2013: The Year of Alex Jones

mynym

Banned
Banned
Pretty sad that I have to interpret my own comments. I don't have a lot of time to write or lay it all out sometimes. And then it would be too long and boring anyway.

This:
With respect to fear loops, I'm just imagining what it must be like to be fearful and begin to use your intellect in order to justify and build up your fears without ever using it to dissipate them.

That actually seems pretty clear. But feel free to explain to me how it makes sense to be fearful of either talk radio or terrorism.

Side note, has anyone here considered dressing up in a clown costume and trying to be entertaining enough to gain an audience in order to create a media platform to criticize Alex Jones and therefore prevent all the terrism that he's bound to create? Because if you do decide to do that, better make it entertaining.

The fear loop can get pretty loopy sometimes.... whether you're thinking that talk radio is going to create some terrists or you think that you're in more danger from the CIA's network of international mercenaries and terrorists than your drunk driving neighbor.

Loopy = fearing terrorism or worse, entertaining yourself with the idea that talk radio is creating terrorism

Not as loopy = fearing drunk drivers

If you're going to fear something, might as well fear something that has a higher probability of actually effecting your life.... (E.g., the work of the banksters... as their "federal reserve notes" will effect everyone so it's likely that you'll be effected by it, etc.)

Might not be stated the best... but you can't understand the concept of fearing or caring about events that are likely to effect you (the work of the banksters) vs. those that have a vanishingly small probability based on the evidence (Alex Jones' imaginary terrist cells)?
 

HappyMonday

Moderator
Pretty sad that I have to interpret my own comments. I don't have a lot of time to write or lay it all out sometimes. And then it would be too long and boring anyway.

This:

That actually seems pretty clear. But feel free to explain to me how it makes sense to be fearful of either talk radio or terrorism.

Yet you do have time to annotate your own posts.

It's all a bit black and white, this talk of fear. Do you not draw a distinction between concern and fear?

Can't we be concerned that somebody may do something stupid off the back of an erroneous theory, yet not be living in abject fear of this eventuality, and / or allowing these fears spiral or 'build up' rather than 'dissipate'?
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
A Gish Gallop is not 'connecting the dots' it is designed to confuse and distract folks. If the points in it are looked at and found false, then the 'point' is now gone.

And linking things often causes the WRONG conclusions. The sun goes dark in an eclipse, we make noise, pray, kill something and it comes back.

Linking things is basis of many mythologies, in science one does not LINK things until each item is proven true.
 

Drew

Active Member
Pretty sad that I have to interpret my own comments. I don't have a lot of time to write or lay it all out sometimes. And then it would be too long and boring anyway.

This:

That actually seems pretty clear. But feel free to explain to me how it makes sense to be fearful of either talk radio or terrorism.

Side note, has anyone here considered dressing up in a clown costume and trying to be entertaining enough to gain an audience in order to create a media platform to criticize Alex Jones and therefore prevent all the terrism that he's bound to create? Because if you do decide to do that, better make it entertaining.



Loopy = fearing terrorism or worse, entertaining yourself with the idea that talk radio is creating terrorism

Not as loopy = fearing drunk drivers



Might not be stated the best... but you can't understand the concept of fearing or caring about events that are likely to effect you (the work of the banksters) vs. those that have a vanishingly small probability based on the evidence (Alex Jones' imaginary terrist cells)?

I think it's sad that you regard a request that you try to communicate more clearly to your intended audience as some monstrously onerous imposition.

Nobody's forcing you to post here. If you can't be troubled to explain what you're talking about, perhaps your time would be better spent elsewhere?
 

Drew

Active Member
...

That actually seems pretty clear. But feel free to explain to me how it makes sense to be fearful of either talk radio or terrorism.

Side note, has anyone here considered dressing up in a clown costume and trying to be entertaining enough to gain an audience in order to create a media platform to criticize Alex Jones and therefore prevent all the terrism that he's bound to create? Because if you do decide to do that, better make it entertaining.



Loopy = fearing terrorism or worse, entertaining yourself with the idea that talk radio is creating terrorism

Not as loopy = fearing drunk drivers



Might not be stated the best... but you can't understand the concept of fearing or caring about events that are likely to effect you (the work of the banksters) vs. those that have a vanishingly small probability based on the evidence (Alex Jones' imaginary terrist cells)?


These weird false dichotomies you set up—as if people can't fear more than one thing at a time.

And I would counter: although direct causal links between talk radio and violent extremism are probably pretty tenuous, I'm much more concerned (if not on the level of personal safety) about the potential for violence on the part of people who have been radicalized by conspiracy theories than I am worried about the actions of some imaginary global Zionist/Masonic/NWO/'bankster' cabal.

(Yes, I know... I can already anticipate your reply of "paper ponzi, fiat currency, Mossad and the Talmud, fear loops, Honey BooBoo, Scottish Rite, and CIA et cetera, et cetera, et cetera...")

So I think your imaginary fears are a little more imaginary than my "imaginary" fears.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
And I would counter: although direct causal links between talk radio and violent extremism are probably pretty tenuous, I'm much more concerned (if not on the level of personal safety) about the potential for violence on the part of people who have been radicalized by conspiracy theories than I am worried about the actions of some imaginary global Zionist/Masonic/NWO/'bankster' cabal.

Imaginary? The evidence and imprint of "conspirators" is on everything from 33rd Liberty Street to the architecture of your national monuments (i.e. monuments to the ignorance of "the base").

On a side note, the Zionist/Masonic/bankster cabal can conscript the resources of nations to build buildings in the way that they would have them built to encrypt symbolism and so forth... but they could never "conspire" to bring buildings down and encrypt symbolism into that too? So we're to imagine that Muslims flew two planes into buildings and that caused the three with symbolic significance (Two Towers and the tower of Solomon/caring between the pillars)... to collapse. And the official conspirators/Muslim terrists didn't cause any other buildings to collapse in the same way, just those three?

Imagine that.

So I think your imaginary fears are a little more imaginary than my "imaginary" fears.

Nope. Even from within your paradigm of knowledge in which nothing is symbolic (apparently, given that everything arises from a void and so forth in most modern creation myths) there's usually little to no actual evidence that people who haven't already been incorporated into the intelligence services of the oligarchs and their networks of patsies will have the combination of the mentality, means, motive and opportunity to pull off any great feats of terrorism. (Side note... a modern agnostic or atheistic "base" created by Masonic/Darwinian "order out of chaos" creation myths ultimately ruled by those with a Masonic/Gnostic mentality based on top secret knowledge? That would figure. Imagine that.)

In any event... evidence for you view of terrism? Where is it? You seem to be filling it in with your imagination. We may have to do that sometimes. But the point for "skeptics" would seem to be to do that as little as possible.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I think it's sad that you regard a request that you try to communicate more clearly to your intended audience as some monstrously onerous imposition.

I didn't say it was monstrously onerous and so forth. I was alluding to the fact that I'm ultimately more interested in the truth than finding the best techniques to alter your random brain events emerging from the void. Is that not what you're imagining? A satire: "Communicate... change my brain events!"

In any event... focus.... what actual evidence is there that terrist cells are likely to form around Alex Jones as opposed to the actual historical evidence that terrist cells and privateering is typically an artifact of ruling class of oligarchs and their intelligence services... e.g. the Clintons and the Bushes/Bin Ladens in modern times, etc.? I'm just trying to point towards the truth in so far as that's possible. Maybe you'll understand it and it will change your brain events or maybe that's not what will emerge from the void in a Big Bang today. (At least, that's what I'd imagine the perspective must be from the "skeptical" way of imagining modern creation myths that's been giving to "the base" by the Masonic networks that the Darwins were incorporated in. I'd imagine it as something along the lines of a void, a Big Bang, some mating habits of ancient ape like creatures, some modern marketing of creation myths and the invention of iconic Cave Men... and here you are as a """"skeptic""""? Better throw in a few imaginary worm like creatures and a return trip back into the void in the end, I'd imagine.)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
A Gish Gallop is not 'connecting the dots' it is designed to confuse and distract folks.

I'm pretty sure that he thought he was educating people, like it or not. It only seems "intelligently designed" to confuse and distract folks from your perspective. But in fact, wasn't it just his brain events emerging from the void by happenstance? Imagine that.

If the points in it are looked at and found false, then the 'point' is now gone.

That would be true only if more points were found false than found true. Everyone makes mistakes and it's likely that it's only from your perspective in which he was conspiring or intending to confuse and distract people by design does your way of "connecting the dots" about him make sense. Good to see that you think that you're imagining that you can distinguish design from happenstance, though.

And linking things often causes the WRONG conclusions.

If so, then that's probably why your conclusion about Gish is wrong.

The sun goes dark in an eclipse, we make noise, pray, kill something and it comes back.

People often engage in false forms of pattern recognition and so forth... that's basic knowledge with respect to "the base." It would be more interesting to focus on the priests of knowledge closer to the top of the pyramid scheme who never seem to conclude that they need to sacrifice themselves to make the sun move across the sky or stop blowing things up to prevent global warming (cough)... climate change.

After all, aren't the priests of knowledge/scientia likely to be manipulating and creating false forms of pattern recognition in people's minds... especially if they're incorporated into a corporate structure or pyramid scheme?

Linking things is basis of many mythologies, in science one does not LINK things until each item is proven true.

So... how did you get from "dots" like talk radio or conspiracy theories to a theory of terrorism with explanatory power, again?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Why is there a need for secret symbolism in buildings?

Probably the same reason that there was a need to carve hieroglyphics all over ancient pyramids, it gives the ruling class and their magicians the idea that they're elite and illuminated and so forth.

What is its purpose?

Sorry, it's top secret.

Sounds like a load of bollocks to me.

Shrug. It doesn't matter what it sounds like. The evidence of people encrypting symbolism into buildings and temples/banks* and so forth is what it is:

Interesting thing about it, when people with an "elite" or "top secret" mentality used to do this stuff in the past no one would notice because they couldn't look down from the sky and see the pattern. After all, it's usually all "top secret." And if you look at "the base" or what some call the sheeple trampling each other to death at Walmart or others that seem to be fit for nothing but shearing by banksters or being led like lambs to the slaughter by their ruling classes... then you understand that type of higher or "top secret" type of perspective.

And from that perspective, a question arises: "Why do you care about them?"

*
33 Liberty Street is the current home of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. It is located in Lower Manhattan in New York City's Financial District. It is three blocks north of Wall Street between Nassau Street on the west and William Street on the east. It is two blocks east of Zuccotti Park between Maiden Lane on the north and Liberty Street on the south. Built in 1924, it is where the monetary policy of the United States is executed by trading dollars and United States Treasury securities.[1] It reportedly holds 25% (unaudited) of the world's existing reserves, making it the largest known treasury in the world. --Wikipedia

Random note... anyone know who created the logo for Bank of America or the history of that bank? I'll probably have to research it myself.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
...yet not be living in abject fear of this eventuality, and / or allowing these fears spiral or 'build up' rather than 'dissipate'?

I was referring to and trying to develop a theory for the "fear loop" more typical to conspiracy theorists than "skeptics." If anything, people who seem to define their "skepticism" based on sticking to anything official/Masonic* probably don't have enough fear or concern about the "top secret" activities typical to their ruling class. (E.g., Mick's rejection of the importance of the NSA leaks and their spying and so forth.)

I'm not for getting caught in a fear loop or failing to fear or be concerned and skeptical about that which it may be rational to be concerned about.

E.g., the work of the banksters that only "conspiracy theorists" seem to be capable of criticizing in general... which effects everyone using or holding their "federal reserve notes." That's worth being concerned enough about to question the official/Masonic/Zionist story. Although, according to the official story on that... if you question things then the system can't keep running on "full faith and credit"... and it's "too big to fail." So it would seem that those who question the system might as well be executed without trial for the sake of national security? Better order a lot of bullets and tanks to make sure that people keep the faith, if so.

*A satire: "Official sources say, you're the base and might be a terrist like Al Qaeda. Oh, ok... assassinate me without trial to keep me safe!"

American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them


 
Last edited by a moderator:

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
Can't you just communicate without using carefully crafted and brazenly flourished buzz-words and phrases that are supposed to impress on others the depth of your erudition?
You haven't used 'epistemic inertia' for a while.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I didn't say it was monstrously onerous and so forth. I was alluding to the fact that I'm ultimately more interested in the truth than finding the best techniques to alter your random brain events emerging from the void. Is that not what you're imagining? A satire: "Communicate... change my brain events!"

I think you want to communicate though. This is not simply a performance piece for you, is it?

Communication is not about changing the minds of others - that would essentially be brainwashing. Communication about getting them to actually understand something. The best way to get someone to understand what you are saying it to speak in their language, not one of your own invention.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
...brazenly flourished buzz-words and phrases that are supposed to impress on others the depth of your erudition?

It seems to me that impressing people with some type of elitism or charlatanism is your idea of a good time, not mine.

"Details beget facts, and facts, judiciously sent forth, become assassins."

You're not imagining that the "dot" perspectives typical to modern skeptics and linked to Darwinian creation myths is somehow analogous to a "top secret" or elite group of assassins being used judiciously, are you? (What's next, support for assassinations without trial by a top secret group of bumbling fools that like to portray themselves as experts? I would note that it does seem to be fitting for modern agnostics to be ruled by gnostics and the members of secret societies that gave them their idiotic creation myths. Idiotic in this sense, they're based on imagining things based on chaos/nothing and so forth.)

You haven't used 'epistemic inertia' for a while.

It's not meant to be impressive or to signify membership in an elite group. It's meant to condense information, which you may have to think about for yourself... if you're more interested in thinking and ruling/measuring for yourself than in being a member of an elite group. When I think about it, membership in an elite group doesn't seem that great... nor does standing with "the base." So I tend to satirize both the sheeple and the wolves in sheep's clothing and so forth... but then all the different types of herds seem to get upset.*

The imagination is a funny thing, isn't it? Projections often leak out from it all over the place... at least, that's what I tend to imagine.

*So far when the Metabunk "tribe" has gotten upset they seem to have imagined me as an occupy type... a populist, an elitist, an anti-Semite and I don't remember what else. It's interesting what people imagine when the need for a tribal identity seems to get "triggered," usually more interesting than reality. "You're either with us or you're with the terrists." --George W. Bush (gregarious dummy... or playing the part... and business partner of the Bin Laden tribe) And the masses believed him, they even used a Cave Man too. Seriously, guys. You're the skeptical tribe? If only we could get rid of the Cave Men, then progress would be assured!
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
If anything, people who seem to define their "skepticism" based on sticking to anything official/Masonic* probably don't have enough fear or concern about the "top secret" activities typical to their ruling class. (E.g., Mick's rejection of the importance of the NSA leaks and their spying and so forth.)

Who are these people? You think I'm an example of of someone who "sticks to anything official"? Utter nonsense. I have no implicit trust of the government. I simply debunk thing that are wrong.

Things are not quite as black and white as you make out.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's not meant to be impressive or to signify membership in an elite group. It's meant to condense information,

Then why are your posts so long?

If everyone is telling you that you are not communicating very well, then why do you think you are doing a good job?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I think you want to communicate though.

Sometimes.

This is not simply a performance piece for you, is it?

It's not clear why it shouldn't be. Apparently works of art are usually much more convincing with respect to communicating ideas by invoking archetypes or being entertaining and so forth. (So get out your clown costume and build up your media platform to convince enough people and prevent Alex Jones from creating terrism... I'd imagine.)

Communication about getting them to actually understand something. The best way to get someone to understand what you are saying it to speak in their language, not one of your own invention.

But apparently one could just invoke some archetypes or "programming" and most of "the base" will think that they understand the world even if they don't.


In any event, communication depends on who you're talking to. (E.g. the "skeptical" tribe communicating to each other based on the idea of a Gish gallop that they picked up somewhere even if they don't actually really understand all the details and so forth.) How would you describe the bankster's paper ponzi? Or a reference to hopium? Unpack it into thousands of words and hundreds of links? Why bother, if people don't want to understand anyway and generally only want to feel safe and not fearful. On the other hand, (Left or Right, I forget...) if you're talking to people that generally only want to feel fearful because it's like a roller coaster ride to them... the same thing applies. Your premise is that people want to understand or that there is some way of "getting them to." But there's no way of "getting them to" when they don't consciously want to other than works of art, propaganda, entertainment, archetypes and so forth.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Who are these people? You think I'm an example of of someone who "sticks to anything official"? Utter nonsense. I have no implicit trust of the government. I simply debunk thing that are wrong.

Where is the "debunking the government" section and numerous posts debunking official reports?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
If everyone is telling you that you are not communicating very well...

Shrug. Your site, your tribe...

I'm convinced by evidence and theories with explanatory power. So that should be right up your ally, in theory... but in fact, it doesn't seem to be.

...then why do you think you are doing a good job?

Because I generally don't agree with the Metabunk tribe/"everyone". You or everyone could always try debating based on the facts instead of going off on: "Too short, I don't understand these short catch phrases! Seems like you're trying to act erudite, or somethin'." "Wait... too long, now your comments are too long!" "Well, everyone here... and I mean everyone... can't even understand anything."

And so forth.

Again, with respect to the topic and your "theory" of terrorism... your theory has little to no evidential support. That's the real problem. So the whole idea of your tribe that Alex Jones = terrorism* has to be put aside in favor of focusing on a theory of terrorism based on the evidence.

*Even with the FBI or Bloomberg trying to create that meme about the Boston boys... while Uncle Ruslan stands in the background. That's investigative journalism (inc.) for you these days.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Your premise is that people want to understand or that there is some way of "getting them to."

No. I was just saying that your way of communicating does not work, because it's really only written for you.

You don't write with communication in mind. You are just joyously crafting paragraphs that resonate with what's in your mind.

Why are you posting here?
 

Dave

New Member
He was hilarious on Sunday Politics, I hear heard he was on The One Show as well actually, need to watch that.

Met with rational counterpoints he literally just shouted his way out of it, made a complete fool of himself. I checked his Facebook page after it too, said he had 'successfully trolled mainstream media'. LOL.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Why are you posting here?

It's mainly as an excuse to learn. But apparently you won't focus on or try to debate the evidence when it doesn't suit your worldview. (In this case, Alex Jones = terrism... although the "=" part of that equation will probably need a lot of refinement. So much that one might wonder if it even exists by the time proponents of that theory are done, I'd imagine.)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's mainly as an excuse to learn. But apparently you won't focus on or try to debate the evidence when it doesn't suit your worldview. (In this case, Alex Jones = terrism... although the "=" part of that equation will probably need a lot of refinement. So much that one might wonder if it even exists by the time proponents of that theory are done, I'd imagine.)

I'd love to focus. But there you go again, using shorthand "terrism" to indicate some kind of "not actually terrorist, more kind of like a fake idea of terrorism, like how Bust said it, kinda". Inventing your own words is not a good way of debating the evidence.

And nobody has made a claim that "Alex Jones = terrorism", you simultaneously overcomplicate and oversimplify.

I'd love to address the central point and avoid discussing your rhetorical style. So let us speak plainly.

What is the central point?

 
Last edited:

Drew

Active Member
When I characterized your style as Gish-gallopy, this was meant to describe a kind of kitchen-sink argumentation which, instead of employing any kine of systematic reasoning, seeks to overwhelm counterarguments by piling on as much information as possible. It confuses quantity of facts with quality of facts, and it is a specious way of thinking.

Your posting of a 3.75-hour-long youtube video in reply to a simple question about architectural symbolism, your digressive references to the NY Fed Building to George W. Bush to Ruslan Tsarni to The Onion, and your tendency to resort to conpiracist tropes and your own private jargon suggest that you are well-versed in this tactic.

Forgive us if some of us don't find it as persuasive as you do.
 

Drew

Active Member
Ooh, Mick. Bad choice employing a pyramid-shaped visual aid in a discussion with mynym. He will point out its "obvious" symbolism.

I am not joking.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I'd love to focus. But there you go again, using shorthand "terrism" to indicate some kind of "not actually terrorist, more kind of like a fake idea of terrorism, like how Bust said it, kinda". Inventing your own words is not a good way of debating the evidence.

It's a good way of quickly referring to reams of background evidence, "Big Picture" type stuff instead of dots. If I didn't use shorthand then you'd be saying that my comments were too long, I'd imagine.

And nobody has made a claim that "Alex Jones = terrorism", you simultaneously overcomplicate and oversimplify.

That's what satire is. I doubt that it's really my style that you have a problem with.

I'd love to address the central point and avoid discussing your rhetorical style. So let us speak plainly.

What is the central point?

It's far more likely that factions in the FBI or CIA that Alex Jones is a critic of will create terrorism (including the shooting down of planes) than that Alex Jones and "conspiracy theorists" will.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
...seeks to overwhelm counterarguments by piling on as much information as possible.

Shrug. Wrong... what's your counter argument to my central point?

Your posting of a 3.75-hour-long youtube video in reply to a simple question about architectural symbolism...

Too boring, I'd imagine.

Forgive us if some of us don't find it as persuasive as you do.

Of course...

Seems a bit self-centered to imagine that I'm only interested in using the art of persuasion to persuade you and so forth. Is that the goal here? I thought it was debunking.
 

Drew

Active Member
It's mainly as an excuse to learn. But apparently you won't focus on or try to debate the evidence when it doesn't suit your worldview. (In this case, Alex Jones = terrism... although the "=" part of that equation will probably need a lot of refinement. So much that one might wonder if it even exists by the time proponents of that theory are done, I'd imagine.)

And believe it or not, I'm trying to learn from you. It's interesting to me how a demonstrably thoughtful and intelligent person like you can sincerely believe the things you do.

You accuse us of having no interest in evidence that doesn't fit our worldview (or our worldview as you characterize it), but by viewing everything through a prism of Zionist/Masonic/banker conspiracy, how are you not susceptible to the same tendency?

You condescendingly characterize skepticism and scientific reasoning as closed-minded "tribalism," but you get huffy when we ask you to translate your own tropes and jargon into language we can understand. You diagnose us with "epistemic inertia," but fail to see your own epistemic isolationism.

And you divide the world into "sheeple," who are too stupid to see what's really going on, and those disposed to an "elitist" mentality, who seek status by carrying water for a nefarious global conspiracy. So in your view, we are either stupid or evil, which hardly seems to be a reasonable starting point for someone who earnestly seeks to learn anything from discussion here.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
It's far more likely that factions in the FBI or CIA that Alex Jones is a critic of will create terrorism (including the shooting down of planes) than that Alex Jones and "conspiracy theorists" will.

A) There's no evidence that the FBI or CIA have created actual live terrorist attacks in the US.

B) Even if they did, that does not absolve Alex Jones from egging on potentially violent conspiracy thoerists with lies.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
You accuse us of having no interest in evidence that doesn't fit our worldview (or our worldview as you characterize it), but by viewing everything through a prism of Zionist/Masonic/banker conspiracy, how are you not susceptible to the same tendency?

I don't view everything that way. But I do tend to view terrorism that way, due to the evidence. And that was the topic here before you started asking about my worldview.

You condescendingly characterize skepticism and scientific reasoning as closed-minded "tribalism,"

I'm not sure that scientific reasoning means what you may be imagining that it means. Where, specifically, do you think I have the "facts" that back my little buzzwords and so forth wrong? E.g. hopium and change... do you think that there aren't facts to back that? Or terrism?


You diagnose us with "epistemic inertia," but fail to see your own epistemic isolationism.

Any crowd has more epistemic inertia than an individual... so I'm pleased to see that you've already begun talking the language of the crowd and a tribe of "everyone" here.

And you divide the world into "sheeple," who are too stupid to see what's really going on, and those disposed to an "elitist" mentality, who seek status by carrying water for a nefarious global conspiracy.

Just a crude generalization, language usually is...

There is no global conspiracy, generally, except among the banksters... I'd imagine. Instead I'd imagine that people are the only animals that like to be incorporated into building their own cages and cattle gates and so forth... and that's all it usually amounts to. I still say that Corrections Corporation of America should partner with Walmart Inc. to build some cattle gates right out the back of the store. Cheap labor, people could put it to use building stuff for the military and get some contracts in the police state. (Your mileage may vary with that small gallop of "buzzwords" that's impossible to understand. "Corrections Corporation... what's that? America is land of the free... or somethin'." Beginning to understand probably depends on your attitude about being incorporated into a growing police state and not the facts that back what I just wrote, I'd imagine. So, giddy up.)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
A) There's no evidence that the FBI or CIA have created actual live terrorist attacks in the US.

The original WTC bombing.

B) Even if they did, that does not absolve Alex Jones from egging on potentially violent conspiracy thoerists with lies.

How is he egging them on? If there was an official conspiracy theory about Muslims being responsible for almost all significant acts of terrorism in America... would you investigate or debunk it so that "potentially" violent people wouldn't assassinate 16 year old Muslim kids and numerous other people without trial?
'
In any event, aren't you egging people on to "potentially" terrorize Alex Jones by arguing that he's "potentially" a threat to their safety?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The original WTC bombing.

And what is the evidence that they created that?

There's some evidence that they knew that something might be going to happen, but not that they knew what it was, or where, or when. And there ZERO evidence they were involved with planning it.



How is he egging them on? If there was an official conspiracy theory about Muslims being responsible for almost all significant acts of terrorism in America... would you investigate or debunk it so that "potentially" violent people wouldn't assassinate 16 year old Muslim kids and numerous other people without trial?

I debunk things because they are wrong.

Eric Rudolph and Timothy McVeigh were not Muslim.

In any event, aren't you egging people on to "potentially" terrorize Alex Jones by arguing that he's "potentially" a threat to their safety?
No.
 

ColtCabana

Senior Member
Hopefully this is NOT the year of Alex Jones. He's an incredibly dangerous individual who feeds on the weak minded. His theories that the FDNY is guilty of manslaughter on 9/11 and that homosexuals are created by the government through juice boxes are flat-out lies that shouldn't be spread.
 

Drew

Active Member
Where, specifically, do you think I have "facts" wrong?


Alright then. To refocus the discussion, I'll go with Mick, and add a few points of my own.

It would be simplistic to say that you have your "facts" wrong. I would rather suggest that you're operating with a set of poorly supported hypotheses.

I. I am not convinced that the FBI, CIA, or other intelligence agencies can be proven to orchestrate widespread violent terrorism to the degree that you suggest.

II. Alex Jones may not specifically be culpable in fomenting extremist violence; you are wrong to say that is what we are claiming. But you are also wrong to dismiss the role conspiracist ideation plays in inspiring violent extremism. Violent actors as varied as Al Qaeda, Aum Shinrikyo, Hamas, Gush Emunim, Christian Identity, the Peoples Temple, and the Red Army Faction have all used conspiracy theories to justify violence.

III. I do not believe that the recurrence of architectural motifs or the fabulist Dan Brown dot-connecting you wish to employ plausibly support the existence of a global Masonic/Zionist/Banker/Gnostic conspiracy to organize a police state, manipulate the economy, or enslave the public. This does not mean that I am unconcerned by government abuse of civil liberties, that I deny economic actors seek to manipulate and profit from market forces, or that there aren't legitimate political threats to individual freedom. Assigning blame for all of these, however, to a single set of conspiratorial actors is a form of paranoid social cognition.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Alright then. To refocus the discussion, I'll go with Mick, and add a few points of my own.

It would be simplistic to say that you have your "facts" wrong. I would rather suggest that you're operating with a set of poorly supported hypotheses.

No more poorly supported than the idea that Alex Jones is creating terrorism, a poorly supported hypothesis that you seem interested in advancing.

I. I am not convinced that the FBI, CIA, or other intelligence agencies can be proven to orchestrate widespread violent terrorism to the degree that you suggest.

Bin Laden in Afghanistan against the Russians, Chechnya, Syria, Libya... there is more evidence that the CIA is orchestrating terrorism than there is that Alex Jones is.

Ironically, if Alex Jones lived on the border of Russia then he'd probably be receiving money from the CIA.

II. Alex Jones may not specifically be culpable in fomenting extremist violence; you are wrong to say that is what we are claiming. But you are also wrong to dismiss the role conspiracist ideation plays in inspiring violent extremism. Violent actors as varied as Al Qaeda, Aum Shinrikyo, Hamas, Gush Emunim, Christian Identity, the Peoples Temple, and the Red Army Faction have all used conspiracy theories to justify violence.

Governments around the world also uses conspiracy theories to justify their violence, this is mainly because people are often actually conspiring against each other and so forth. That's what people do, conspire. So the question isn't if you're going to have a "conspiracy theory," it's what type. And how much explanatory power does your theory have based on the evidence.

manipulate the economy,

Of course there are conspiracies to manipulate the economy among the elite. That's what a meeting of central bankers is.

This does not mean that I am unconcerned by government abuse of civil liberties, that I deny economic actors seek to manipulate and profit from market forces, or that there aren't legitimate political threats to individual freedom. Assigning blame for all of these, however, to a single set of conspiratorial actors is a form of paranoid social cognition.

Some factions are more powerful than others and it's likely that there are few secret societies closer to the top of the pyramid scheme. Here's to hoping that have George Washington's mentality* and are not interested in causing WWIII based on globalism or bringing about a "New World Order"... because it's not as if those lower down in Maslow's hierarchy of needs would just up and begin wanting to kill people in other nations unless their ruling classes conspire to incorporate them in their wars and holocausts/sacrifices. (The fact that people conspire means that you'll need "conspiracy theories" with explanatory power in order to have a basic form of understanding with respect to what's going on in the world.)

*See his criticism of the illuminati as a Masonic faction, etc.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
And what is the evidence that they created that?

The tapes that the Egyptian made.

There's some evidence that they knew that something might be going to happen, but not that they knew what it was, or where, or when. And there ZERO evidence they were involved with planning it.

Apparently you only get out your rhetorical sledge hammer and start slamming other people for "lying" (a difficult claim to prove) or begin talking about "ZERO" evidence for the sake of the FBI or CIA. Meanwhile, there's ZERO evidence that Alex Jones is involved in anything or planning anything, although it is likely that he is on the lists of the intelligence services.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Trailblazer Reutlingen Fake UFO Video 2013 UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Leifer Orb in baby monitor, Long Island Medium (2013) UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 10
deirdre Debunked: The band on Lanza's hat wasnt used by Flexfit until 2013 Sandy Hook 27
TEEJ Reported Fireball in Oregon Sky - 20th November 2013 [Sunset contrail] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 9
Jarmey 657 Strange sighting over Kent 10th Oct 2013 [Long Exposure of Star] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 26
xenon The Other Side – Bashar al-Assad Interview with Izvestia 9/2/2013 General Discussion 4
Mick West The Amazing Meeting 2013 - My Impressions Practical Debunking 13
Boodles National Scout Jamboree 2013 Conspiracy Theories 257
Rroval Video: "BREAKING!!! UFO ALIEN DISCLOSURE by Canadian Minister of Defense May 2013 " UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 13
Mick West Debunked: 2013 NDAA Thornberry amendment, domestic propaganda, disinformation Conspiracy Theories 12
JFDee Insight into Infowars, Alex Jones General Discussion 2
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Dan Wilson Debunked: Infowars product damages sperm Health and Quackery 2
deirdre Debunked: Alex Jones claims kids '[walking around firehouse] with hands up' in Megan Kelly interview Sandy Hook 1
Mick West Debunked: Foley's Sister Katie Foley vs Lanza's Friend Alex Israel [Not the Same Person] Conspiracy Theories 105
David Alex Jones Video: Government Weather Manipulation Exposed Conspiracy Theories 129
Jay Reynolds Alex Atamenko Canadian MP petition and new lawsuit fundraising Contrails and Chemtrails 37
MichaelStox Joe Rogan on the Alex Jones Show (On 9-11-2001) General Discussion 0
Alhazred The Sane Alex Jones & the Navy Yard Shootings Conspiracy Theories 1
AluminumTheory Alex Jones' and his Moon Landing Conspiracy. Conspiracy Theories 18
Mick West Alex Jones vs. BeforeItsNews.com - conspiracy theorist infighting Conspiracy Theories 39
Mick West Alex Jones BBC Sunday Politics Meltdown Conspiracy Theories 48
Mick West How Much Money Does Alex Jones Make? People Debunked 17
AluminumTheory Website traffic and radio audience of Alex Jones, Infowars, Prison Planet, etc. People Debunked 2
Clock Alex Jones- Debunked! People Debunked 239
SR1419 Debunked: Alex Jones People Debunked 135
Mick West Debunked: Secrets of Prometheus Film Leaked - Alex Jones Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Debunked: Alex Jones, PJ Watson, Geoengineering: Our Environment Under Attack Contrails and Chemtrails 12
S Alex Jones new rant on GMOs People Debunked 10
J Paul Joseph Watson (writing for Alex Jones, “Infowars”) and Fukushima Conspiracy Theories 1
Related Articles






























Related Articles

Top