Top Ten Conspiracy Theories

[Ginny]

GLOBAL CURRENCY RESET : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CVsGzIYmquc&t=1m44s

[Strontium]

In fact, I don't agree, that was rash. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

 

Are you saying you would believe literally anything unless there was evidence that it was wrong?

 

Does probability never factor into your thinking?

 

 

Have you ever considered that it might be what you're reading that's the issue?

 

 

I'm fairly sure that even the most rudimentary material would have mentioned any recent regime changes.

 

If I'm to believe the prevailing opinion, it's that the US really likes right wing governments. But there are virtually no right wing governments left in South America.

 

Even the Guardian seems to be under the misapprehension that America's diplomatic attention is "focused elsewhere" since the Cold War. I can only imagine their professional journalists aren't reading the same things as you.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/28/colombia-latin-america-political-shift

 

Latin America's political right in decline as leftist governments move to middle

 

Regional summit in Cuba points to a geopolitical realignment as US diplomatic attention is largely focused elsewhere

 

More than two decades after the cold war, during which the US backed anti-communist military rulers and pushed free-market policies in Latin America, conservative governments have virtually disappeared from the region.

 

The leftward shift has been under way since the start of the millennium, but in recent years, the political axis of the hemisphere has tilted even further, as candidates who promise greater social spending and wealth redistribution win again and again. When the term of Chilean conservative Sebastián Piñera ends in March, right-leaning presidents will be in power only in small Central American nations and Paraguay.

 

"I think it's difficult for conservative candidates to move forward because inequality is such an entrenched issue," said Ana Quintana, a Latin America expert at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. "And it's hard to implement free-market, institutional reforms when you need to make sure a significant portion of the population can get enough to eat."

 

Latin America's right could once identify itself as pro-business and supportive of law and order and as closely aligned with the US. But many of the region's leftists and centrists have co-opted some of those issues as they have become more moderate, regional observers say, leaving conservatives with less to run on.

 

"I think the right is struggling to define itself in the new environment," said Carl Meacham, the Americas director at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

 

Meacham, who was a policy adviser to former Republican Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana, said Latin America's conservatives could do more to emphasise "market approaches to increased social mobility", rather than the state-oriented strategies offered by leftists.

 

"Folks in current leadership positions on the right don't seem to have the answers," he said. "We need a reset and new, younger voices."

 

While dominant, Latin America's leftists are hardly a monolithic bloc, and significant policy differences have emerged, especially on matters of trade protectionism and relations with the US.

 

But in big, geopolitical ways, the region has undergone a massive realignment. With Washington's diplomatic attention largely focused elsewhere, on Asia and the Middle East, Latin America's shift has resulted in declining US influence.

[Stu Monty]

So, if the rudimentary material which you've seen mentions regimes that have changed, why are you asking me for examples? Are you stating you aren't aware of any regime changes that have occurred in Latin America?

 

Once again you're deliberately shifting the battle to areas you can try and pick easy wins or draw out nonsense arguements other than than talking honestly about the issue at hand.

 

The issue being that the CIA have a base in left-leaning countries to destabilise wherever possible and to pursue their own self-interest; and that to deny that is a ridiculously perverse stance to take. It's not even mildly controversial, it's just obvious to anyone with a passing knowledge of the history and methodology of geopolitics. The CIA have a pretty big budget too mate, they can move "focus" to somewhere and still have fingers in pies elsewhere you know? You'll be astounded to hear they have regularly been found meddling on different continents AT THE SAME TIME! I know; who'd have thunk it?

[SCOUSE TAPAS]

If your talking about the cia or americas involvement in latin america, you might find this interesting if you haven t seen it already.

 

http://youtu.be/oeHzc1h8k7o

[Red Phoenix]

Thought this was interesting. Saw it linked on a youtube channel and then started looking up why our music was changed in frequency (standard pitch.) from 432 to 440hz. (This is related to it, the number 432 mainly.) If research is done into the numerology aspect the numbers also relate to the pyramids, planet sizes, geometry and so on. The video explains a lot of it anyway.

 

Just as a final note, the video is only around 22mins long, not the 32 that it says.

 

[KopOut]

I'm a mastering engineer (part time) and I get requests from musos "can you please change the pitch to 432 on our old recording before re-mastering please".

 

I have to tell them that it works on the backing tracks most of the time, but it can make the vocals wierd.

 

It seems to be the new obsession this 432.

 

I'm a muso myself but stick with 440. Sure, on a guitar you get more resonance at 432. Because the strings are slacker ffs.

[Red Phoenix]

I'm a mastering engineer (part time) and I get requests from musos "can you please change the pitch to 432 on our old recording before re-mastering please".

 

I have to tell them that it works on the backing tracks most of the time, but it can make the vocals wierd.

 

It seems to be the new obsession this 432.

 

I'm a muso myself but stick with 440. Sure, on a guitar you get more resonance at 432. Because the strings are slacker ffs.

Some of them might be looking into the same stuff, wouldn't be too surprised. There's quite a bit about it online but it looks like there's also plenty of confusion/arguments about what it might or might not mean. Might spend some time trying to research it a bit more in the near future though.

[Spy Bee]

 

 

Are you saying you would believe literally anything unless there was evidence that it was wrong

 

No I am not. This is an absolutely perfect example of the way you argue, and the reason that you either rile people, or people just choose to ignore you. 

[Red Phoenix]

[Red Phoenix]

Thanks to TheBitch for linking a video from this channel in the Israel/Palestine thread, had no idea he'd started this.

 

Liked from 1:11 to 2:47 here :

 

[Strontium]

No I am not. This is an absolutely perfect example of the way you argue, and the reason that you either rile people, or people just choose to ignore you.

 

I'm asking you a question. I fail to see how or why you should get riled by an innocent question.

 

You're the one who wrote "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", after all. It is entirely reasonable for me to therefore ask to what extent you will believe things in the absence of evidence.

[Stu Monty]

Anyone seen that conspiracy theory knocking about involving the CIA spying on, threatening and hacking into the computers of the Senate committee members that have oversight on them? Then simply lying about the fact they are?

 

Oh. 

 

Just a fact then. Not a conspiracy?

 

Oh.

[bouncebrigade]

Known unknowns.

 

Oh never mind.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

 

I'm asking you a question. I fail to see how or why you should get riled by an innocent question.

 

You're the one who wrote "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", after all. It is entirely reasonable for me to therefore ask to what extent you will believe things in the absence of evidence.

Now, now.  You've got your poking stick out again, haven't you.

 

I've not bothered reading back on the context of this (so shoot me - metaphorically - if I'm out of line) but there really is absolutely nothing wrong with "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".  

 

[Edit] I've just read the context.  Lots of plausible things come without supporting evidence.  A little imagination and an appreciation of probabilities (!) has to factor into any intelligent person's thinking.  (As I suspect you know.)

[Strontium]

Anyone seen that conspiracy theory knocking about involving the CIA spying on, threatening and hacking into the computers of the Senate committee members that have oversight on them? Then simply lying about the fact they are?

 

Oh. 

 

Just a fact then. Not a conspiracy?

 

Oh.

 

Sounds like what the CIA have been doing since Day One to me.

 

Hopefully now you will appreciate that the CIA frequently operates directly contrary to the will of its own government, and will therefore not blame "the Americans" for everything the CIA does.

 

The CIA are a law unto themselves.

[Stu Monty]

Sounds like what the CIA have been doing since Day One to me.

 

Hopefully now you will appreciate that the CIA frequently operates directly contrary to the will of its own government, and will therefore not blame "the Americans" for everything the CIA does.

 

The CIA are a law unto themselves.

Yeah...only, Obama is supporting them tonight soooooo.

 

It's a good job you've so regularly been making the point that the CIA are a rogue agency and as such the government cannot be held accountable for their actions (as opposed to just flatly denying they get up to no good) otherwise the above comments would look daft.

 

Can you show me the examples of it acting counter to the will of the government, out of interest?

[Strontium]

Yeah...only, Obama is supporting them tonight soooooo.

 

It's a good job you've so regularly been making the point that the CIA are a rogue agency and as such the government cannot be held accountable for their actions (as opposed to just flatly denying they get up to no good) otherwise the above comments would look daft.

 

Can you show me the examples of it acting counter to the will of the government, out of interest?

 

Er, where have I ever denied that the CIA get up to no good?

 

Please, find a single example of that, but really, don't waste your time, we know it doesn't exist.

 

I was sure I had made the point about the CIA acting contrary to American government policy before, but whether I did or not does not detract from the fact that it is erroneous to castigate the American government for everything the CIA does.

 

I don't particularly care what the CIA does, therefore I don't exactly have an encyclopedic knowledge of the stunts they pull, however an example that does spring to mind is when the CIA were repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro against the specific instructions of JFK.

 

Of course, they did for JFK himself in short order too, and I'm quite sure that was against national policy as well.

[Spy Bee]

Er, where have I ever denied that the CIA get up to no good?

 

Please, find a single example of that, but really, don't waste your time, we know it doesn't exist.

He didn't suggest you had denied that the CIA get up to no good.

[Stu Monty]

Er, where have I ever denied that the CIA get up to no good?

 

Please, find a single example of that, but really, don't waste your time, we know it doesn't exist.

 

I was sure I had made the point about the CIA acting contrary to American government policy before, but whether I did or not does not detract from the fact that it is erroneous to castigate the American government for everything the CIA does.

 

I don't particularly care what the CIA does, therefore I don't exactly have an encyclopedic knowledge of the stunts they pull, however an example that does spring to mind is when the CIA were repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro against the specific instructions of JFK.

 

Of course, they did for JFK himself in short order too, and I'm quite sure that was against national policy as well.

Obviously I'll be requiring evidence from after the Cold War, you've set that rule down as the cut off point for relevance in previous discussions.

 

As pointed out, Obama has supported them here, so we still haven't got a single substantiated example of them working contrary to the US administration, let alone a trend.

 

Where is your consistency on supplying evidence to back up your claims?

[Strontium]

Obviously I'll be requiring evidence from after the Cold War, you've set that rule down as the cut off point for relevance in previous discussions.

Only where overthrowing local Soviet-affiliated governments is concerned.

 

Can you give me a single reason why we should use this same cut-off point when talking about the CIA in more general terms?

 

As pointed out, Obama has supported them here, so we still haven't got a single substantiated example of them working contrary to the US administration, let alone a trend.

Apart from the example I just gave, and which you're unable to consider, because you are playing silly buggers.

 

Where is your consistency on supplying evidence to back up your claims?

What's this supposed to mean?

[Stu Monty]

Only where overthrowing local Soviet-affiliated governments is concerned.

 

Can you give me a single reason why we should use this same cut-off point when talking about the CIA in more general terms?

 

 

Apart from the example I just gave, and which you're unable to consider, because you are playing silly buggers.

 

 

What's this supposed to mean?

 

 

Silly buggers? No, I'm just replying to you in the same way that you have been replying to me on these issues.

 

I'm asking for evidence to back up your claims that the CIA has worked against the Government. Why wouldn't you be able to provide it given your utter dismissal of any claim of wrong-doing by them that I couldn't back up with a signed confession? Let the record note, none of my accusations were as "Conspiratorial" as murdering their own president.

 

You said they frequently operated in this manner. I'm asking you to point out when, and back it up.

[Spy Bee]

Report finds agents directly involved in many US terror plots

 

http://www.hrw.org/reports/2014/07/21/illusion-justice-0

[dennis tooth]

Er, where have I ever denied that the CIA get up to no good?

 

Please, find a single example of that, but really, don't waste your time, we know it doesn't exist.

 

I was sure I had made the point about the CIA acting contrary to American government policy before, but whether I did or not does not detract from the fact that it is erroneous to castigate the American government for everything the CIA does.

 

I don't particularly care what the CIA does, therefore I don't exactly have an encyclopedic knowledge of the stunts they pull, however an example that does spring to mind is when the CIA were repeatedly attempting to assassinate Castro against the specific instructions of JFK.

 

Of course, they did for JFK himself in short order too, and I'm quite sure that was against national policy as well.

 

It was firmly in his policy

 

 

 

In April 1961, Kennedy had sponsored an invasion by an assortment of CIA-trained exiles, in an episode which went down in history as the Bay of Pigs. Following the abject failure of this clandestine operation, a humiliated Kennedy authorised a CIA campaign of sabotage and assassinations to ‘visit the terrors of the earth’ on the Castro regime. On the very same day that missile bases were discovered, McNamara met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to discuss measures for removing Castro, including a possible invasion – though this was to be delayed till after the mid-term elections

[Red Phoenix]

Bertrand Russell, The Scientific Outlook, written in 1931 :

 

The latest stage in the education of the most intellectual of the governing class will consist of training for research. Research will be highly organized, and young people will not be allowed to choose what particular piece of research they shall do. They will, of course, be directed to research in those subjects for which they have shown special ability.

 

A great deal of scientific knowledge will be concealed from all but a few. There will be arcana reserved for a priestly class of researchers, who will be carefully selected for their combination of brains with loyalty. One may, I think, expect that research will be much more technical than fundamental. The men at the head of any department of research will be elderly, and content to think that the fundamentals of their subject are sufficiently known. Discoveries which upset the official view of fundamentals, if they are made by young men, will incur disfavour, and if rashly published will lead to degradation. Young men to whom any fundamental innovation occurs will make cautious attempts to persuade their professors to view the new ideas with favour, but if these attempts fail they will conceal their new ideas until they themselves have acquired positions of authority, by which time they will probably have forgotten them.

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, written in 1958 :

 

Considering how little they knew and how poorly they were equipped, the Grand Inquisitors of earlier times did remarkably well. But their successors, the well-in­formed, thoroughly scientific dictators of the future will undoubtedly be able to do a great deal better. The Grand Inquisitor reproaches Christ with having called upon men to be free and tells Him that "we have cor­rected Thy work and founded it upon miracle, mystery and authority." But miracle, mystery and authority are not enough to guarantee the indefinite survival of a dictatorship.

 

In my fable of Brave New World, the dictators had added science to the list and thus were able to enforce their authority by manipulating the bodies of embryos, the reflexes of infants and the minds of children and adults. And, instead of merely talking about miracles and hinting symbolically at mysteries, they were able, by means of drugs, to give their subjects the direct experience of mysteries and miracles -- to transform mere faith into ecstatic knowl­edge. The older dictators fell because they could never supply their subjects with enough bread, enough cir­cuses, enough miracles and mysteries. Nor did they possess a really effective system of mind-manipulation. In the past, free-thinkers and revolutionaries were often the products of the most piously orthodox educa­tion. This is not surprising. The methods employed by orthodox educators were and still are extremely inefficient.

 

Under a scientific dictator education will really work -- with the result that most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution. There seems to be no good reason why a thoroughly scientific dictatorship should ever be overthrown.

 

 

Brave New World Revisited

 

The Scientific Outlook

[Stu Monty]

I presume that's in the wrong thread?