Among the Truthers:A Journey Through America’s Growing Conspiracist Undergroud

reply to post by Tecumte

No one is out to get us??? I thought 'them terrists' were lurking under every rock and behind every shrub 'cuz they hate our freedoms' LOL, that's why we have to give up any last bit of privacy and liberty (and cash), so we can be .. you know...secure.

Well, that just goes to show that you really need to consider what you are thinking. No one ever said that terrorists are lurking eveywhere. They are few and far between, but that doesn't mean that they are not capable of great harm. You've given up every last bit of your liberty and privacy? Are you in prison? In jail?

You need to get your story straight.

Maybe you need to listen a little more carefully and be a little more discerning about the sources of your information.

Not sure if you fell for the offcial 9-11 fairy tale, but if so your possible belief in only selected gov issue conspiracy theories over reason seems to me an incredible bias you may not be willing to look into.

Sorry, but it is by virtue of my reason that I can dismiss the paranoid baseless rantings of the conspiracist cult. Really, you find it more reasonable that government gnomes snuck nuclear weapons in the basement of the World Trade center towers than to believe that people hijack airplanes.

And don't we reportedly have over one million people on the 'watch list' and have concocted most every manner of paranoid 'everyone must be surveilled and probed cradle to grave' type Nazi like thinking?

You really need to do a little reading about Nazi Germany. You throw that analogy around quite liberally. If the US government were acting like the government of nazi Germany than you would not be responding to any of these postings.

The U.S. is likely in the early stages of totalitarianism, it could get MUCH more Orwellian there's still time, I look over at the Orwellian U.K. or perhaps China and see what may lie in store for this country.

And you are the only one that sees this eventuality? You are so special that you have this unique insight into the future?

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Is that the new epitaph?

No, just the existing reality.

In your head.

In case you weren't aware... Cults have leaders.

And so do the 9/11 truthers. You know who they are.

No, actually, I don't. I know some are more outspoken and in more visible positions, but I follow no one, and I bet if you asked virtually any who see the great fishiness of 9/11 who Their "leader" is, They will say, "There is no 'leader.'" Plastering the epithet of "cult" is disingenuous at best.

Not groups of people who looked at the evidence and arrived at conclusions that make far better sense than a story thrust down our throats from day 1 (Osama did it!).

Or did they come to different conclusions and then go looking for evidence to support those conclusions? That is the typical thought process employed by the true believers in cults.

Considering that (virtually) no one WANTS to believe the evil they see, and I know *I* surely didn't want to believe it - I'm guessing you are wrong. In fact, why would a group as large as those who have seen fishiness - and a great many who believed the OS initially and have come to see that all is not as They want Us to believe (in Reichstag fashion) just "flash" into existence at that point with no leader? Cult, my ass.

I think the spook cultists should examine Their views and why They are doing what They are.

So you think anyone who disagrees with you is a "spook" assigned to impede your path to the truth?

No. I didn't say that. But there are many who are antagonistic, and offer fantastically improbable explanations at times, and adhere to "spook" tactics, whether knowingly or unknowingly, such as personal attack, exaggeration ad absurdium, and that sort of thing, so I have to conclude that it's spooky, either way. I'm just sayin'.

You realize that this again reinforces the thesis of the publication, right? Why not just say there are persons out there who disagree with your views? Why do they have to be "spooks"?

Hahahahaha! Oh, most people don't exhibit "spook" behavior, but when They do, I question Their motive. If They disagree with Me based on anything arbitrarily set, like a likelihood or an assessment, I'm willing to agree to disagree. In fact, I think You know I dismiss Them when it gets absurdly spooky.

For startes, I have no doubt that there are people who base conspiracy theories on little or no facts at all, a claim that the book makes I am sure.

With that said, the 911 truth movement, which I am sure, is the reason this book came into existence, revolves for the most part around hard facts, actually shooting down conspiracy theories, be it the official conspiracy theory, or the holografic plane laser beam theories. I cant talk about other conspiracy theories, such as chemtrails, but the truth movement certainly does not revolve around fantasies.

Quite the opposite, it is the "debunkers" which live in a fantasy world, when they say things like that there was no van which blew up on 911, or that it means nothing Mossad agents where in the area, as if mossad agents are a dime a dozen with a world wide presence 24/7.

From what I observed here, the side which presents facts is the truthers, the side, which seeks to pass spewing out venom as contributing to the discussion is the "debunkers". I dont care how often the frase damned fool conspiracy sites is used, it does not contribute to the discussion.

The quesiton is, where do deniers stop? Today it is the crimes committed against america, tomorrow Goodolddave is going to defend Hitler for taking appropriate steps against domestic and foreign "terrorists".

reply to post by Amaterasu

In your head.

And everywhere else. Look around, read the news.

No, actually, I don't. I know some are more outspoken and in more visible positions, but I follow no one, and I bet if you asked virtually any who see the great fishiness of 9/11 who Their "leader" is, They will say, "There is no 'leader.'" Plastering the epithet of "cult" is disingenuous at best.

Yeah you do. You follow anyone who will reiforce your bias.

Considering that (virtually) no one WANTS to believe the evil they see, and I know *I* surely didn't want to believe it - I'm guessing you are wrong.

Well you're wrong again! People are more than willing to believe the actual evil that exists in the world and try to actually deal with. You get frustrated because you are seeing things that no one else sees. There is a word for that.

In fact, why would a group as large as those who have seen fishiness - and a great many who believed the OS initially and have come to see that all is not as They want Us to believe (in Reichstag fashion) just "flash" into existence at that point with no leader? Cult, my ass.

Well, thats one of the charateristics of this particular cult - they like to think there more members than there actually are. It gives them comfort and helps to shoo away those nagging prongs of rationality that manage to surface through the haze of self delusion occasionally. You sit and contemplate how you could be so uniquely insightful while all around you are blindly following what you percieve to be a fairy tale and suddenly a voice starts to tell you that maybe its the other way around. But then you console yourself by fanatasizing that there armies of fellow travelers out there but they are an invisible legion waiting to take the charge and you'll be there in their numbers when the time comes.

No. I didn't say that. But there are many who are antagonistic, and offer fantastically improbable explanations at times, and adhere to "spook" tactics, whether knowingly or unknowingly, such as personal attack, exaggeration ad absurdium, and that sort of thing, so I have to conclude that it's spooky, either way. I'm just sayin'.

Yep, I know thats what you are just sayin'! Everything that denies your delusion is shunned as a improbable explanation.

Hahahahaha! Oh, most people don't exhibit "spook" behavior, but when They do, I question Their motive. If They disagree with Me based on anything arbitrarily set, like a likelihood or an assessment, I'm willing to agree to disagree. In fact, I think You know I dismiss Them when it gets absurdly spooky

You realize of course, that you have a defintion of spook behavior? Doesn't that tell you something?

Originally posted by Six Sigma

Originally posted by Amaterasu


Is that the new epitaph? In case you weren't aware... Cults have leaders.

Richard Gage

Alex Jones

David Ray Griffin

Steven Jones

Any of these names ring a bell?

They ring a bell of some of the more outspoken and public individuals... So? I don't follow them. I examine their data as I examine all others. You are confusing voice with leadership.

Funny how some people forget one important fact about Griffin. He is a theologian. Lets see, every cult needs a leader, and what is Dr. Griffin's specialty? Theology! What better leader than a "religious" person leading the masses in the cult? Seems only fair! The fact that, that fact alone doesnt put up any red flags for the truther community is simply astounding. Getting manipulated by someone who knows all about religion and theology, and being worshiped as a leader. Ouch!

What were his qualifications again to comment on high rise engineering, controlled demolitions, chemistry, physics, aeronautics, etc?

From all the reviews, it sounds as though he's basically saying that people who don't immediately accept the official story are to be automatically labeled as misinformed. Nice way to categorically dismiss a whole group of people instead of actually encouraging people to take a look at things for themselves.

reply to post by hooper


And your responses only prove that you immediately label anyone who even dares to challenge the status quo as a nutjob, instead of actually listening to them.

-->The Truther phenomenon - like the broader intellectual trend it epitomizes - is simply too important to ignore. Truther theories may be nonsense, but the disturbing habits of mind underlying them - a nihilistic distrust in government, total alienation from conventional politics, a need to reduce the world's complexity to good versus evil fables, the melding of secular politics with End-is-nigh religiosity, and a rejection of the basic tools of logic and rational discourse - have become threats all across our intellectual landscape..... You can't defeat the Enlightenment's enemies unless you understand them. And that is the project I ask my readers to embark on as they read this book, Those of us who continue to adhere to the rationalist tradition must commit to it's defense. - Jonathon Kay

Wow, Jonathon Kay, what a tool, and an egotistical one at that. Same old same old, reading this quote just reaffirms that my first impression was right on the money. "You can't defeat The Enlightenment's enemies"..... LOL, The Enlightenment???,, , that is absolutely comical, and "ask my readers (to) commit to it's defense", double wow, this IS as a previous poster understood a 'call to arms' to attempt to put down those who see only too well --The Lie has become the Pillar of The State and the Emperor is absolutely NAKED.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
reply to post by hooper

 

And your responses only prove that you immediately label anyone who even dares to challenge the status quo as a nutjob, instead of actually listening to them.

If you will look at my posting history on this website how could you say that I don't listen to them? The problem is I do listen and the more I listen the more I am convinced that this is developing into a full fledge cult.

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
From all the reviews, it sounds as though he's basically saying that people who don't immediately accept the official story are to be automatically labeled as misinformed. Nice way to categorically dismiss a whole group of people instead of actually encouraging people to take a look at things for themselves.

Not just misinformed but "The Enlightenment's" *ENEMIES*, This is the same kind of rhetoric we were hearing echoed by some of the goverment extremists in the District of Corruption and the same propaganda talk being circulated on the Mockingbird talk show circuit.

Talk about a CULT!!! These guys want no challenge to the official lies, if they have to use the same old worn out methods of labelling those who see through their deceptions, and trying to demonize them using whatever methods so be it. This book, from the quotes read so far appears to be IMO a definate propaganda and hatchet job piece designed to demonize (subtley) and marginalize all sceptics of the 'official' gov issue 'truths' and recruit other less aware serfs to the aid of the king. How long until Orwell's 'thought crimes' label comes into aceptance. Or maybe we're getting there already?

Originally posted by Asktheanimals
Asking questions is now a rejection of logic and rational discourse - you heard it here first folks! And this is a threat to our "intellectual landscape". Lucky for Columbus he didn't fall off the edge of the Earth.
We Conspiracy Theorists are a "threat" to the "Enlightenment". If the enlightenment equals the status quo then I say Bully for Us!

I don't think anyone has a problem with asking questions. This was the slogan from Loose Change back almost 5 years ago. "Ask Questions- Demand Answers" this was the line that was and still is perseverated. The questions were answered.

The questions were answered with sound logic and science, witnesses and physical evidence, and good ol' common sense. Truthers saw the answers and hand waved them away. Why? Because it proved there wasn't a conspiracy. Quote mining and cherry picking continued even though facts were handed to them. I wanted to see Bush somehow involved. I despise the man and do believe there was a cover up....but with the incompetence of him and his administration. Truthers flooded the internet with controlled demolitions, missile theories, and remote control planes. These idiotic ideas are what i believe did the harm to the truth movement.

reply to post by Six Sigma


That's absolutely false, 'the questions' were answered by grade school antics from hit pieces put out by yellow journalism writing such as the ludicrous 'science' tests' of National Geographic and straw man quotes in Popular Mechanics and THOSE were easily knocked down and answered and debunked by others who IMO made much more sense. Did anyone even watch the National Geographic piece? I watched it and I actually laughed at some of the psuedoscience, I couldn't believe someone like NG would even allow such a shallow grade school science fair (and a bad one at that) type program to be shown!

The downplaying and cherry picking is being done rather by those who cling forever to the 'offical story' which is FULL of holes that nobdy has shown to have really addressed in a reasonable way. It's really the other way around no matter how many smoke and mirrors are used to defend the offical story line the SUBSTANCE is sorely lacking and many many people see it.

so now every group or movement,will be labeled as a conspiracy cult,how convenient...

so now if you don't agree with what your told,your a outcast to society.

won't be long before we are called extremists.

reply to post by TheMaverick


Noam Chomsky in What Uncle Sam Really Wants

One substitute for the disappearing Evil Empire has been the threat of drug traffickers from Latin America. In early September 1989, a major government-media blitz was launched by the President. That month the AP wires carried more stories about drugs than about Latin America, Asia, the Middle East and Africa combined. If you looked at television, every news program had a big section on how drugs were destroying our society, becoming the greatest threat to our existence, etc.

The effect on public opinion was immediate. When Bush won the 1988 election, people said the budget deficit was the biggest problem facing the country. Only about 3% named drugs. After the media blitz, concern over the budget was way down and drugs had soared to about 40% to 45%, which is highly unusual for an open question (where no specific answers are suggested).

Now, when some client state complains that the US government isn't sending it enough money, they no longer say, "we need it to stop the Russians" - rather, "we need it to stop drug trafficking." Like the Soviet threat, this enemy provides a good excuse for a US military presence where there's rebel activity or other unrest.

Need any us of go on?!? The article in the OP (not the OP poster) is way off-base with its ideas

Peace

Originally posted by gnosticquasar
From all the reviews, it sounds as though he's basically saying that people who don't immediately accept the official story are to be automatically labeled as misinformed. Nice way to categorically dismiss a whole group of people instead of actually encouraging people to take a look at things for themselves.

Well we haven read the book yet and I dont intend to shell money on it. But from the presentation I would be really surprised if the book is an objective look at the data presented. Its a book clearly geared at 9/11 deniers. The facts arent on their side, so they want to read a string of ad hominem attacks. I predict that book is going to sell well enough.

reply to post by Six Sigma


Facts:
1. Even chimpanzees have the instinct to mislead each other. People developed this capability perfect.
2. Authority uses the monopoly of force and indoctrination/manipulation, to maintain leadership.
3. Psychological experiments found that 80% of the "leader personalities" are narcistic and only 20% are caring and benevolent. (So we can suppose that 80% of our leaders don't care about us.)
4. In the beginning of written history, the power of the states was more based on agression and less on manipulation. Today it's turned the opposite, as mind control and manipulation is more invisible, harder to prove that the goverment is not right. Making people believe that everything works in the best POSSIBLE way- perfect solution, they will not do a rebellion! (It works well, uneducated people usually have more children so the parasites have a big part of the population to brainwash easily- and use against tha critical minority if needed.)
Conclusions:
Many people like cheating each other (think about Machiawellism). Anyway, it's no use being the onest (and the prey) among them! A possible technique:1. Get information 2. Check the information (with the help of your own experience or other infos) 3. If you cannot check it just forget about it 4.The less you trust in anyone, the more you win

Jonathan Kay did graduate from Yale Law School. Did anyone think of the fact that this professional critic and apologist for the official story on everything controversial might just be a bonesman as well. The Skull & Bones likes to have its people in every major industry. Why would journalism be any different then the big oil, big banking, and big defense contractors.

That is my 2 cents. He is a likely bonesman.

call me crazy

but this looks/sounds like a hit piece to me

lol conspiracies are for nutjobs,cultish, illogal... lol

Is Schizophrenia Really a Black Disease? bigthink.com...

Who decides what "insane" means? This was the major question of Ken Kesey's countercultural classic "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," which illustrated how mental illness could be deployed by the establishment to crush the individual. But a recent book by University of Michigan psychiatry professor Jonathan Metzl suggests that Kesey's novel might not have been far from non-fiction. In "The Protest Psychosis: How Schizophrenia Became a Black Disease," Metzl documents the shifting interpretations of schizophrenia through the 20th century, tracing its evolution from a "white middle-class woman's disease" to an "African-American man's disease." Specifically, with the political upheaval of the civil rights movement, popular culture began to associate angry black men with schizophrenia, which in turn influenced the way doctors interpreted and diagnosed the illness.
***
"In particularly the early 1920s, 1930s, 1940s when the idea of schizophrenia itself was first coming to the United States from Europe there was a general assumption that persons who suffered from schizophrenia were either shy or calm or they were geniuses," Metzl says. "It was often represented as an illness that afflicted white novelists or poets and as I say, these were very often in popular and psychiatric representation assumed to be white people." But during the massive societal upheavals in the middle of century, ideas of sanity and insanity took on new meaning. "All of a sudden in the 1960s, American culture, newspapers, magazines, movies start to represent angry African-American men as in part being inflicted with a new form of this particular illness," and this change in popular perception of the disease directly influenced the clinical definition of it, Metzl argues. "All of a sudden in 1968, the second version of the Diagnostic Manual comes out and there is new language that says 'aggression, hostility, projection.'" The image of a schizophrenic person was all of a sudden more violent and unstable than the schizophrenic of 20 years before.

The practical consequences of this popular-cum-clinical shift in perception was that in the 1960s far more African-American men were institutionalized in psychiatric wards with schizophrenia. "Some had committed crimes, some had participated in civil rights protests, some had been participants in urban riots at the time. They all passed through various forms of the penal system and ended up diagnosed with schizophrenia and locked in the psychiatric wards," says Metzl. But were these men really schizophrenic? Or were they victims of shifting clinical definitions of disease, one that was prone to metaphoric interpretation?

How Schizophrenia Became a "Black Disease" bigthink.com...

history does not repeat itself but sometimes it rhymes

I would be surprised if there was a section in the book regarding how countries take their citizens to war based off of absurd conspiracy theories like Cheney's "weapons of mass destruction" hoax that few in the Mockingbird controlled press dared to do anything but echo until well after the fact if at all.

What would make more interesting reading than this hatchet job book, is to find a well written book that talks about the real strategic reasons for the wars the U. S. became involved in, the economic and geopolitical reasons, what was going on immdiately prior to 9-11, the negotiations for oil pipeline accces taking place between the Taliban and oil officials at the Bush Compound in Crawford, how when Unocal got shut out of bidding and the deals went to Bridas oil officials threatened war, how (ex?) CIA asset 'Bin Laden' and 9-11 was used as the needed pretext to get a sceptical public on board for imperialism, etc. etc., those kinds of things.

I think people are just tired of lie piled on top of lie, so many have done their homework, they clearly see through the smoke and mirrors, hit pieces like this book appears to be will do nothing to stifle the debate and the dialogue, rather it will just add another log to the fire of growing scepticism that all empires historically lie constantly to their people and use every means at their disposal to attempt to label and marginalize those who are insightful enough to see through the constant web of deceipt.