Conspiracy Theories (“Alternative Research”)

[JGrimez]

Funny how recorded statements by officials is now considered conspiracy theory.

 

[JessFR]

The deepstate is a conspiracy theory yes. Deal with it.

 

[JGrimez]

The deepstate is a conspiracy theory yes. Deal with it.

No it isn't. It's accepted now by mainstream media. You're just ignorant and a propagandist.

 

[JessFR]

No it isn't. It's accepted now by mainstream media. You're just ignorant and a propagandist.

Wellll I don't agree with you. And I gotta determine when a post is off topic using my best judgement.

So if you wanna dispute that judgement you'll just have to take it above me.

Or you can take it to the other CEPS mods. If they came to me and said that in their opinion my decision was in error, in such a case I would almost certainly accept the majority view without argument.

 

[SunriseChampion]

10 Presidents & Politicians Who Told Us That A “Secret Government” Controls The World & What They Said

For fuck's sake, mate. None of those quotes prove anything and they're all taken out of context.

Fml.....the new world order and their fucking made up virus/mind control through vaccine ploy lockdown now has me stuck in CEPS talking about utter bullshit.

There is only one way out of this.....bed time!

Best of luck fighting a battle that would be impossible to win given how allegedly powerful the made up enemy are. What's the point? They're all powerful!

This whole conspiracy groupthink cult is one big circle jerk of paranoid delusion beyond comprehension.

Good night...or morning if you're waaaay out east.

 

[JessFR]

There is only one way out of this.....bed time!

You truly are wise. I envy your discipline. :D

 

[JGrimez]

Best of luck fighting a battle that would be impossible to win given how allegedly powerful the made up enemy are. What's the point? They're all powerful!

I find this incredibly ironic. Because if everyone was open to new information and there were less people like yourself acting as foot soldiers for this agenda - then everyone would awaken, we'd have strength in numbers and then they would have very little power. But that's what they rely on, people like yourself. Through many decades of indoctrination and propaganda.

The David Icke interview that was recently censored and taken down (think what you will of Icke) he made an important point. The UK is 66 million people, the ones implementing this agenda are but a handful. But people need to be aware for that to matter - I wonder if that's one reason they obsessively scrubbed the interview? (can still watch it on the London Real site)

 

[JessFR]

I get the feeling you didn't get this last time.

It's not that we're not open to new information..

It's that WE DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

It's such a dick move to constantly say to everyone around you that they're being close minded because they don't agree with your point of view.

You are easily the most close minded person I've seen on bluelight. You won't even open your mind enough to consider that the people who disagree with you might be doing it.. BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

Noo, it's always that they refuse to consider it. Rather than that they have considered it and rejected it because they thought it was stupid.

 

[JGrimez]

I get the feeling you didn't get this last time.

It's not that we're not open to new information..

It's that WE DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

It's such a dick move to constantly say to everyone around you that they're being close minded because they don't agree with your point of view.

You are easily the most close minded person I've seen on bluelight. You won't even open your mind enough to consider that the people who disagree with you might be doing it.. BECAUSE THEY SIMPLY DON'T AGREE WITH YOU.

Noo, it's always that they refuse to consider it. Rather than that they have considered it and rejected it because they thought it was stupid.

I'm not close-minded in fact it's hard for me to find people more open-minded than myself. You've just never said anything that I find remotely interesting or compelling.

I've completely changed my stance on topics from over the years. I used to believe in manmade global warming, that vaccines were all safe and effective and I even believed that the government had my best interests at heart. I've changed my mind upon receiving new information. You haven't.

By the way I respect your right to be wrong. I just don't respect the way that you think you're intellectually superior to me because I analyze subjects that the mainstream say is a waste of time, or that they ridicule.

 

[mal3volent]

I've changed my mind upon receiving new information. You haven't.

maybe she doesn't accept the validity of what you are considering "new information" ?

 

[JGrimez]

maybe she doesn't accept the validity of what you are considering "new information" ?

That's fair enough but calling someone close-minded who has completely changed their stance on views, while they routinely stick to the establishment narrative and ridicule alternative theories is incorrect.

I feel she resists information simply based on it questioning official narratives. Which is not objective analysis. I didn't "choose to believe in conspiracy theories" I genuinely ask for answers and go wherever the truth leads, as uncomfortable as that may be sometimes.

 

[sekio]

The David Icke interview

Isn't he the dude who thinks the Queen et al. are secretly reptilian lizard people? That's pretty damning for his credibility, IMO.

I didn't "choose to believe in conspiracy theories" I genuinely ask for answers and go wherever the truth leads, as uncomfortable as that may be sometimes.

You still make choices on what to believe based upon your interpretation of the availiable facts and any related experience you may have had. Everyone tunes their "bullshit filter" a little differently: for some, a belief can be formed with as little as a piece of "he said/she said" hearsay. Some of us set the bar a little higher and prefer to stick to facts in peer reviewed publications and the like instead.

So what sort of hardboiled evidence do you have that makes you deem vaccination "not good"? From what my parents have told me, polio (as one example) was at one time a nasty scourge of human life and a major cause of paralysis and disability, and thanks to a fairly wide-spread vaccination effort, it is no longer quite the problem it once was. At one time people would be forced to live in "iron lung" negative-pressure ventilators... now iron lungs are seen as a crude tool of a bygone age. It seems reasonable to me to ascribe the disappearance of polio to the vaccination effort, rather than it being a serendipitous miracle that just happened to occur the same time as a vaccine was deployed. From what I have read and studied, the logic and theory behind vaccination makes sense as well. There are indeed risks, but overall vaccination reduces human suffering - the amount of people harmed by the vaccine will be greatly outnumbered by the number of people spared a crippling paralytic disease.

Manmade global warming is similar: I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, CO2 levels are rising quite rapidly, we are burning fossil fuels of all sorts at a crazy rate (think of the number of container ships out there, with humongous engines, burning crude bunker oil, and running 24/7), other greenhouse gases also play their part (CFCs, nitrous oxide), weather patterns are changing, global temperatures are rising in general. All of these seem to provide supporting evidence that human usage of fossil fuels is having at least some effect. I find it hard to believe that the massive rise in global temperatures, changes in weather intensity, and elevated atmospheric CO2 are all exclusively natural fluctuation and humans have no effect whatsoever. Given the scale of human habitation and the volumes of gases we emit, it seems foolish to assume it has no impact at all.

while they routinely stick to the establishment narrative

And why is that a problem? Just because you have claims or ideas that "go against the grain" so to speak, does not neccesarily elevate those claims in an argument. Part of why the "establishment narrative" is a thing, is because it's the consensus observations of many individuals, and is backed up by appropriate theoretical grounding, proven by experiment and observation.

Just because you have changed your views doesn't mean you deserve praise for that, nor does it mean your current view is necessarily correct. There is no reason at all you cannot believe a falsehood after believing a truth. In addition there's no reason you cannot operate with a modicum of politeness. After all people are usually more willing to learn something from a discussion if you don't resort to name-calling and belittling remarks.

Usually the onus for proving extraordinary claims falls on the claimant. If you are claiming that e.g. the President is actually three midgets in a trenchcoat, I want to see some proof. Calling someone an establishment shill and brainwashed etc is not really constructive at all.

 

[SunriseChampion]

I find this incredibly ironic. Because if everyone was open to new information and there were less people like yourself acting as foot soldiers for this agenda - then everyone would awaken, we'd have strength in numbers and then they would have very little power. But that's what they rely on, people like yourself. Through many decades of indoctrination and propaganda.

I'm sorry but I'm very open to new information, but posting links to articles full of quotes that prove nothing and are torn away from all context is not new information. It's disinformation. Fake news, to use a term you probably understand very well.

So, let's assume that this massive conspiracy of shithead psychopaths who are all paedophiles for some fucking reason (I'm begginning to think that these conspiracy cultists may be a bit degenerate themselves, you know, projecting their own insecurities onto their perceived enemies) is real.

What are we to do about it?

What is the end goal of outing the conspiracy?

What are we trying to protect ourselves from?

What are we trying to sustain and not let be destroyed?


Look, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what the prescription for dealing with this would be, assuming it's a real phenomenon.

Please advise.

 

[SunriseChampion]

Just because you have claims or ideas that "go against the grain" so to speak, does not neccesarily elevate those claims in an argument. Part of why the "establishment narrative" is a thing, is because it's the consensus observations of many individuals, and is backed up by appropriate theoretical grounding, proven by experiment and observation.

This cannot be stated enough!

 

[SunriseChampion]

I've completely changed my stance on topics from over the years. I used to believe in manmade global warming, that vaccines were all safe and effective and I even believed that the government had my best interests at heart.

Ok, I'll give you one thing! Depending on where one lives, the government may indeed not have one's best interests at heart!

This is a historically recurring fact of life, unfortunately.

 

[JGrimez]

Isn't he the dude who thinks the Queen et al. are secretly reptilian lizard people? That's pretty damning for his credibility, IMO.

Unfortunately yes that's what people use to discredit him and all of his other ideas (even the ones that are accurate). In fact that's a common thing for people to do in order to justify ignoring someone who challenges their beliefs. Do I think the elites are shape-shifting reptilians? No. Do I think that they could be influenced in some way by higher, negative forces including ones that we would deem extraterrestrial or hyperdimensional? I think that is quite plausible.

However Icke's latest interview didn't mention anything crazy like that. He speaks about the virus and also points out things that he predicted decades ago that are now coming to fruition. Hard to argue with that, and if David Icke turns out to be the sane one then we're in for a hell of a ride.

Everyone tunes their "bullshit filter" a little differently: for some, a belief can be formed with as little as a piece of "he said/she said" hearsay. Some of us set the bar a little higher and prefer to stick to facts in peer reviewed publications and the like instead.

That's true and some people just have terrible bullshit filters or they're too indoctrinated with mainstream thinking so they'll even discard or discredit evidence simply based on the source. For eg I grew up a devout Zionist and I did not want to accept that those guys had a hand in 9/11. Most of my ilk instantly dismiss those allegations but my desire for truth is far stronger than any cultural or societal programming. Also recently it came out that half of peer-reviewed papers aren't actually replicated. So for me personally I like to dig deeper which involves looking at problems and corruption within the peer-review process. That's why an understanding of politics and human nature is essential. It's often just as important to evaluate the origins of a study as the results.

So what sort of hardboiled evidence do you have that makes you deem vaccination "not good"?

Was there a vaccine thread on here? Pretty sure I've made tons of posts regarding vaccines. But I would start with the doco called VAXXED. That includes the story of CDC whistleblower William Thompson and Andrew Wakefield's work. The producer of that film is named Del Bigtree who has a podcast called The High Wire. This guy has won lawsuits against government agencies using science so he's definitely a credible source (YMMV).

From what my parents have told me, polio (as one example) was at one time a nasty scourge of human life and a major cause of paralysis and disability, and thanks to a fairly wide-spread vaccination effort, it is no longer quite the problem it once was.

Or that's due to improved collective hygiene. Correlation isn't causation. Were you aware that the WHO reluctantly admitted that mutant strains of the polio vaccine now cause more paralysis than wild polio? Should I have a choice to vaccinate my child if that's the case? How much do you like gambling?

At one time people would be forced to live in "iron lung" negative-pressure ventilators... now iron lungs are seen as a crude tool of a bygone age.

I believe vaccines will be looked at the same way in the future. I bring this up a lot - how advanced, progressive and intelligent we think of ourselves these days and it's worth noting that people in a century or two from now are going to look back at us like we were fucking retards.

It seems reasonable to me to ascribe the disappearance of polio to the vaccination effort, rather than it being a serendipitous miracle that just happened to occur the same time as a vaccine was deployed.

See my quote above. Maybe this isn't true but it's a nice correlation.
How Plumbing Eradicated Disease, Not Vaccines

From what I have read and studied, the logic and theory behind vaccination makes sense as well.

I agree with this. I'm not against the concept of vaccination. But I do not trust Big Pharma, I think it's criminal how they are not liable for any injuries their vaccines cause, I understand psychopathy at the highest levels of industry and I've seen the revolving door between politics and pharmaceutical companies. Not to mention doctors and nurses who have spoken out regarding the dangers of vaccines. There are credible accusations saying that they are downplaying or actively suppressing the actual rate of vaccine injuries and if parents knew the real numbers then they'd understandably be kicking up more of a stink about them. So just because the concept of vaccinating is legitimate, that doesn't automatically mean that companies aren't knowingly inserting things into vaccines which they know will cause harm (or that they don't have ulterior motives).

There are indeed risks

Agree. Read the vaccine insert. They're insane. It says it can potentially cause death on there ("blah blah a few deaths is worth protecting millions of others blah blah" tell that to the faces of parents with vaccine-injured children")

but overall vaccination reduces human suffering

Disagree. And parents should have the choice without being basically forced (coerced) to vaccinate their children. But that's where the insidious concept of 'herd immunity' comes in - "my vaccinated child is not protected, even though they've been vaccinated. You must also vaccinate your children". But what if I've got a long list of doctors who are vaccine-skeptics and who warn against doing it? They don't matter? No, only doctors who promote vaccines are credible.

Manmade global warming is similar: I know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, CO2 levels are rising quite rapidly, we are burning fossil fuels of all sorts at a crazy rate (think of the number of container ships out there, with humongous engines, burning crude bunker oil, and running 24/7), other greenhouse gases also play their part (CFCs, nitrous oxide), weather patterns are changing, global temperatures are rising in general. All of these seem to provide supporting evidence that human usage of fossil fuels is having at least some effect. I find it hard to believe that the massive rise in global temperatures, changes in weather intensity, and elevated atmospheric CO2 are all exclusively natural fluctuation and humans have no effect whatsoever. Given the scale of human habitation and the volumes of gases we emit, it seems foolish to assume it has no impact at all.

I bolded the key part. If I fart into a hurricane I'm having some effect on the wind. Not much though. There "CO2 warming the Earth" theory has not even been proven and there's reliable data to show that the world is in fact cooling right now, or at least plateauing. I've covered this extensively in the anthropogenic global warming thread and I'm glad you brought it up because this is an issue that's promoted by the mainstream, media, politicians, bureaucrats yet I'm quite certain that they're lying about that. So if they could be lying about climate change then I'm also open to them lying about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines.

And why is that a problem? Just because you have claims or ideas that "go against the grain" so to speak, does not neccesarily elevate those claims in an argument. Part of why the "establishment narrative" is a thing, is because it's the consensus observations of many individuals, and is backed up by appropriate theoretical grounding, proven by experiment and observation.

Or they're generally paid off and pressured to promote a certain line of thinking (see the Harvard-sugar lobby scandal from the 50's). If someone you know has been proven to consistently lie, then why would you continue to believe them, and why would you trust them to tell you who the real liars are? I'm not saying everything the mainstream says is wrong but a large chunk of it is and what they're most guilty of is lying by omission.

Usually the onus for proving extraordinary claims falls on the claimant. If you are claiming that e.g. the President is actually three midgets in a trenchcoat, I want to see some proof. Calling someone an establishment shill and brainwashed etc is not really constructive at all.

My role is not to force people to believe things or think like me. I actually think doing so goes against my best interests. I'm here to offer information, ask questions and then anyone is free to believe what they believe. But if someone is to personally attack me or attempt to character assassinate me because I say something that might me true and makes them uncomfortable, well they can **** *** and I will tell them to do so (unless that will result in me being banned/silenced/censored).

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who disbelieve, no amount of proof is sufficient."

 

[JGrimez]

(I'm begginning to think that these conspiracy cultists may be a bit degenerate themselves, you know, projecting their own insecurities onto their perceived enemies) is real.

Look, I'm genuinely interested in knowing what the prescription for dealing with this would be, assuming it's a real phenomenon.

My first advice to you is don't be an ass if you want a genuine answer.

The best disinfectant is sunlight. Put the study of garden-variety and political psychopaths back into the academic curriculum.
Make everyone aware of this serious and common problem (many people's lives will improve significantly simply with the information on how to better recognize high-functioning pathological individuals).
Make it a requirement for anyone applying for a position of power/authority whether it be in politics, law enforcement, medicine, the judiciary to take the PCL-R psychopathy checklist examination administered by a trained psychologist. Testing should be independent and the results transparent. I don't care about privacy - to serve in a position of power you must be willing to at least divulge this information to the public.
(I'd be willing to allow psychopathic individuals to become surgeons for eg or snipers)

That would be a good start and would fix a lot of problems. Is it a perfect fix probably not but basically education and awareness is key to preventing the formulation of a pathocracy (system of government run by pathological individuals).

 

[Xorkoth]

I believe vaccines will be looked at the same way in the future. I bring this up a lot - how advanced, progressive and intelligent we think of ourselves these days and it's worth noting that people in a century or two from now are going to look back at us like we were fucking retards.

This is true and the main reason why I try to keep an open mind about everything. It is definitely arrogant to believe that our current framework for most things is 100% correct. That said, I also think it's quite easy these days, especially with the Internet creating a million little echo chambers, to throw the baby out with the bathwater and come to believe pretty much anything because enough other people are repeating it as truth. We live in a time when it has become very difficult to believe anything with certainty.

 

[JGrimez]

The producer of that film is named Del Bigtree who has a podcast called The High Wire. This guy has won lawsuits against government agencies using science so he's definitely a credible source

The Irrefutable Argument Against Vaccine Safety - with Author Del Bigtree

Heartbreaking

The lecture will discuss the revelations of the CDC whistleblower Dr. William Thompson, who has provided 10,000 documents that back up his claim that the CDC knowingly committed scientific fraud to hide the connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. It will show how Del’s journey across America with the film has made him aware of a severe health crisis being caused by vaccines. Del Bigtree will explain the danger of vaccine mandates like the new law in California Sb27.

 

[Branggen]

My first advice to you is don't be an ass if you want a genuine answer.

The best disinfectant is sunlight. Put the study of garden-variety and political psychopaths back into the academic curriculum.
Make everyone aware of this serious and common problem (many people's lives will improve significantly simply with the information on how to better recognize high-functioning pathological individuals).
Make it a requirement for anyone applying for a position of power/authority whether it be in politics, law enforcement, medicine, the judiciary to take the PLC-R psychopathy checklist examination administered by a trained psychologist. Testing should be independent and the results transparent. I don't care about privacy - to serve in a position of power you must be willing to at least divulge this information to the public.
(I'd be willing to allow psychopathic individuals to become surgeons for eg or snipers)

That would be a good start and would fix a lot of problems. Is it a perfect fix probably not but basically education and awareness is key to preventing the formulation of a pathocracy (system of government run by pathological individuals).

I like this but I think it is pretty easy for a psychopath or aspd person to score low on a PCL R test if they are actively trying not to appear psychopathic