are you a "conspiracy theorist"?

[trichrider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo

[youtubeif]A7tSfwkKaUo[/youtubeif]

is this mainstream enough? pay no attention to the poll.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ReThink911org

 

[bentom187]

Signed.

 

[GrinStick]

Conspiracy Theories



Cass R. Sunstein

Harvard Law School


Adrian Vermeule

Harvard Law School

January 15, 2008

Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03
U of Chicago, Public Law Working Paper No. 199
U of Chicago Law & Economics, Olin Working Paper No. 387

Abstract:

Many millions of people hold conspiracy theories; they believe that powerful people have worked together in order to withhold the truth about some important practice or some terrible event. A recent example is the belief, widespread in some parts of the world, that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or the United States. Those who subscribe to conspiracy theories may create serious risks, including risks of violence, and the existence of such theories raises significant challenges for policy and law. The first challenge is to understand the mechanisms by which conspiracy theories prosper; the second challenge is to understand how such theories might be undermined. Such theories typically spread as a result of identifiable cognitive blunders, operating in conjunction with informational and reputational influences. A distinctive feature of conspiracy theories is their self-sealing quality. Conspiracy theorists are not likely to be persuaded by an attempt to dispel their theories; they may even characterize that very attempt as further proof of the conspiracy. Because those who hold conspiracy theories typically suffer from a crippled epistemology, in accordance with which it is rational to hold such theories, the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.



Number of Pages in PDF File: 30

Keywords: conspiracy theories, social networks, informational cascades, group polarization
working papers series

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

 

[bentom187]

LOL Harvard law, I guess we shouldn't be having the free flow and exchange of ideas ,we will just think what mr.sustein wants. What a hack.
He basicly admits there are conspiracies -but we can only believe the true ones, which are found out by asking questions and theorizing and not accepting the official version.
But don't question him,or his agenda because if you do its the predictable outcome of being nuts.
Lawyers are such sweethearts.

Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/01/121884/#CqJEllVJAQ5jMMmi.99

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama’s regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban “conspiracy theorizing.”

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.







Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate “extremists who supply conspiracy theories” to disrupt the efforts of the “extremists” to propagate their theories.

In a 2008 Harvard law paper, “Conspiracy Theories,” Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, “What can government do about conspiracy theories?”

“We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories.”

In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to “conspiracy theories” is “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups.”



Continued Sunstein: “We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity.”

Read more about Cass Sunstein’s agenda in “Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech”

Sunstein said government agents “might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as “an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role.”

Some “conspiracy theories” recommended for ban by Sunstein include:
•“The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.”

•“The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy.”
•“The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile.”
•“The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy.”
•“That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents.”
•“The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred.”

Sunstein allowed that “some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true.”

He continued: “The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s,
the CIA did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of ‘mind control.’”

Sunstein’s paper advocating against the belief that global warming is a deliberate fraud was written before November’s climate scandal in which e-mails hacked from the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University in the U.K. indicate top climate researchers conspired to rig data and keep researchers with dissenting views from publishing in leading scientific journals.

Sunstein: Ban ‘right wing’ rumors

Sunstein’s paper is not the first time he has advocated banning the free flow of information.

WND reported that in a recently released book, “On Rumors,” Sunstein argued websites should be obliged to remove “false rumors” while libel laws should be altered to make it easier to sue for spreading such “rumors.”

In the 2009 book, Sunstein cited as a primary example of “absurd” and “hateful” remarks, reports by “right-wing websites” alleging an association between President Obama and Weatherman terrorist William Ayers.

He also singled out radio talker Sean Hannity for “attacking” Obama regarding the president’s “alleged associations.”

Ayers became a name in the 2008 presidential campaign when it was disclosed he worked closely with Obama for years. Obama also was said to have launched his political career at a 1995 fundraiser in Ayers’ apartment.

‘New Deal Fairness Doctrine’

WND also previously reported Sunstein drew up a “First Amendment New Deal” – a new “Fairness Doctrine” that would include the establishment of a panel of “nonpartisan experts” to ensure “diversity of view” on the airwaves.

Sunstein compared the need for the government to regulate broadcasting to the moral obligation the U.S. had to impose new rules that outlawed segregation.

Sunstein’s radical proposal, set forth in his 1993 book “The Partial Constitution,” received no news media attention and scant scrutiny until the WND report.

In the book, Sunstein outwardly favors and promotes the “Fairness Doctrine,” the abolished FCC policy that required holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner the government deemed “equitable and balanced.”

Sunstein introduces what he terms his “First Amendment New Deal” to regulate broadcasting in the U.S.

His proposal, which focuses largely on television, includes a government requirement that “purely commercial stations provide financial subsidies to public television or to commercial stations that agree to provide less profitable but high-quality programming.”

Sunstein wrote it is “worthwhile to consider more dramatic approaches as well.”

He proposes “compulsory public-affairs programming, right of reply, content review by nonpartisan experts or guidelines to encourage attention to public issues and diversity of view.”

The Obama czar argues his regulation proposals for broadcasting are actually presented within the spirit of the Constitution.

“It seems quite possible that a law that contained regulatory remedies would promote rather than undermine the ‘freedom of speech,’” he writes.

Writes Sunstein: “The idea that government should be neutral among all forms of speech seems right in the abstract, but as frequently applied it is no more plausible than the idea that it should be neutral between the associational interests of blacks and those of whites under conditions of segregation.”

Sunstein contends the landmark case that brought about the Fairness Doctrine, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, “stresses not the autonomy of broadcasters (made possible only by current ownership rights), but instead the need to promote democratic self-government by ensuring that people are presented with a broad range of views about public issues.”

He continues: “In a market system, this goal may be compromised. It is hardly clear that ‘the freedom of speech’ is promoted by a regime in which people are permitted to speak only if other people are willing to pay enough to allow them to be heard.”

In his book, Sunstein slams the U.S. courts’ unwillingness to “require something like a Fairness Doctrine” to be a result of “the judiciary’s lack of democratic pedigree, lack of fact-finding powers and limited remedial authority.”

He clarifies he is not arguing the government should be free to regulate broadcasting however it chooses.

“Regulation designed to eliminate a particular viewpoint would of course be out of bounds. All viewpoint discrimination would be banned,” Sunstein writes.

But, he says, “at the very least, regulative ‘fairness doctrines’ would raise no real doubts” constitutionally.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2010/01/121884/#CqJEllVJAQ5jMMmi.99

 

[bentom187]

Oh and global warming.......

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”



“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” Moore said. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”

“It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”

Indeed, cold weather is more likely to cause death than warm weather. RealClearScience reported that from “1999 to 2010, a total of 4,563 individuals died from heat, but 7,778 individuals died from the cold.” Only in 2006 did heat-related deaths outnumber cold deaths.

In Britain, 24,000 people are projected to die this winter because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Roughly 4.5 million British families are facing “fuel poverty.”

“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” Moore said.



“When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.”

Moore, a Canadian, helped found the environmental activist group Greenpeace in the 1970s. He left the group after they began to take on more radical positions. He has since been a critic of radical environmentalism and heads up the group Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, Canada.

Moore’s comments come after President Obama declared global warming a “fact” in the State of the Union. His administration has attempted to argue that the recent U.S. cold snap was influenced by a warmer planet.


Climate scientists, however, have been struggling to explain why global surface temperatures have not risen in the last 17 years and why atmospheric temperatures have been flat for the last decade.

“From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of [0.5 degrees Celsius] over that 30-year period,” Moore said. “Then there was a 30-year ‘pause’ until 1970. This was followed by an increase of [0.57 degrees Celsius] during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature.”

“This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time,” the former environmental activist added. “The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000.”



“Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to ‘human influence.’” Moore continued. “They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase ‘since the mid-20th century.’ Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by ‘human influence,’ when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910-1940?”

 

[hard rain]

Oh and global warming.......

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

Lol, Patrick Moore:

critics point out Moore's business relations with "polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[22] Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute.[39] Monte Hummel, MScF, President, World Wildlife Fund Canada has claimed that Moore's book, Pacific Spirit, is a collection of "pseudoscience and dubious assumptions."

Writer and environmental activist George Monbiot has written critically of Moore's work with Indonesian logging firm Asia Pulp & Paper (APP). Moore was hired as a consultant to write an environmental 'inspection report' on APP operations, however Monbiot states that Moore's company is not a monitoring firm and the consultants used were experts in public relations not tropical ecology or Indonesian law. Monbiot writes, that sections of the report were directly copied from an APP PR brochure,[27][47] commenting that hiring Moore is now what companies do if their brand is turning toxic.[27]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
Criticism of man made global warming/climate change generally comes from vested interest (i.e large polluters with large recources). It is a complex scientific problem that unfortunately has been very effectively politicised.

 

[hard rain]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo

[youtubeif]A7tSfwkKaUo[/youtubeif]

is this mainstream enough? incidentally...poll closes 1 hour from now.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ReThink911org

A youtube poll? It must be true.

 

[med_breeder]

I think conspiracy theories are the ultimate conspiracy theory.

This thread is so dense. It is filled with so much passion, facts, figures, charts, videos, etc.

If all this energy was turned outwards...

If there really is a "They" "Powers that be", "NWO,"
Wouldn't it serve their ends, to have the population bogged down in a cycle of never ending debate that changes nothing in objective reality?

 

[bentom187]

Lol, Patrick Moore:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(environmentalist)
Criticism of man made global warming/climate change generally comes from vested interest (i.e large polluters with large recources). It is a complex scientific problem that unfortunately has been very effectively politicised.

Yes, vested interests are on both sides. I'm not sure scientist want to start performing empirical experiments and weather modification based on debatable statistics since the outcome is very real.I hope they are not that stupid and follow the path of the states lapdog economist too.



Stephen Colbert Interview with Chemtrail lunatic
[YOUTUBEIF]NH1IDqpflEA[/YOUTUBEIF]



What Is Regulatory Capture?
[YOUTUBEIF]BUvUtqTmd5c[/YOUTUBEIF]



UN Agenda 21 Exposed with Rosa Koire
[YOUTUBEIF]L7T7ulzNG7o[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Weird]

political slant even divides scientists

Meteorologists' views about global warming: A survey of American Meteorological Society professional members

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1




Meteorologists and other atmospheric science experts are playing important roles in helping society respond to climate change. However, members of this professional community are not unanimous in their views of climate change, and there has been tension among members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) who hold different views on the topic. In response, AMS created the Committee to Improve Climate Change Communication to explore and, to the extent possible, resolve these tensions. To support this committee, in January 2012 we surveyed all AMS members with known email addresses, achieving a 26.3% response rate (n=1,854). In this paper we tested four hypotheses: (1) perceived conflict about global warming will be negatively associated -- and (2) climate expertise, (3) liberal political ideology, and (4) perceived scientific consensus will be positively associated -- with (a) higher personal certainty that global warming is happening, (b) viewing the global warming observed over the past 150 years as mostly human-caused, and (c) perception of global warming as harmful. All four hypotheses were confirmed. Expertise, ideology, perceived consensus and perceived conflict were all independently related to respondents' views on climate, with perceived consensus and political ideology being most strongly related. We suggest that AMS should: attempt to convey the widespread scientific agreement about climate change; acknowledge and explore the uncomfortable fact that political ideology influences the climate change views of meteorology professionals; refute the idea that those who do hold non-majority views just need to be “educated” about climate change; continue to deal with the conflict among members of the meteorology community.

Capsule

In a survey of American Meteorological Society members, perceived scientific consensus was the strongest predictor of global warming views, followed by political ideology, climate science expertise and perceived organizational conflict.

 

[Weird]

people need to learn how to disseminate the truth not simply regurgitate what they think is true

this happens from both sides of the argument in this thread

look at the bolded above even climate scientists do it

 

[idiit]

FT story on gold price rigging was erased deliberately

The Financial Times' Monday report about a study concluding that the daily London gold price fixing is manipulated probably half the time was deliberately removed from the newspaper's Internet site by the newspaper's editorial staff and did not vanish because of any programming glitch.
The confirmation has come from the newspaper's customer service department in reply to inquiries from readers. While the newspaper has not yet answered further inquiries seeking an explanation for the action, it would hardly surprise close followers of the gold market who read the Financial Times to be told that the newspaper's publishing the story in its newsprint edition was itself a mistake, since the FT seems to have a policy against acknowledging gold market manipulation and against reporting anything that might discomfort bullion banks or Western central banks that trade surreptitiously in gold.
Fortunately, the FT story in question, quickly called to your attention by GATA on Sunday night U.S. Eastern time, has been captured by the Google Internet archive here:

http://harveyorgan.blogspot.com/

evidence erased. reality theory over and over again branded as conspiracy theory because evidence erased.

you can take the big picture as little snippets of still frame shots and get immersed in details.

you can get back and clearly see an alarming pattern that is undeniably true if you personally take the time to do so.

it is a free will decision. everyone gets to make up their own mind.

 

[trichrider]

not exactly free will when what appears peer pressure tries to influence distinctions by labeling 'conspiracy theorists' as 'delusional', 'crazy', or 'less than', or 'absent critical thinking skills'.

personal attacks for 'bringing up such controversial subject matter' when the poster didn't even address the OP....

passing judgement without examining evidence....

ridicule and harassing posters for actually examining evidence....

2 + 2 = 5...

proving beyond doubt that critical thinking skills require reading the material and questioning everything, not watching nightly news programs on television and sleeping on it.

poll indicative of viewers POV...funny you noticed it was on the internet.

 

[bentom187]

- Meet Your Straw Man.
[YOUTUBEIF]XmQj4rWuUtk[/YOUTUBEIF]


the person
[YOUTUBEIF]XR9idrc1EHI[/YOUTUBEIF]


You must redeem (title 12.411 / title 12 95a,2) also to remain extraterritorial because the law operates on the presumption you are a person and responsible for the debt through use of a private credit system. Enjoy.

Lawful Money

Definition of 'Lawful Money'


Any form of currency issued by the United States Treasury and not the Federal Reserve System, including gold and silver coins, Treasury notes, and Treasury bonds. Lawful money stands in contrast to fiat money, to which the government assigns value although it has no intrinsic value of its own and is not backed by reserves. Fiat money includes legal tender such as paper money, checks, drafts and bank notes.

Also known as "specie", which means "in actual form."

Investopedia Says
Investopedia explains 'Lawful Money'


Oddly enough, the dollar bills that we carry around in our wallets are not considered lawful money. The notation on the bottom of a U.S. dollar bill reads "Legal Tender for All Debts, Public and Private", and is issued by the U.S. Federal Reserve, not the U.S. Treasury. Legal tender can be exchanged for an equivalent amount of lawful money, but effects such as inflation can change the value of fiat money. Lawful money is said to be the most direct form of ownership, but for purposes of practicality it has little use in direct transactions between parties anymore.

ONE DOLLAR – TWO IMAGES – MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE


ONE DOLLAR – TWO IMAGES MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE The One Dollar Bill has 2 images (authorization/ownership seals) on it - Federal Reserve (LEFT) and The Department of the Treasury (RIGHT). We are choosing the image on the RIGHT when demanding lawful money for all transactions per 12 USC 411. The DEFAULT choice is the image on the LEFT, and requires a usage fee (tax) to the god of mammon (Caesar),…

 

[ezak420]

if america has a free-market capitalist economy.. why does a private corporation have a monopoly over the money supply?

 

[bentom187]

You are right we have anything but a free market capitalism. The FED is also immune from prosecution and audits. They run the show.

This is about the FED.
The American Dream Film-Full Length
[YOUTUBEIF]tGk5ioEXlIM[/YOUTUBEIF]

Free market's

Judge Napolitano on the Free Market and Capitalism
[YOUTUBEIF]kOtzIWuetSU[/YOUTUBEIF]



Peter Schiff at Occupy Wall Street: Full Version, Almost 2 Hours
[YOUTUBEIF]ahMGoB01qiA[/YOUTUBEIF]

 

[Banefoul]

MLK assassinated by US government: King family civil trial 1999 decision. Why didn't you know this?

Martin Luther King’s family and his attorney, William F. Pepper, won a civil trial that found US government agencies guilty in the wrongful death of Martin Luther King. The 1999 trial, King Family versus Jowers and Other Unknown Co-Conspirators, is the only trial ever conducted on the assassination of Dr. King. The King family’s attempts for a criminal trial were denied, as suspect James Ray’s recant of what he claimed was a false confession was denied.

 

[idiit]

^ cognitive dissonance. programmed to knee jerk 'cause anything outside the programming is programmed to be taken as "loony tunes".

 

[idiit]

if america has a free-market capitalist economy

stated in jest i suspect. poster demonstrates awareness.

all markets are rigged:

Paul Craig Roberts (born April 3, 1939) is an American economist and a columnist for Creators Syndicate. He served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration and was noted as a co-founder of Reaganomics.[1] He is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal, Business Week, and Scripps Howard News Service. He has testified before congressional committees on 30 occasions on issues of economic policy.
During the 21st century, Roberts has frequently published in Counterpunch, writing extensively about the effects of the Bush (and later Obama) administrations related to the War on Terror, which he says have destroyed the US Constitution's protections of Americans' civil liberties, such as habeas corpus and due process. He has taken positions different from former Republican allies, opposing the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, and criticizing Israel's policies and actions against the Palestinians.[2] Roberts is also a columnist for alternative news outlets Press TV [3] and Veterans Today [4]

Economist Dr. Paul Craig Roberts says, “We have a situation where all the markets are rigged. All the markets are manipulated.”

^^ http://usawatchdog.com/dr-paul-crai...ged-by-its-own-authorities-it-blows-the-mind/



https://www.google.com/search?q=all...j8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8

^ google 7,000,000 million hits on "all markets are rigged"

"most markets are rigged" is a reality theory.

your food is rigged.

your water is rigged.

your educational system is rigged.

your politician is rigged.

etc....etc....etc...etc...etc...etc...etc.....


the 99% can take back their sovereign rights only after they realize they need to.

 

[idiit]

Supreme Court Rules Police May Search A Home Without Obtaining A Warrant 02/27/2014

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-...ice-may-search-home-without-obtaining-warrant

this matters to all of you. playing "asleeple" while others are fighting to get all of our sovereign rights restored is not cool.

what about your kids? we are the custodians for future generations.

this shit is very important. it really matters. this is not an ego pissing contest. this is about something sacred.