Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Was Google CIA from the beginning?

Posted 2 years ago on June 8, 2012, 9 a.m. EST by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I heard this recently, that the venture capitalists for Google were a CIA front. While we hear about government censorship of the internet here in China, at least its done openly. In the west, I think its done just as much, but in a more covert way, by manipulating rankings.

162 Comments

162 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Of course google was CIA from the beginning. So was facebook, now video games and the whole damn internet. Who cares? They know that we know that they know that. It's better not to piss them off too much but you can still make fun of them a bit. Are they paying us? No, so fuck em'. Just kidding you guys. Anyone who thinks privacy exists anymore is dreaming.

[-] -2 points by shadzhairart (-357) 2 years ago

Banks following your every purchase through ATM cards are much more dangerous for privacy than Google. Same goes for cell phone companies. You're not forced to use Google at all. There are other search engines. You can also use proxy servers to hide your identity if you really don't want your ISP to know what site's you're surfing. I can find out more about you by going through your thrash can than I by surfing the internet. Privacy has been a problem long long before Facebook came around. People like to attack Facebook, but they don't care one bit about their droid phones that gather much much more information about them.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

"Meet The CIA's Venture Capitalist - Gilman Louie runs the agency's investment arm with a mission of backing tech companies that can aid the cause of 'Homeland Security'" :

fiat lux ...

[-] -3 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

I don't see anything abnormal with that. It certainly does not mean that US censors the web like China does like says the OP. If you took a vacation in China and used the Internet there, you would be very surprised. There's no comparison with the Internet in US and the one in China. None. It doesn't matter how many LaRouche conspiracy theories you throw at us.

You're swimming in delusions, and soon this will make you go crazy. You have lost touch with reality.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

WTF is "LaRouche Conspiracy" ?! Is 'In-Q-Tel' made up or not ?!! OR is it actually YOU who can not face pulling your frightened and confused little empty-head out of the soft sands of ignorance ?!!!

Feeble Minded F-ckwit ! This site is for adults really !! IF you can't take The Truth (as can be empirically shown), then f-ck off and get back in touch with whatever it is that passes for your reality !!

You and your pathological denial of anything that you do not like and your deep inclination to just guzzle The Government's 'kool-aid', are your own psychic problem - so good luck paduan !

temet nosce ...

[-] 1 points by know1 (210) 2 years ago

i like u shadz66

[+] -5 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Conspiracy theories published and supported by Lyndon LaRouche. All of arturo's posts are copy pasted directly from LaRouche's site. Search for him on Wikipedia, he's a known conspiracy theorist and anti-semite.

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Consider again that while we were not watching, "conspiracy theory" has undergone 'An Orwellian Redefinition'. A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a 'conspiracy'. Instead, it now means any explanation, or even a fact - that is out of step with the government’s standardised explanations and that of its Main Stream Media pimps, whores and 'Johns' !!!

multum in parvo ...

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

And who, pray tell, instituted this "Orwellian Redefinition?" Would this be the same person who claims "conspiracies" and "conspiracy theories" are mutually exclusive? That the very definition of "conspiracy theory" includes "flawed research methods" and compares CT's to the expression "hot dog," since hot dogs aren't really dogs that are hot (depending, I'm sure, on what part of the world you're eating said 'hot dog')? The guy who cleverly sidesteps any discussions involving said theories, I mean "conspiracy theories?" The same guy that's been banned more than probably anyone on this forum? That guy?

Please, tell me, oh "cosmic voyager." TELL ME!

Inquiring minds wanna know.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

lol

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Heh heh. Shadz brings up a good point below, prompting me to again break out 'Webster's.'

Sophist: A person who practices clever, specious reasoning.

That pretty much says everything we need to know about our resident, self-proclaimed 'Sophist.'

[-] 3 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

shadz is quite brilliant and a dedicated educator as well.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Agreed. I think he said a while back that one or both his parents were teachers. His links have been educational, thought-provoking, and entertaining. But according to some(one), shadz lacks the capacity for critical thought. Funny then, that his comments nearly always prove the opposite.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That someone you refer to is a sad sad person. Consumed with envy for the success and acceptance of others and with no clue as to how it happens that others are liked or even listened to - let alone agreed with at times.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yep, a sad person indeed. It reminds me of a child who is literally the center of the universe when they're very young, before they venture outside their front door, only to find out just the opposite once they enter school.

The harder he tries here, the less he's liked. That must be frustrating for someone so convinced of his intellectual superiority.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Problem is he can not understand truth and sticking with it. For it's own sake. Therefore he demonstrates no substance. It's worse then that but that is a large part of it.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Yeah, and he could be putting his supposed intellect to good use, by concentrating on actual issues, not this personal CT attack, which yields absolutely nothing positive. He claims CT's are the biggest reason Americans don't know fact from fiction, when the reality, as I pointed out to him, was MSM is the reason for that. If he wanted to attack the real cause of the dumbing-down of Americans, he would join those of us who have been railing against MSM since the beginning.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes - but he is also not his own man. Look at enough posts and contributions and you see clear support for corporatism. That is why it is difficult for him to find a leg to stand on - as corporatism does not offer that.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Thanks for saying that, you actually 'get' her. She is a free-thinker. She's also quite intelligent, I've had a few discussions with her.

Crazy, she ain't.

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

{:-])

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Good point (reply to below, of course). He also seems determined to quash, or discredit, certain topics of discussion. Take his obvious personal attack on Renneye. Although some people might find her threads a little 'out there,' what it boils down to is, Renneye is trying to expose those at the very top of the pyramid. It's a given many of these individuals are in the highest levels of finance. Why stop these types of discussions?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Renneye the real Renneye is a free thinker - she looks at possibilities - all possibilities - then throws them out for others to look at - hard to get blind sided that way - but many will look at you a little funny. Free thinking is akin and a part of being aware - of having an open mind - of fueling critical thinking.

[+] -7 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

No. Stop being a child and saying nonsense.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

"Are We nearly there yet ?!" & ilol! ... gnothi seauton ...~*~...

[-] 1 points by lkindr (58) 2 years ago

I'm not a LaRouche supporter, but there's nothing in his organization's literature etc that is antisemitic. It's antiZionist once in a while, which means opposed to Israeli fascism, which is a good thing. They oppose all fascism. LaRouche ran for the presidency same time as Reagan and promoted FDR's ideas for improving the economy. His org was too effective at exposing Bush's fascism, so the first Bush administration starting in 89 jailed him on false charges. Clinton pardoned him a few years later. But the fascists are the ones who make up false claims about people like LaRouche. Wikipedia spreads a lot of lies too. Have you seen how they censor anyone they don't like? They censor the hell out of any science articles that go against their grain.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

The corpoRAT media has done such a job on LaRouche that not only is he radioactive but anything he says is radioactive. Anyone interested in America's economic future should consider what he says, just pretend his ideas are from some mysterious unknown internet writer if need be. His ideas can stand or fall alone, with no reference to their source. I believe his ideas would have prevented this whole melt down.

[-] 0 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

So do you believe anthropomorphic climate change to be a hoax?

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Where did that come from? What does this have to do with economic theories and proposals?

[-] 1 points by notaneoliberal (2269) 2 years ago

That is one of his positions. It's a question of credibility.

[-] 1 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Most people are quite capable of considering the value of arguments based on the arguments' own strengths -- there is no need to consider the source at all.

If one is being swept by rapids towards a waterfall I strongly suggest accepting any rope thrown one's way.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

What science articles go against the grain of Wikipedia? WTF are you talking about boy? You're nothing but a bumbling conspiracy theorist.

[-] 2 points by lkindr (58) 2 years ago

You're a labeler, name-caller and divider of the 99%.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Thanks for the labels. Anymore?

[-] 1 points by Hanssen (36) 2 years ago

Umm, you better look into how the word "anti-semite" has been used to manipulate entire nations, governments, masses, and you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoUsB0hBMlk

[-] -3 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Sorry, not into your conspiracy theory videos. Try someone else.

[-] 1 points by Hanssen (36) 2 years ago

Your loss big fella.

[-] -1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

WTF does that have to do with 'In-Q-Tel' ?! Why are you so often pushing for folk to investigate 'conspiracy theorist(s)' ?!! You're a self declared 'sophist' so one can't believe a word you say !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

No, he's just saying that the evidence about this situation doesn't mean the CIA is censoring the internet like China.

If anything you should be more concerned with misinformation, which is a proud tool of the government and they use it everywhere, in speeches, in conferences, and then the media puts it online like it's fact.

If they were censoring the net like China you couldn't go to a LaRouche site. Not suggesting you are a LaRouche fan or anything.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

case and point the term "job creators" a term that flies in the face of reality yet the media has used it as fact

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

If they're the job creators, where are the jobs? They've gotten tax cuts and yet we're seeing a decline in job creation.

It's been more like the job outsourcers and layoffs creators. Now of course there are some corporations that treat their employees well and pay good wages without being damaging in others ways as well... but then there's a lot of BS like Apple, KBR, AIG, GE, Koch Industries, Goldman Sachs, International Development Solutions, Cargil, and the list goes on.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (22316) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

MSM = Corpo-rat - of course they are gonna promote that false concept.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Actually, the Chinese really like Lyndon Larouche. They've hired his organization to do research for the Chinese government in decades past, and write articles about him in their state run newspapers calling him "the great American economist".

Certain circles in Russia look upon Larouche quite favorably as well.

[-] 1 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China

Not quite like America

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Yes, I'm quite aware of that.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

If you think the US government is censoring the internet like the Chinese government is, then you are completely delusional. In China, many many many sites are not even accessible. And, if we were ranting against the government of China like we are ranting against the government of US on this site, then we would be arrested and this site would have been taking down a long time ago.

This whole idea is based on a lame conspiracy theory picked up on a LaRouche site. FEMA camps and other BS stories can also be found there. Like contrails being "chemtrails".

You're losing your grip on reality. How do you expect us to create a better world if you can't even identify the real problems in our society. Don't you see that this posting is a complete and utter waste of time. The Internet in America is barely censored at all. You are protected by the 1st amendment. I highly suggest you take a trip to other countries to check this out what real Internet censorship is.

[-] 1 points by writerconsidered123 (344) 2 years ago

if there was censorship this site would be #1 site to block

[-] 0 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

dont flatter yourself.

[-] 0 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Exactly.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I do live in China and the censorship of the internet is different. Here they just block sites out completely. In the US, Google just gives undesirable sites a lower ranking.

In China, a lot of the sites they block include pornography and sites that they consider to be propaganda intended to be used against them. Of course there are bad things that happen in China also, and they block news about those things as well.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

A major difference is that there is proof that this is happening in China, but there is no proof that Google tampers with ratings to do the government's biding or anyone else's biding, hence it's a lame conspiracy theory. Bring some proof to the table then we can talk. Until then, let's talk about reality. There are real problems out there.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

This is what I've heard from people who claim to have watched their ratings be manipulated at Youtube for example.

Propaganda in the west is a real problem. Its been the cause of wars and our financial crisis.

[-] -1 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

These days, conspiracy theorist are the ones doing the worst propaganda work.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

And what data do you have to prove that? You say conspiracy theorists destroy logical thought. If you really adhered to the scientific method as you say you do, you would have rock solid evidence to back up such a claim.

Can you show that test scores in math and science have declined in direct relationship to the student's exposure to conspiracy theories? If not, then your must despise your own theories as much as those against which you continuously rant.

[-] 1 points by Hanssen (36) 2 years ago

koinkydoink huh??

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

What's a coincidence?

[-] 2 points by nomdeguerre (1775) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Google, the next best thing to a mind reading machine.

[-] 1 points by mvjobless (370) 2 years ago

This would not surprise me at all.

[-] 1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

When I post on the internet it is fashioned for all government agencies, college professors, the military and everyone else to enjoy. Like the song says- why can't we be friends?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Does it matter really if Google is a CIA front? The NSA has 16 acres of computers underground in Va. They scan the net constantly, every microsecond.... and not just the net, any electronic form of communication known.

Do you really trust the Net to any degree?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Its a different kind of subversion though, the NSA monitors information, Google manipulates it.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

The second venture capital infusion into FaceBook was supposedly CIA money, but I wouldn't be surprised if the CIA was behind Google as well.

[-] 0 points by ScrewyL (809) 2 years ago

Yes. next question. And no, "here in the west" it's done the same way as anywhere else -- by murder.

[-] 0 points by TrevorMnemonic (5827) 2 years ago

I'd rather have the CIA running Google instead of operating drones in countries that didn't attack us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOyUKBemW1s&feature=related

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

But the CIA's operation of Google could influence the people to justify in their minds the operation of drones.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Only gullible conspiracy theorists like you. People who use sound critical thought backed by the scientific method cannot be fooled so easily.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sounds like you've been smoking too many of those blue bananas.

[-] -1 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

red herring + ad hominem = unable to counter argue.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

No need to counter argue as there is no original argument. Just the old "attacking the man" approach, discredited by Socrates over two thousand years ago.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Read again, the argument is that if a person is equipped with the ability to think critically and uses the scientific method in his quest for the truth, then, this person cannot be fooled by whatever games Google decides to play with information in its hope to convince people that drones are necessary or not.

Contrastingly, if a person thinks like a conspiracy theorist, i.e is not moved by evidence but rather by belief and the quest to find an ultimate evil force in the universe conspiring against him, then that person can and will be fooled by the manipulation of information.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Sorry, not impressed, its just more accusations.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

I'm not here to impress, only here to share the truth with others. Those who read your posting will know it's a conspiracy theory designed to melt their brains into low thinking mode.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I see, and who are you to know the "truth"? Second coming of Christ? You can't conceive of the possibility that you may be mistaken about something. I think you must be rather narcissistic.

[-] -1 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

I am not mistaken in my claim that the scientific method is the only way to reach truth. I am not the second coming of Christ, I don't believe in him. I am the foreshadowing of a future when all humans will think in logical fashion.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Still sounds like you are worshipping yourself, if you think you are the only one capable of thinking in a logical fashion.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

I am not the only one. One of a few, but not the only one.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Can't say that you are open minded if you can't conceive that you may be mistaken. Scientists must always be open to that possibility.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

The scientific method is the only research method which not only allows doubt, but encourages it systematically.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

What would all these people do for a living if they didn't get paid to read my stupid posts?

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

they reported Obama receiving 100% in the San Diego Democrat primaries when I clearly wrote in NO WAR

[-] 0 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Lol, huh? I have a case of Wisconsinitis so you'll have to excuse me. I wanted to avoid talking about the goofy stuff that went on here. Ever get that feeling that something is just.....off? I'll google (you rock CIA!) the San Diego primaries.

[-] -1 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

We don't need any more conspiracy theories. Don't we have enough already?

[-] 4 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Don't you ? Do you ? Go on try one more !!! See the links above !! ... and weep !

While we weren't watching, the term "conspiracy theory" has now undergone an 'Orwellian Redefinition' !

A 'conspiracy theory' no longer just means an event explained by a conspiracy !!

Instead, please consider that it now means any explanation, or even any fact, that is out of step with The Government’s explanation and that of its media whores, pimps and 'Johns' !!!

ad iudicium ...

[-] 3 points by Hanssen (36) 2 years ago

Bravo!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

morning speaking of 1984, he wrote it as a warning, but it became a guidebook

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I like people who remember Orwell, damn think tanks been using his stuff since the ink was wet, I say time we had a people's think tank....

[-] 2 points by Hanssen (36) 2 years ago

Now there's a thought!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (5968) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

stick around....

as far as the CIA-Google thing, I've always thought, since the type was tinted green or yellow, that anything you put into the wire could and would be seen by all...

[-] -1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

Careful, or you'll turn into Stalin. You're at the boundary where your reality starts to reflect whatever you believe, where beliefs affect reality. Which is the cause and which is the effect??

Many get lost in these byways; at least one has returned...

[-] 1 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

So what has "Murderous Uncle" Joseph Djugasvilli got to do with the price of bacon these days ?! Thanx for your cute and cryptic non sequitur !! Stop lookingbackward, dreamingforward !!!

vincit qui se vincit ...

[-] 1 points by dreamingforward (394) from Tacoma, WA 2 years ago

He turned paranoid because he started to be unable to determine what information was true and which were not.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (19985) 2 years ago

Is that an echo of the situation you find yourself in ?! Further, just because you aren't paranoid, doesn't mean : all your comms aren't accessible ; that your finances aren't known (by the banks if no one else) & that you also exist as information on numerous data bases AND that you may well be walking around with a tracking device (cell phone) &/or data streaming device ('Smart Phone') in your pocket !!

Chill bro' - all's well in 'The Matrix' - so long as you stay a 'plugged-in-copper-top' !!!

temet nosce ...

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Why would you want to specify that "conspiracies" are the one area of knowledge that you are not allowed to construct theories about? Its just another area of knowledge, I see no reason to be biased against it.

[-] 3 points by stevebol (1269) from Milwaukee, WI 2 years ago

Everyone believes in some conspiracies of some kind. They might seem serious to some and laughable to others.People should have enough common sense to know when something is not worth persuing. The Twin Towers are gone forever and there's nothing left of them. Do we need truthers to convince us that the government is screwed up? I don't see why. Some people will think I'm a nut because I think the Birchers/Tea Party killed JFK. Birthers should understand that many people don't care where Obama was born. They should just shut the hell up because they sound stupid. If I'm a close-minded ass for hating birthers I don't care.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Well, if you put it that way...

[-] -3 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Whether you like it or not, the English expression "conspiracy theory" has acquired a meaning of its own. It's like "hot dog", you can't explain it by simply looking up the definition for "conspiracy" than the one for "theory". It's an English expression, and that's why it's entered in the dictionary under "conspiracy theory".

The word "theory" in this expression does not mean the same as the word "theory" when used in the context of scientific research, i.e. in the phrases Theory of Relativity and Truther's Free Fall Theory the word theory means two extremely different things. Conspiracy theories are based on beliefs, whereas scientific theories must be backed up by evidence.

Your idea that in the expressions "scientific theories" and "conspiracy theories" the word theories means the same thing is ludicrous and pathetic. Educate yourself!

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Seems like you've been effectively programmed to defend the status quo against anyone who would question it.

[-] -3 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

False assumption. Conspiracy theorists question nothing because they do not use the scientific method.

Questioning the status quo is of utmost importance and must be done in the most serious way possible, i.e. investigative journalism using the scientific method.

Conspiracy theorists such as yourself must be thrown in the garbage at once. You pollute thought.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Now you're making generalizations about conspiracy theorists, just like any racist would make generalizations about members of a given race.

Everybody in America has a right to think and question the status quo, get used to it. Your gutter language won't stop it.

[-] -3 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Saying that all conspiracy theorists are fueled by beliefs and motivated by their quest to find an evil force conspiring against them, instead of being motivated by a healthy search for the truth by using the scientific method is not a generalization, but a definition. In the same sense, saying that colored people are colored is a definition and not a generalization.

You remind me of my aunt Linda who got mad and said - "Stop saying apples are fruits! That's a generalization! You have to consider each apple individually!".

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

To say that all colored people are colored is logical, to say that all conspiracy theorists are theorists is logical too, but to say that all conspiracy theorists, or all colored people, are idiots is illogical.

[-] -3 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Seriously, do you consider that conspiracy theorists are theorists in the same sense as chemistry or biology theorists, i.e. researchers?

If so, you fail to understand the definition of conspiracy theorist.

I think all conspiracy theorists are idiots in the sense that they do not use logical thought. They use a form a lowly distorted impure thought.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I would say that conspiracy theorists are normal people in that they develop theories to understand the world around them. Some may do it more professionally than others.

A counter intelligence agent, for example, studies conspiracies on a professional level. Its important work, in fact, indispensable to our country.

"Conspiracy theorists" are just people who do the same thing on an amateur level. There is nothing wrong with being an amateur, there are amateur chemists and biologists too, just people who enjoy trying to understand things.

[-] -3 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

You do not understand the definition of conspiracy theorist.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

If you say that somebody is evil by definition, that tells me more about you than the people you are defining.

[-] 2 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

RepubliCons are evil, and that only proves I'm observant.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

I wouldn't argue with you on that one.

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

Spread the word!

[-] -2 points by salta (-1104) 2 years ago

it proves you're stupid.

[-] 0 points by JS93 (-321) 2 years ago

OK, prove it.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Who said conspiracy theorist were evil?

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Your personal superiority is what is supposed. You have no credibility with anyone here as an expert, or even being competent, with the scientific method. You are just a legend in your own mind.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

It does not matter what I am. What matters is that you are a conspiracy theorist.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

You seem to work into your definition that conspiracy theorists are by nature somehow deficient. Conspiracy theorists are just people who are interested in a certain area of knowledge.

[-] -3 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

The dictionary definition of conspiracy theorist implies that they are deficient in the area of research for they do not use the scientific method, but, instead, rely on beliefs. As per the dictionary definition, conspiracy theorists are pseudoscientific.

Someone who researches a presupposed conspiracy properly is called an investigative journalist.

Learn your definitions.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

"I'm not here looking for twinkles."

Well, that's fine, but you don't have to go calling people lizards. Although I disagree with you, I never called you a lizard.

Perhaps you're not here for twinkles, but you must be here for some purpose. Unless your purpose is just to aggravate people, I doubt you'll accomplish it by calling someone a lizard.

When I have discussions with people, some start out insulting me, then when I don't attack them in return, they are more open to considering my perspective. Perhaps you'd get the same result if you tried.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

You called me a lizard also. Is that a fact? And I thought you were against people like David Icke calling the queen of England a lizard, and there you go doing it yourself.

You'll never get people to take you seriously if you talk to them like that.

[-] 0 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

That's OK. People can decide to take me seriously or not. I'm not here looking for twinkles.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

"So, if you don't care, why do you bother replying to everyone of my comments?"

I don't intend to convince you of anything, just trying to be a good influence on you by discussing differences without resorting to insults. If you try it, people may give you a bit more credibility.

[-] -1 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

I'm not insulting you, I'm telling you a fact. You are a conspiracy theorist.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

"So, if you don't care, why do you bother replying to everyone of my comments?"

Why not? I'm here to discuss the issues whether I agree with people or not.

Some people agree with me, some disagree. The important thing is whether people can discuss their differences without sinking to the level of personal attacks.

[-] -1 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

That's fine. I discuss with people I agree with or not, however, I don't bother replying to people I don't care about. I comment on your posting because it's important to out conspiracy theorists. They are dangerous as they slay logical thought.

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

You say that conspiracy theorists don't do research, but the person whom I refer to mostly here is Lyndon Larouche. According to Wikipedia:

"Norman Bailey, formerly with the National Security Council, described LaRouche's staff in 1984 as one of the best private intelligence services in the world"

That is, they do extensive research.

[-] -1 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

You are joking right? LaRouche is a conspiracy theorist nutjob.

If you want to use Wikipedia as your proof, then you need to include all view points printed there, not only one sentence. Here are the two sentences that come just before the one you quoted:

Commentators for The Washington Post and The New York Times have described him as a conspiracy theorist and a political extremist. Some have called him fascist or antisemitic, and a 1979 editorial in the New York Times characterized his movement as a 'cult'.[3]

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

The issues are what matter to me. Your label of "conspiracy theorist" is quite without significance.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Obviously nobody here respects your opinion. No reason for me to care what you think is fact or nonsense.

[-] -1 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

So, if you don't care, why do you bother replying to everyone of my comments? Whether you say nobody cares for my opinion is not important. Some will care and some won't. And, even if no one cares, the truth is you're still a lame conspiracy theorist copy pasting from the LaRouche website, someone who's been called an anti semite and a conspiracy theorist by many many people.

BTW - Notice how others on this thread also called you a conspiracy theorist. So, some people do agree with me, even if that is not important at all.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Of course there are going to be opposing views about everything but the most basic issues. There are many people in the world who hate Larouche and many who support him. You pick your side, I'll pick mine.

The only question is, are you capable of discussing your differences with others without resorting to petty insults? Your points suggest to me that you can't.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

I consider you a conspiracy theorist. It's not so much an insult, then pointing out fact. All you do on this site is post nonsensical conspiracy theories like this one about Google.

[-] 0 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Then its just a matter of points of view, there are plenty of people here who consider you a nut job. Journalists and politicians from around the world refer to Larouche favorably.

Larouche opposes Wall Street, so of course they are going to finance his opposition big time.

[-] -2 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

You obviously can't be helped. What you did earlier was a typical conspiracy theorist trick; only quote what makes us look good and avoid the rest.

[-] -1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Your problem is that you are just a boor. You are obsessed with your supposed superiority based on the use of "scientific method". You enter a serious conversation that people are having, and say "Enough of that, let's talk about me".

Since nobody recognizes you as superior, then you get frustrated and start calling names. This is why you have no credibility with anybody here. At least, I stay on topic, which is why I have some points. Your only topic is yourself, and what a great guy you think you are.

[-] 2 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

He doesn't have a fucking clue as to the "scientific method." He has yet to prove he does.

[-] -1 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

You are obsessed with your supposed superiority based on the use of "scientific method".

The superiority of the scientific method is not supposed. It is very real.

[-] -3 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

More conspiracy theory mumbo jumbo from one of our forum's most fervent conspiracy theorists and LaRouche fan. Now watch as the other two forum "researchers" shadz66 and renneye come to arturo's rescue.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Its just conversation. If you don't like it, maybe you should go to some deserted island and start up your own totalitarian dictatorship.

[+] -4 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

When the Nazis started talking against the Jews, some people also said it was just conversation. Silly jokes at the dinner table.

Conversation can be dangerous if the counter-arguments are not provided for what are dangerous topics.

Conspiracy theories is a very dangerous topic as it melts the logical minds of people. Nowadays, because of conspiracy theories, Americans do not know reality from fiction anymore. You are hurting Americans with your topic of conversation.

[-] 4 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

For the record, Thrashy, CT's are NOT the reason Americans don't know reality from fiction. That distinction goes to MSM. Also for the record, the CT 'problem' that you see doesn't even exist. The 'conspiracy theory problem' doesn't even register on the radar, unless you count the government's involvement in discrediting it.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (22235) 2 years ago

I agree. I barely even knew of a single conspiracy theory until Thrasymaque started shedding light on them.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

He's getting worse as time goes on, sadly. Which has made me rethink my opinion of his supposed high intelligence. I'm also beginning to wonder about his motives. He's doubled-down on his 'mission' to discredit, when so many other issues are far more important.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (22235) 2 years ago

And, I'm still waiting for him to get back to me with answers to some tough questions I asked him the other day on that conspiracy thread of "treasure's" that got banned. I was looking forward to what he might have to say.

[-] 3 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I just finished reading that thread (and bookmarking, to check some of the links later). And that brings up something I find extremely amusing. Thrashy, relentless in getting conspiracy theories and theorists banned, had his own thread on the dangers of CT's banned.

Ya gotta love the irony.

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (22235) 2 years ago

Very ironic. I agree. And, I'm disappointed, sad even, that he hasn't gotten back to me with those answers. I think he'd have something interesting to say about the real issues we should be discussing.

[-] 1 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

I'm looking forward to his responses. He's smart, but seriously misguided. With all the issues he could be having positive input on, he chooses a non-issue. What a waste of time, and talent.

[-] -2 points by beautifulworld (22235) 2 years ago

Yup. That's why I'm trying so hard to re-direct him to topics that sorely need discussion.

[-] 3 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

he can direct himself

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22235) 2 years ago

Not sure about that. I know he thinks he can direct everyone else, but he's a little all over the place these days, himself.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

any regular is fluent in all arguments here

I'm tired of slapping him

[-] 0 points by gnomunny (6885) from St Louis, MO 2 years ago

Good luck with that. I actually hope you succeed. Don't know, though, he seems fixated lately.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (22235) 2 years ago

LOL. We'll see. I'm hopeful.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Quite obviously, you are the one trying to be the thought police.

[+] -5 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Conspiracy theorists are not thinkers, therefor I am not the thought police. What I am is a thought protector. I fight for logical thinking using the scientific method, and one way I do this is to call out pseudoscientific lizards like yourself.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Must be getting desperate of you have to keep stooping to the petty insults.

[+] -5 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

I'm desperately trying to make your brain think instead of just sitting there like a rotting mushroom stuck in vile goo.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Thanks for giving another example, supporting my point. All this talk about "scientific method" and the only thing you've been doing is uttering the most baseless insults. If that is your version of "scientific method".

[+] -5 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

No, I'm not using the scientific method against. you. The scientific method is the strongest of weapons, like am atomic bomb. It would be overkill. You're weak, so I merely need to use a plastic straw to fend you off.

You'll notice that in the midst of my name calling, I did give you proper definitions and arguments. Of course, those you must ignore for they completely and utterly destroy your position.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

My position is that people should be able to consider what ever area of thought that they like. Is that what you are trying to "destroy".

[+] -5 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

I am trying to destroy conspiracy theorists, nothing else. Like I said before, conspiracy theorists don't think. There's no "area of thought" in their work.

[-] 3 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

More attacking the man. You really need to update you methods. That went out of style over two thousand years ago.

[+] -5 points by bigbadbluebananaboy (-124) 2 years ago

Where do you see an attack? I'm simply stating facts. Conspiracy theorists by definition do not think, at least not when they are doing their "theories". I suggest you read Martin Heidegger's works on the theory of what is thinking. Thinking is not something that is easy and can be taken from granted. Using your brain does not necessarily mean you are thinking. Someone who is a thinker must use a rigorous form of thought process. Conspiracy theorists have no rigor in the department, so, as such, cannot be called thinkers.

[-] 2 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Here are some examples of you "scientific method":

conspiracy theorists don't think. There's no "area of thought" in their work. instead of just sitting there like a rotting mushroom stuck in vile goo. I do this is to call out pseudoscientific lizards like yourself.

All just personal attacks of the lowest order.

[-] 2 points by JoeW (109) 2 years ago

Would you look at what you implied here?

You just said you are not the thought police, because you know the right way for people to think. And so what do you expect when someone sees you here policing people to think using only one method.

Not denying scientific method, but you also must recall the history that science is founded in, hyperrational man for one, and a lot of it is also founded in the flawed epistemology of 16th century rationalism (which touted itself as the one right way for people to think). Its a good method for knowing, but not the only one available for people to use.

Conspiracies tend to lack robustness as a whole, but certain elements in some can still be enlightening, they often tackle things in a manner more consistent with systems thinking, but often fail to make the proper connections to the actual systemic impulses underpinning the behaviors of the actors, not really their fault, because they are trying to apply normal scientific method to something that requires different methodology.

That grain of truth is why some conspiracies are harder to tell from others, many really do have some truths going for them, but put together as a whole, they fall apart, the pieces don't really fit together except within the theory, stuff outside it pokes holes in it with ease. Doesn't mean you can't take true pieces of a such a theory and use them to help further your understanding.

The issue is the filtering out of all the misinformation. There are nuggets in plenty of them however that the mainstream media won't touch, because it won't get them money.