Each one of us. That is the basis of the ultimate revolution. Whether it takes a hundred years, a thousand years, ten thousand years, that is the revolution.

 

Anything else will devolve into a bad dream, to the extent that it tries to make the individual an android connected to other androids in a universal board game full of pawns.

[setreal]

Jesus Christ RP, do you believe every word of this, all of it is correct? All those points are horrible! What exactly do you agree with here? Care to defend it? And where the hell is the link, why is it not at the end?

[Red Phoenix]

Jesus Christ RP, do you believe every word of this, all of it is correct? All those points are horrible! What exactly do you agree with here? Care to defend it? And where the hell is the link, why is it not at the end?

 

 

[Guest Numero Veinticinco]

Holy fuck.

[Hand Shandy]

I'll just leave this here...

 

Osama bin Laden sister and stepmother feared dead in UK plane crash

 

http://gu.com/p/4b6hn?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard