Using Campaign Finance Reform to Debunk Conspiracy Theories

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Debunking can often seem like a thankless task, even pointless at times. There’s a flood of bunk out there, and attempting to correct it sometimes feels like drying the rocks on the side of an angry river, in the rain.

When I started debunking as a hobby on the internet I had the mistaken idea that I could simply correct the facts that were wrong, and the issue would go away. I thought with Morgellons that if I could simply demonstrate that fibers were everywhere, and so were probably not emerging from your skin, then the “fiber disease” would go away. I thought with chemtrails that if I could just demonstrate that contrails actually did persist and spread then the whole idea of a secret weather control program would go away.

I was, of course, wrong on both counts. I was wrong for two reasons. Firstly conspiracies are not neat theories that pivot upon one single claim of evidence that is either true or false. They are vast shapeless clouds of assumptions, errors, fears, and deception that mingle together in a thousand different ways. When you debunk one thing for one person it’s often doing little more that stirring the cloud. You can put down the most solid objection imaginable and the cloud will flow around it, avoiding it, not even aware of it, or simply obscuring it.

Secondly, for many conspiracy theories the evidence is irrelevant. The conspiracy theory is not the real problem, it’s a manifestation of a root problem. It’s a symptom.

There are thousands of videos on YouTube with titles like “9/11: Ultimate Proof”. I was watching one of these videos that was the usual smorgasbord of images of the towers falling, of Building 7 falling, and various people offering their opinions about what various things meant, all set to ominous music. I skipped around a bit in the video and near the end I hit upon an image of the pyramid that’s on the back of the dollar bill, a symbol from the reverse of the great seal of the United States. So I started watching from there.

It was stuff I’d seen before, of course, the world was run by an evil cabal of men. The illuminati, a group obsessed with the occult to the extend that they put symbols and clues everywhere. A group that has an iron grip on all world events, crushing the people before their worship of ancient gods. A group that plans decades into the future. A group that cares not if millions (or even billions) die, so long as it gets its way.

So it struck me when watching this that this was the real problem, the root problem. If someone believed that the world was tightly controlled by a secret powerful group of occultists, then of course they are going to believe that those occultists were behind 9/11. One belief simply follows the other. And if they continue to believe in the illuminati then there’s really no point in debunking 9/11. The 9/11 conspiracy theories are simply the veneer upon a more deep-set belief. Not only is there no point debunking 9/11, you actually can’t debunk 9/11, because it’s such a significant event that one way or another the illuminati must be behind it.

Sure, you can chip away at it. You might be able to convince someone that a plane actually did hit the Pentagon. You might even, after considerable effort convince someone that fire actually could have brought down building 7. But so long as they hold onto their illuminati beliefs then you are not really debunking anything for them. You are simply clarifying for them exactly how the illuminati carried out 9/11. Far from unseating their belief in a conspiracy, you could actually be strengthening it!

How can debunking a conspiracy theory actually strengthen it? It strengthens it by removing the bunk, by removing evidence that can actually be addressed, removing the errors and deception, and leaving only the “evidence” that cannot be directly addressed - the suspicions, the assumptions, the opinions, the beliefs. The committed theorist actually sees his theory grow stronger as the bunk is stripped away like dead branches from a tree. What remains is, in their mind, solid, strong branches of suspicion, well rooted in their belief, their knowledge that the world is run by an occultist cabal.

All is not lost though. Debunking is not useless. Not all believers in conspiracy theories start out with this core belief. For some people those dead branches of bunk actually are the only thing supporting their suspicions. For some people you can actually explain to them what the real science is, and if they can understand it they will be relieved, perhaps thankful, and they will get on with their lives. So yes, this type of pruning the dead wood debunking is valuable, for some people.

But what of the true believers? If pruning their conspiracies only makes them stronger, then is it possible to get to the root of the problem?

Coincidentally, after I watched the 9/11 Illuminati video I also watched Lawrence Lessig’s TED talk on the effects of large donor campaign finance on American politics. The two topics meshed together perfectly, and I began to feel a new sense of direction as certain thoughts I'd been having started to solidify.

Lessig starts out by describing what must seem fairly obvious to most people - that most campaign money comes from a very small number of very rich people, and so this has the effect of the politicians spending a large fraction of their time trying to keep those very few rich people happy. They also have to keep the regular people happy as well, but there’s a vastly disproportionate amount of time and effort that goes simply to addressing the concerns of the super-rich.

He paint a compelling picture of how this is the root cause of much that is wrong in America. Keeping the rich happy prevents anything really constructive from being done. This applies both to the left and the right. Action on issues like climate change or financial reform are blocked because they are not in the interests of big business. But the Right is also blocked in its attempts to reduce the size of government because as one congressman said “if we deregulate those guys, how do we raise money from them?” So the conservative goal of small government is blocked, because government needs the regulations as a bargaining chip in the giant horse trading game.

The US Government has become a business, or more accurately, a racket. It’s a machine fueled by money for making money. The super rich get to stay super rich, or become
super richer, and the congressmen get to become lobbyists when they leave congress, and become a bit richer themselves. The people get just enough so they go along with the racket.


So there’s this huge corrupt system. So huge that is seems hopeless. But Lessig points out that just because something seems hopeless, it does not mean we should simply give up and ignore it. We fight. We fight with focus. We strike at the root.

Lessig quotes Henry David Thoreau:
“There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root”

We hack at the branches because it is easy. It’s easy to explain that contrails are just clouds, so they last as long as clouds do. It’s easy to explain that steel loses its strength long before it melts, so burning hydrocarbons can collapse a building. It’s easy to discuss points of science, like kinetic energy, and free-fall acceleration, and the effects of fire insulation. But it’s hard to explain that there is really no good evidence that the world is run by a cabal of occultists. It’s hard to strike at that root belief because it’s not really based on things in reality. It's not based on physical evidence.

The task of addressing the root causes of conspiracy theories seems hopeless, just like the task of addressing the role of big money in politics seems hopeless. But for the latter Lessig raises two points. Firstly that we do not give up on tasks just because they seem difficult. Impossible-seeming tasks are accomplished all the time. Secondly, while the task seems insurmountable, the solution is quite simple - reduce the size of campaign contributions so that campaigns are funded by citizens, and then the politicians will start to work for the citizens, not the super-rich. This still might seem like a hopelessly difficult task, but it is at least a clear and concrete goal, and we can take very distinct and meaningful steps towards that goal, such as supporting citizen funded elections at the local and state level.

What is the analogous solution for conspiracy theories? I think people create or adopt these strange theories of an occult cabal, of a ruling elite, of the illuminati, because they don’t really understand how the government works. They certainly think they do, and they think the other people (the sheep) do not. But their belief in this semi-magical illuminati seems to simply be a groundless construct created to fill a void in understanding of politics. Just as the belief in a controlled demolition on 9/11 is a groundless construct created to fill the void left by their lack of understanding of physics.

So the solution, the distant and hard to reach solution, is to teach people how government actually works.

And I don’t just mean teach them the subject of American “civics”, like the difference between Congress and Senate, or the ostensible process of how a bill is made law. I mean the real way government works. The brass tacks, nuts and bolts corrupt money oriented way the racket operates.

And here we see an obvious opportunity to combine the two subjects: conspiracy theory and campaign finance reform, and to strike at the root of both. But I think the best way to do it is by focussing on just one: campaign finance reform, and to structure this approach so it indirectly strikes at the root of conspiracy theories.

See, you can’t just tell a conspiracy theorist that he is wrong. You can’t even really just explain why he is wrong. These approaches get rebuffed because the conspiracy theorist has this vast and detailed mental picture of the world, involving the illuminati. They use this mental picture to make sense of everything around them. In their mind the picture makes sense, and it gives them a sense of certainty, and of unique insight, a specialness, a sense of elevation amongst the ordinary people. You can’t just take this away. If you take it away it leaves a vast hole in their understand of the world. The looming presence of this hole seems to their mind to be proof positive that their existing model is correct. Given vast certainty versus vast uncertainty, the choice of what is “correct” becomes obvious.

So we need to offer something to fill the hole with. Instead of hacking their world view to pieces, we need to demonstrate an alternative, and more accurate, world view piece by piece. Replacing their baseless beliefs a bit at a time without ripping out so much that they feel the uncertainty of the hole and then retreat.

Focussing on campaign finance reform is to focus on the root cause of the evils in American politics. But since that focus reveals the inner workings of the corrupt government, the buying of votes, the selling of influence, and the revolving door careers, then it is also focussing on the root of conspiracy theories. By exposing how government really works we give the conspiracy theorist an alternative world view that they can use piece by piece to replace their conspiratorial world-view, and escape it piece by piece, step by step. They will escape not by being convinced that they are wrong, but by being shown how things actually work. Instead of their deep-seated identity-forming beliefs being ripped from their iron foundations, those beliefs will naturally wither and drop away as clarity and reality set in.

Wishful thinking? Perhaps somewhat. For a start I know that many conspiracy theorists reading this would think of me as an arrogant idiot. Many conspiracy theorists do a lot of reading and watching videos about their world view, and they consider themselves incredibly well informed. Many of them are aware (to various degrees) of the corrupting role that money plays in politics, but they see as it as small part of a much larger game. So they will see my attempt to focus on this as a pitiful and transparent attempt to brainwash them, and they will simply laugh it off. So this is an approach that you want to be very wary of using directly, as it might have a rather distinct rebound effect.

But I feel that the spotlight of truth being focused on the roots of corruption is going to have positive collateral effects. We can steer those effects a little bit, direct the light a bit on the roots of conspiracy theory. But even if we don’t, even if we just focus on campaign finance, the roots of corruption, then we are also striking at the roots of conspiracy theory without even trying. Shining the light is to raise public awareness of the issue, and to prompt public conversations about the issue. And the more people know about how politics actually works, the less likely they are to want to fill their lack of knowledge with bunk.

So I would urge any skeptics and debunkers to take a little break away from pruning the dead branches of bunk. Take a break from trying to teach people physics and math. Instead contribute a little more time to shining a light on the root issue of the corrupting role of money in American politics. Raising public awareness of the issue will not only help fight that issue in general, it will also raise the awareness of genuine issue for conspiracy theorists who are otherwise distracted with fake issues. Directly or indirectly, we can help show them how the world really works. Help to give them a way out.
 
Last edited:

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Yeah, I know how it seems to people like yourself. In fact it was people like you, Grieves, and Oxy that I had in mind when I wrote:

 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Yeah, I know how it seems to people like yourself. In fact it was people like you, Grieves, and Oxy that I had in mind when I wrote:

Yeah, I know how it seems to people like yourself
Eh? What do you mean? Well educated, 'professional' people with an ability to think? No wonder I'm Loling! Then comes the quote with all the 'conspiracy theorists' in. Seriously, you need to adjust your language - it's the primary means in this medium (if you really want to engage with people) - and 'conspiracy theorist/y' is a meaning free boo phrase. You use it a lot when you're talking about individuals. Your need/desire to 'educate' or 'correct' people is yours - you shouldn't inflict it on other people; they've got their own lives to live, decisions to make, etc.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Eh? What do you mean? Well educated, 'professional' people with an ability to think?
Yes, that is what I mean. People like that who believe in some kind of illuminati-style overarching conspiracy of an elite cabal that rules the world. Like you.

No wonder I'm Loling! Then comes the quote with all the 'conspiracy theorists' in. Seriously, you need to adjust your language - it's the primary means in this medium (if you really want to engage with people) - and 'conspiracy theorist/y' is a meaning free boo phrase. You use it a lot when you're talking about individuals. Your need/desire to 'educate' or 'correct' people is yours - you shouldn't inflict it on other people; they've got their own lives to live, decisions to make, etc.
How am I inflicting it upon you? You've chosen to come and post here for nearly two years now. Nobody is forcing you.

And if you'd like to suggest a better phrase, then feel free. I recognize that the negative connotations of "conspiracy theorist" and "truther" cause problems as some people bristle with the perceived implications. But I think you must recognize that you, Grieves, and Oxy do have something in common with your world view. How would you describe that in a more neutral manner?
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I think it is a really good step forward.

It is not a question of one side teaching the other, it is about understanding different points of view. We are all learning, or should be.

I see you incorporated some counselling techniques in that analysis, I thought that was good. I try to see things from the alternate perspective and how it may feel looking from that direction... not always easy I know.

I think it is very visionary and has the potential to be highly productive if given a chance, which I am sure it will.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Thanks Oxy. It's sometimes a fine line to walk between constructive criticism, and something that will be viewed as derision. So I hesitated to even post the above, as I knew it would get some negative reactions.

If we don't start from common ground then we'll never get anywhere. I think one thing about the topic of money in politics is that there is actually a lot of common ground shared by conspiracy theorists and skeptics. It's like the conspiracy theory that everyone believes in.

I think there's a problem with conspiracy theorists (and I wish a had a better term) assuming that debunkers are simply rabid defenders of the "official story", people with a "fan boy" mentality who will knee-jerk defend their chosen causes regardless of the facts. In some cases (even here) this has some truth. But nobody really trusts the government - at least nobody trusts all the politicians. Everyone recognizes that there's graft, pork, nepotism, cronyism, and elections partly bought by super-PACs. We can agree that there is SOME of this type of thing, and we can agree there are SOME conspiracies going on.

So we can maybe start with the common ground, and look at THAT in more detail, and see how it fits into the conspiracy theories. Maybe you'll convince me there's more than I though, maybe I'll convince you there are less. Maybe a little of both.

Either way, just getting people about campaign finance is a win for everyone.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Yes, that is what I mean. People like that who believe in some kind of illuminati-style overarching conspiracy of an elite cabal that rules the world. Like you.



How am I inflicting it upon you? You've chosen to come and post here for nearly two years now. Nobody is forcing you.

And if you'd like to suggest a better phrase, then feel free. I recognize that the negative connotations of "conspiracy theorist" and "truther" cause problems as some people bristle with the perceived implications. But I think you must recognize that you, Grieves, and Oxy do have something in common with your world view. How would you describe that in a more neutral manner?

illuminati-style overarching conspiracy of an elite cabal that rules the world
I don't know what 'illuminati style' means, please elaborate. If you don't see that the world - and the West in particular, is owned and run by a militaristic, fascistic elite, whose interest is in the status quo + more domination of others by whatever means - then where the feck have you been all your life?

How am I inflicting it upon you?
By stating your intent to 'educate' or 'instruct' others. Let's not forget where we are.

And if you'd like to suggest a better phrase
Phrase? They're just people - like you and me.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't know what 'illuminati style' means, please elaborate. If you don't see that the world - and the West in particular, is owned and run by a militaristic, fascistic elite, whose interest is in the status quo + more domination of others by whatever means - then where the feck have you been all your life?
By 'illuminati style' in ("illuminati-style overarching conspiracy of an elite cabal that rules the world"). I mean some kind of ruling secret society with some kind of coherent identity, particularly one that involves ancient symbolism, and very particularly one that involves symbolism commonly attributed to the Illuminati, or the freemasons.


By stating your intent to 'educate' or 'instruct' others. Let's not forget where we are.
In my forum, which you attend of your own volition.

Phrase? They're just people - like you and me.
Like you, not like me. You can't ignore the fact that conspiracy theorists have distinct attributed that others do no. They ARE a definable group - with a belief in an exceptionally powerful group of people conspiring to control the world. Plus they believe 9/11 was an inside job.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Thanks Oxy. It's sometimes a fine line to walk between constructive criticism, and something that will be viewed as derision. So I hesitated to even post the above, as I knew it would get some negative reactions.
I see a lot of common ground even where there is sometimes outright hostility. We all care about what's happening in the world and that to me is a very good starting point, even if we disagree on the detail.

If we don't start from common ground then we'll never get anywhere. I think one thing about the topic of money in politics is that there is actually a lot of common ground shared by conspiracy theorists and skeptics. It's like the conspiracy theory that everyone believes in.
Agreed, seems like solid ground... but then perhaps not... the system exists, it exists for a reason... perhaps someone would like to put an argument for 'no change', at least that way we could identify problem areas?
I think there's a problem with conspiracy theorists (and I wish a had a better term) assuming that debunkers are simply rabid defenders of the "official story", people with a "fan boy" mentality who will knee-jerk defend their chosen causes regardless of the facts. In some cases (even here) this has some truth.
IMO, it's not the terminology that's the problem, it's when the intent is to deride, that's the problem and that is shown, (or not), in the context. Other than that the terms are just like 'red' or 'blue' flags, a means of knowing your wider viewpoint or which camp you are predominantly in.

But to the main point: "conspiracy theorists, assuming that debunkers are simply rabid defenders of the "official story"... I have fought with this impression, with varying success. A little exchange between Landru and myself amused me, we both admitted to re posting our positions for the benefit of 'the floating voter', so to speak, we each know how entrenched the other is, so the goal is to influence someone who neither of us have had direct contact with and does not actually exist in any form other than the abstract... but I guess that is politics!

But nobody really trusts the government - at least nobody trusts all the politicians. Everyone recognizes that there's graft, pork, nepotism, cronyism, and elections partly bought by super-PACs. We can agree that there is SOME of this type of thing, and we can agree there are SOME conspiracies going on.
So we are all conspiracy theorists, just varying shades. Some would argue this is a 'corruption issue', rather than a genuine 'conspiracy issue'.
So we can maybe start with the common ground, and look at THAT in more detail, and see how it fits into the conspiracy theories. Maybe you'll convince me there's more than I though, maybe I'll convince you there are less. Maybe a little of both.
Either way, just getting people about campaign finance is a win for everyone.
Simplistic as it may be the truth often sits somewhere in the middle. As far as I am concerned, I agree campaign finance is at the root of all the ct's, if it wasn't for the Illuminati, (and I just clarify here, I regard that in the same regard as 'conspiracist' or skeptic'... merely a loose epithet and I do think too much time is spent arguing about semantics); skeptics will undoubtedly bridle over my use of the term, but I am sure most conspiracists use it in a 'catch all sense' to describe the greedy 'snout in the trough' politicians and corporate profiteer combo's and whilst we are arguing about whether 'they' exist.... 'they' are collecting 2 million dollars and a get out of jail free card and laughing all the way to next fund raiser.

I tend to think of the world in terms of, 'we all want the world to be as we want it', so... 'we constantly try to shape it to suit ourselves'... but everybody else is doing the same thing... now if we all exerted the same force, (like gravity), we would all be metaphorically at rest and nothing would change... but inevitably some exert more force and shape the world to suit themselves which is not in the interests of the say 99%. So how do we get a more equitable say, especially when many are happy to abdicate decision taking to the elite as the 'best people to do it'?

Democracy appears to be the answer but is it really... do we have a democracy in the true sense... I think not.

So we have more questions than answers and I have had a ramble, sorry about that... but maybe it will strike a chord and be of some use.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Nice to agree with you Oxy.

I recommend Lessig's TED talk:


He talks in it a bit about what it means to be in a republic which is a representative democracy: "dependent upon the people alone". That bits starts around 7:00, but I'd watch it all
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
By 'illuminati style' in ("illuminati-style overarching conspiracy of an elite cabal that rules the world"). I mean some kind of ruling secret society with some kind of coherent identity, particularly one that involves ancient symbolism, and very particularly one that involves symbolism commonly attributed to the Illuminati, or the freemasons.

In my forum, which you attend of your own volition.

Like you, not like me. You can't ignore the fact that conspiracy theorists have distinct attributed that others do no. They ARE a definable group - with a belief in an exceptionally powerful group of people conspiring to control the world. Plus they believe 9/11 was an inside job.
some kind of ruling secret society with some kind of coherent identity, particularly one that involves ancient symbolism, and very particularly one that involves symbolism commonly attributed to the Illuminati, or the freemasons
So a low level of proof, then? Can't you see the problem inherent in exposing a 'secret' anything? Anyway, I think all that's a red herring - symbology notwithstanding. It's both evident and ultimately irrelevant.

In my forum, which you attend of your own volition.
Your forum? Surely it's a public forum? Otherwise it would just be you on your own. The volition has been on the other foot plenty - and pretty tenuously, at that.

Like you, not like me
There's a mistake. I'm just like you. Age, sex, species, education, location of birth/upbringing....etc

You can't ignore the fact that conspiracy theorists have distinct attributed that others do no. They ARE a definable group - with a belief in an exceptionally powerful group of people conspiring to control the world. Plus they believe 9/11 was an inside job
I can ignore 'it' if I want to (actually, I don't recognise it) - and so can anyone else - and they will, irrespective of what you say. And I don't recognise that meaning-free boo phrase 'conspiracy theorist', either. It's bad use of language, for reasons I've explained more than once.

They ARE a definable group
They? The 'conspiracy theorists' - 'people like me'? People like you?

an exceptionally powerful group of people conspiring to control the world
You really think there isn't?

9/11 was an inside job
At least we agree on something! :p

PS please - I was only joking with the editing........
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
There's a mistake. I'm just like you. Age, sex, species, education, location of birth/upbringing....etc
Sure, but by "not like me", I mean in reference to a specific type of world view: a belief in conspiracy theories where you believe that world events are largely and directly controlled by some elite group conspiring in secret, and I believe they mostly emerge from a combination of random circumstances and large numbers of individuals and groups acting in their own self interest.

More wordily: I think you are ascribing intentionality to emergent behavior. Seeing plots where there are none, and none is indicated.

9/11 is a simple litmus test. Your beliefs about 9/11 indicates how much of a conspiracy theorist you are.
 

somnamblst

Member
I refer to money in politics as the tree from which the poison fruit derives. Corporate personhood, money is speech of Citizens United is IMO the core problem.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Very interesting but complex. There is a lot to research here.

Think the Super Pacs are a good start point?

http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/super-pacs.html

And Citizens United

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)
I refer to money in politics as the tree from which the poison fruit derives. Corporate personhood, money is speech of Citizens United is IMO the core problem.
Citizens United (which is directly responsible for Super-PACs) is certainly a big problem now. But it's not the only problem, it's relatively new (2010), and money has been corrupting politics for long before that. Look at McCain's contrubutors in 2008:

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00006424

and Obama's
It was better then, as those were bundled donation, just just giant wads of cash from individuals. But you've still got the problem of the candidates pandering to donors, not to the people.

A longer standing problem is Lobbying and Revolving Doors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Nice to agree with you Oxy.

I recommend Lessig's TED talk:


He talks in it a bit about what it means to be in a republic which is a representative democracy: "dependent upon the people alone". That bits starts around 7:00, but I'd watch it all
Disbelief in magic can force a poor soul into believing in government and business. Tom Robbins, USAmerican

Your video man's about 200 years late (in US terms), and it is impossible. He's just taking his first baby steps towards a greater understanding of reality. Good for him, but he's got a long way to travel still. I hope he gets there soon.
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Sure, but by "not like me", I mean in reference to a specific type of world view: a belief in conspiracy theories where you believe that world events are largely and directly controlled by some elite group conspiring in secret, and I believe they mostly emerge from a combination of random circumstances and large numbers of individuals and groups acting in their own self interest.

More wordily: I think you are ascribing intentionality to emergent behavior. Seeing plots where there are none, and none is indicated.

9/11 is a simple litmus test. Your beliefs about 9/11 indicates how much of a conspiracy theorist you are.
Sure, but by "not like me", I mean in reference to a specific type of world view: a belief in conspiracy theories where you believe that world events are largely and directly controlled by some elite group conspiring in secret, and I believe they mostly emerge from a combination of random circumstances and large numbers of individuals and groups acting in their own self interest.
Surely it's both.

I think you are ascribing intentionality to emergent behavior. Seeing plots where there are none, and none is indicated.
Accident vs intentional behaviour? There are plots - obviously. And they are well indicated - if you look in the right places.

Your beliefs about 9/11 indicates how much of a conspiracy theorist you are.
I see you retain the meaning free boo phrase. Your beliefs about 911 indicate how much of a believer in government propaganda you are.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Surely it's both.
Only if the "elite group conspiring in secret" exists. And I don't mean just any old group of rich and powerful, I mean THE group. The illuminati-style group with plans and agendas who plan out and execute things like 9/11.[/quote]

I see you retain the meaning free boo phrase.
For want of a better phrase. Have I not explained what I mean by it? I'm describing people who have a specific belief in the degree to which elite corruption is concentrated in a few people, coordinated between them, planned out long term, and overwhelmingly influential in world events.

Your beliefs about 911 indicate how much of a believer in government propaganda you are.
I can see why you would say that. But belief in something does not mean an unquestioning acceptance of that thing. I've discussed 9/11 quite extensively, checking out the science behind it. I believe the official story about the collapse because it fits the facts, not because I believe all official stories.

Back to campaign finance reform (in the US). I take it you think it's irrelevant and hopeless to try to change it?
 

lee h oswald

Banned
Banned
Only if the "elite group conspiring in secret" exists. And I don't mean just any old group of rich and powerful, I mean THE group. The illuminati-style group with plans and agendas who plan out and execute things like 9/11.

For want of a better phrase. Have I not explained what I mean by it? I'm describing people who have a specific belief in the degree to which elite corruption is concentrated in a few people, coordinated between them, planned out long term, and overwhelmingly influential in world events.



I can see why you would say that. But belief in something does not mean an unquestioning acceptance of that thing. I've discussed 9/11 quite extensively, checking out the science behind it. I believe the official story about the collapse because it fits the facts, not because I believe all official stories.

Back to campaign finance reform (in the US). I take it you think it's irrelevant and hopeless to try to change it?
I think your take on all this is hopeless, wasted energy. Faith in existing systems is pure folly. Do what you think is right, though. But events will overtake you before willing change does. The descent has already started. The single pulse event of the period of history known as the human industrial age is coming to an end. It's just as sure as a retreating glacier.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I think your take on all this is hopeless, wasted energy. Faith in existing systems is pure folly. Do what you think is right, though. But events will overtake you before willing change does. The descent has already started. The single pulse event of the period of history known as the human industrial age is coming to an end. It's just as sure as a retreating glacier.
I don't have faith in existing systems. I want to change the existing system.

I just don't believe in a shadowy cabal running everything.

And glaciers retreat and advance, for quite complex reasons.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
There is not one person on the whole planet who I could not find 'something' to disagree with them about.

But it is a choice, do I choose not to work with someone on areas of agreement, simply because I do not agree with them on everything... naturally it will depend but in general that outlook appears untenable.
 

MikeC

Closed Account
my forum, which you attend of your own volition.
Your forum? Surely it's a public forum?
It is his forum, which he chooses to allow the public to participate in under a set of terms and conditions decided by him. The principle of the public posting to a forum owned/controlled by an individual or a corporation is not particularly new nor controversial.

Otherwise it would just be you on your own. The volition has been on the other foot plenty - and pretty tenuously, at that.
ain't no-one here forcing you to read or post here - feel free not to if that is your preference.
 

Critical Thinker

Senior Member
I imagine that this is one of the few topics that most folks on both sides of the conspiracy debates can agree on. I had not known of the movement to have an amendment to the Constitution to overturn the Citizens United ruling.


http://www.citizenvox.org/2013/06/10/delaware-becomes-15th-state-to-reject-citizens-united-and-call-for-campaign-finance-reform/


"Momentum to free elections from corporate influence is growing by the month. A bipartisan majority of both houses of Delaware’s General Assembly have signed a letter calling on Congress to pass a constitutional amendment reversing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Delaware is now the 15th state to call for such an amendment....."
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Seems undemocratic that it exists as is when 80% are opposed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html

 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Seems undemocratic that it exists as is when 80% are opposed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/17/AR2010021701151.html

There's the problem with representative democracy. An issue needs both popular support and popular momentum to get a change in the law. While there's lot's of support, the issue is just not considered really that important by most people. And people don't get to vote on issues.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx
 
Last edited:
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West Measuring 5G EMF and using ICNIRP Guidelines 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 13
Cassi O Google Maps Measure Distance Using Great Circle Flat Earth 0
Stefan Leahu Using railways to view curvature Flat Earth 3
danno Using a very long water level to measure Earth's curvature Flat Earth 16
George Tasker Using pin hole lenses to debunk CGI Rebuttals of Photos of Earth Curvature Flat Earth 7
Mick West Kai Kostack's WTC7 Collapse Simulation using BCB and Blender 9/11 10
T FE balloon video curvature analysis using Blender Flat Earth 4
Rory How to Show the Horizon is Below Eye Level, Using Actual Eyes Flat Earth 59
Rory Using Mountain Ranges to Predict the Shape of the Earth Flat Earth 11
Bill Statler "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence": practical problems using this argument Practical Debunking 3
ki_cz NASA using green screen to fake ISS experiment footage Science and Pseudoscience 14
Balance Taurus Molecular Cloud Generator - actually an oil field firefighter Contrails and Chemtrails 6
Leifer Using comedy to reverse, or promote bunk Practical Debunking 10
M Claim: MH17 was shot down by separatists using BUK stolen from Ukraine army Flight MH17 32
Leifer Video Capture using VLC ?? Site Feedback & News 8
Eric Wayne KFC Mutant Chicken Hoax using my own Photoshop Hatchet Work General Discussion 7
Libertarian Claims Ukranian military using civilian planes as cover Flight MH17 72
Trailspotter Using Google Earth Identify Contrails and other Objects in the Sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Pete Tar Debunked: Using 13.56Mhz radio waves and HAARP to remove Methane from the Atmosphere HAARP 7
Panopticon_ISIS Using the term "debunking" Practical Debunking 10
Cairenn Debunked: Mercedes-Benz using chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mattnik 'John Brennan Sworn in as CIA Director Using Constitution Lacking Bill of Rights' General Discussion 10
U Using drones to spray chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 7
Mick West Debunked: "war of perception... conducted continuously using the news media" Quotes Debunked 1
NoParty Claim: Indigogo campaign to recreate 9/11 Plane Crash into Building 9/11 38
Spiemel Fontus - self-filling water bottle (indiegogo scam campaign?) Science and Pseudoscience 185
huwp Debunked: Triton Artificial Gills (Indigogo Campaign) Science and Pseudoscience 401
Balance Look-Up "No more lies" campaign Contrails and Chemtrails 79
Balance Look-Up favours NLP in Chemtrail Awareness Campaign Contrails and Chemtrails 27
Leifer New supplement campaign, "Whole Body Research" Health and Quackery 35
Critical Thinker Debunked: March against Monsanto campaign Conspiracy Theories 308
Related Articles































Related Articles

Top