I am often described as a "conspiracy nut". However, if a massive conspiracy *ACTUALLY EXISTS*, then it's perfectly acceptable to talk about it.
People who say "There's no conspiracy!" should be referred to as "non-conspiracy nuts". If you refuse to acknowledge the existence of a conspiracy, despite massive evidence, then you must be insane.
As a practical matter, it's hard to be sure of the truth. Did the current corrupt system arise through someone's agenda to enslave everyone? Did the current corrupt system evolve by a series of mistakes and bad decisions? I consider that point mostly irrelevant. The cumulative effect is the same. Since most people have a knee-jerk reaction to someone saying "There's a conspiracy!", I might as well explicitly say so to filter out the fools and trolls.
I'm not saying "I'm absolutely certain there's a conspiracy!" I'm saying that it's seriously worth investigating.
The current corrupt system is totally out of hand. It cannot be reformed, and must be discarded.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Non-Conspiracy Nuts
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
To quote something I read on Lew Rockwell yesterday,
you're not interested in conspiracy theory, you are interested in conspiracy facts.
"Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, so long as you call yourself a coincidence theorist."
- John Judge, COPA presentation 2002
In this case I agree with the quote: "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."
I subscribe to several worldviews which represent a minority:
- rational atheism (Dawkins & co.), together with materialist monism, etc.
- scientific skepticism (Shermer, Randi)
- individual freedom, both personal and economical.
The fact that the majority of the Globe rejects these and that very few exhibit them all doesn't mean there to turn people into sheeple.
I believe you subscribe to most (if not all) of those things on my list. Am I correct?
Post a Comment