Forum Post: What Constitutes A Conspiracy Theory?
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 25, 2011, 7:39 p.m. EST by Bravo
(10)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Since conspiracy theories are not tolerated, I would really like to know what constitutes a conspiracy theory.
In other words, if I say the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve banking is at the root of our economic woes. Is that a conspiracy theory?
How about if I say the Federal Reserve is not a government agency but a private corporation?
How about if I say fractional reserve banking allows banks to continue to create money out of nothing and then lend it out requiring interest be paid on essentially something that didn't exist. Is that a conspiracy theory?
The fact that World Trade Center building 7 fell at nearly free fall speed due to a fire and that building housed offices for the CIA, DOD, SEC and FEMA. Is that a conspiracy theory that will not be tolerated? Is asking questions about the collusion of multi national global corporation and the Federal government a conspiracy theory? Is the fact that even discussing these issues at this web site NOT allowed. Is that a conspiracy theory?
The IRS, Secret Service, multiple financial institutions, etc. The amount of potentially incriminating evidence destroyed on 9/11 is mind-bending. Add the murder of dozens of accountants at the Pentagon that day, and the destruction of their records.
Ever heard of the Blackstone Group and it's ties to WTC7? Where was Heinz?
J. Edgar Hoover orchestrated 9/11 from the island where he is hiding out with Elvis.
Thanks for sharing.
You sir, are a troll.
This is no conspiracy - it happened. This just released:
Audit of the Federal Reserve Reveals $16 Trillion in Secret Bailouts unelected.orghttp://unelected.org/
The first ever GAO(Government Accountability Office) audit of the Federal Reserve was carried out in the past few months due to the Ron Lawl, Alan Grayson Amendment to the Dodd-Frank bill, which passed last year. Jim DeMint, a Republican Senator, and Bernie Sanders, an independent Senator, led the charge for a Federal Reserve audit in the Senate, but watered down the original language of the house bill(HR1207), so that a complete audit would not be carried out. Ben Bernanke(pictured to the right), Alan Greenspan, and various other bankers vehemently opposed the audit and lied to Congress about the effects an audit would have on markets. Nevertheless, the results of the first audit in the Federal Reserve’s nearly 100 year history were posted on Senator Sander’s webpage earlier this morning.
What was revealed in the audit was startling:
$16,000,000,000,000.00 had been secretly given out to US banks and corporations and foreign banks everywhere from France to Scotland. From the period between December 2007 and June 2010, the Federal Reserve had secretly bailed out many of the world’s banks, corporations, and governments. The Federal Reserve likes to refer to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest. Why the Federal Reserve had never been public about this or even informed the United States Congress about the $16 trillion dollar bailout is obvious - the American public would have been outraged to find out that the Federal Reserve bailed out foreign banks while Americans were struggling to find jobs.
To place $16 trillion into perspective, remember that GDP of the United States is only $14.12 trillion. The entire national debt of the United States government spanning its 200+ year history is "only" $14.5 trillion. The budget that is being debated so heavily in Congress and the Senate is "only" $3.5 trillion. Take all of the outrage and debate over the $1.5 trillion deficit into consideration, and swallow this Red pill: There was no debate about whether $16,000,000,000,000 would be given to failing banks and failing corporations around the world.
In late 2008, the TARP Bailout bill was passed and loans of $800 billion were given to failing banks and companies. That was a blatant lie considering the fact that Goldman Sachs alone received 814 billion dollars. As is turns out, the Federal Reserve donated $2.5 trillion to Citigroup, while Morgan Stanley received $2.04 trillion. The Royal Bank of Scotland and Deutsche Bank, a German bank, split about a trillion and numerous other banks received hefty chunks of the $16 trillion.
"This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you’re-on-your-own individualism for everyone else." - Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
When you have conservative Republican stalwarts like Jim DeMint(R-SC) and Ron Lawl(R-TX) as well as self identified Democratic socialists like Bernie Sanders all fighting against the Federal Reserve, you know that it is no longer an issue of Right versus Left. When you have every single member of the Republican Party in Congress and progressive Congressmen like Dennis Kucinich sponsoring a bill to audit the Federal Reserve, you realize that the Federal Reserve is an entity onto itself, which has no oversight and no accountability.
Americans should be swelled with anger and outrage at the abysmal state of affairs when an unelected group of bankers can create money out of thin air and give it out to megabanks and supercorporations like Halloween candy. If the Federal Reserve and the bankers who control it believe that they can continue to devalue the savings of Americans and continue to destroy the US economy, they will have to face the realization that their trillion dollar printing presses will eventually plunder the world economy.
The list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit and are as follows.. Citigroup: $2.5 trillion, Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion, Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion, Bank of America: $1.344 trillion, Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion, Bear Sterns: $853 billion, Goldman Sachs: $814 billion , Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion, JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion, Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion, UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion, Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion, Lehman Brothers: $183 billion, Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion, BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion and many many more including banks in Belgium of all places View the 266-page GAO audit of the Federal Reserve(July 21st, 2011): http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation
The money supply (M3) has never been over $15-trillion so how could they have inflated the money supply $16-trillion? They lent $16 trillion by giving an overnight line of credit to the banks -- the banks put up collateral -- most of the $$$ has been paid back. Bernie Sanders (who came up with the $16-trillion figure) never told the whole truth. More: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/22/federal-reserve-12-trillion-loans_n_933615.html
Then please will YOU tell the whole truth? What was given as collateral? Toxic assets? Worthless collateralized debt obligations (CDOs)? The trash that the banks would love to get off their books? The Federal Reserve bought toxic assets from the banks and little to no loss of value to the banks, just to get them off the books of the banks. Geez, I hate it when you bank apologists sugar coat what the banks and the federal reserve did.
Why did the federal government force all banks to take the bailouts even though many did not want them?
ANS: IMO- This was to hide which banks were being protected by our corrupt leaders.
It was to prevent runs on the banks that were failing. Banks should not be allowed to get so big that their failure brings down the system. However, the solution is not to bring down the system (without a viable replacement). Suffering = bad.
My Gods! This is awesome. Please start a separate thread for this topic. It's worthy of that and more!
Sure, I probably should. But I have two wait 2 hours, because I just posted a thread. Damn rules. Please feel free to post it. :)
Na, it's yours. Consider joining The War on You: http://waronyou.com/forums/ its an enclave of people who have been cast out of the "Truth Movement" for honesty.
To begin with you labor under a misconception, and that is that all conspiracy theory is in and of itself, evidence of madness.
Conspiracy exists. Even children conspire to stay out late at night contrary to their parents wishes.
The term has simply been used in a way, with tone and inflection, combined with spin on the individual theory in question, to result in a negative connotation behind the term.
It's a very subtle form of population control and management - all using language.
Oliver Stone was labeled a conspiracy theorist on the basis of his movie JFK - and that in an op ed that appeared in the Boston Globe no less.
That does not change one fundamental fact: Oswald is, by legal definition, innocent. He never stood trial.
Further, I do not know of one credible demonstration of anyone, anywhere, having fired three shots from a bolt action rifle in under six seconds.
The hurdle you face with your topic is that most people have no idea how the federal reserve works.
There is the term itself - it implies federal ownership, regardless of the fact, thus creating a hurdle of perception difficult to overcome.
Further, you have to be able to demonstrate beyond doubt that the current mechanism of control over the fed is insufficient - and since it has impacts on the whole economy that are complex and difficult to articulate without lengthy explanation, the task is daunting.
I believe the only way to really address the issue is by going around it.
Destroy the repelican party - it is coming apart now, and all on the basis of their own lies. We can, by focusing on these lies, hasten what is otherwise a perfectly natural consequence of their own behavior.
Once the repelicans are out of the way, and once legislation is passed preventing corporate spending on our political system, we can then consider economic restructuring without worrying about whether our discussions are wrapped in negative sounding terms or not.
z
I never said, nor do I believe that all conspiracy theory is evidence of madness. So I have no idea why you think I labor under that misconception.
I agree that most people do not understand how the Federal Reserve works.
I do NOT agree that anyone should have to "demonstrate beyond doubt that the current mechanism of control over the fed is insufficient etc..." Forums are generally seen as areas to discuss ideas and exchange information. So to be dissuaded from entering into the discussion seems incongruous. Why discuss corporate money in politics since you can't PROVE a member of the house or senate voted a particular way because of influence from political contributions. If you had to PROVE everything before you discussed it, then there would be very little to discuss.
Also, I do NOT agree that the discussion of how the fed affects the economy, is so complex and difficult, why bother.
Is the following difficult to understand:
I don't think the above is too difficult to understand. IMO the only argument in favor of fractional reserve banking is that the extra money introduced into the economy stimulates the economy and fuels economic growth. But llook past the immediate stimulation of the economy and you need to consider that all that money represents debt and interest that must be paid to banks. Prices go up (inflation) and a debt bubble is created which eventually must burst. The losers of this are generally on the lower end of the economic scale. Winners are generally on the high end. Add into this economic model the fact that commercial banks can gamble money on derivatives, with no capital requirements and you get what happened in 2008.
Add to that there is still no regulation or oversight on derivatives, and we continue to have banks that are "too big too fail", we have a recipe for disaster.
The fractional reserve model might have been resonable when investment capital was reintroduced into the American economy, but now it goes all over the world, screwing the American economy. But when the $#!|| hits the fan, the first thing our government does is give an unqualified bail out the banks and financial institutions that cause the problem to begin with. Is this a conspiracy theory? Is this too difficult for the general public to grasp? Or is the general public too stupid or apathetic to care? And is that a conspiracy theory?
I agree that the term "conspiracy theory" has a negative connotation, which is exactly why I think it is ridiculous for the forum rules to say the following:
Conspiracy theories, will be removed immediately and the spammer will receive a swift global network ban. Fascist propaganda, will be treated with the similar actions. In that we are very specific about what fascism is: the word has a meaning.
I find this statement interesting because:
FASCISM: a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.
So banning people who discuss what the site moderators believe is conspiracy, might be construed as forcibly suppressing criticism. Which to me is akin to fascism.
I'm just waiting for my conspiracy theory nonsense to get removed.
Well, it is still here, and not only that, I can respond to it, so I believe it may be safe to assume that what you have posted does not fit the moderator's definition.
And you've done a very nice job of articulating your position regarding the fed. I'm not an economist, and am therefore in no position to examine your argument in search of weakness or omission.
I would point out that it would be difficult to put on a bumper sticker. Teach ins on the topic would be an effective way of getting the message out there, I know that the Burlington GA has been attempting to attach teach ins to various protest events. Other GAs may be receptive to this method as well.
The problem is that you are still restricted in terms of audience to those who have the time and the inclination to participate in such events.
Simply screaming in the streat: close the fed will not generate the right kind of media attention in a reliable manner.
I wouldn't worry too much about the conspiracy theory issue. I would focus on your argument regarding the fed. Hone it for consumption by those who know nothing about matters of finance - but do so in a way that those who do will find no cause for dispute.
So far you're fine, just, whatever you do, do NOT say that Ron Paul intends to abolish the Federal Reserve.
Don't say that.
Is the official explanation of 9-11, 19 Arabs hijacking 4 planes, flying around in our airspace for several hours, overwhelming our multi billion dollar defense system, under the leadership of Osama bin Laden, - a "conspiracy theory?"
By admission of the FBI, bin Laden was not on the 10 most wanted list for his 'theoretical role' in 9-11, because they claim there was not enough evidence to charge him with that crime.
Funny, the organizers of this web site say they are against fascism, and yet they wish to suppress any content that they think is a conspiracy theory. Doesn't that seem like a contradiction?
I agree.
The "rule" against posting conspiracy theories is a pretty silly.
Capitalism is the biggest most collusive conspiracy of them all.
It's not a conspiracy theory if it's true !
If I would've claimed a week ago, that they want to and will do something like this... would I have been labeled as fringe, paranoid, or a conspiracy theorist? (I wonder if they conspired first, or if this bill just appeared all by itself without any discussion, will or agenda)
::::::::::::::::Senators Demand the Military Lock Up American Citizens::::::::::::::::
::::::::in a “Battlefield” They Define as Being Right Outside Your Window::::::::
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being
((Nov 23rd, 2011))
While nearly all Americans head to family and friends to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Senate is gearing up for a vote on Monday or Tuesday that goes to the very heart of who we are as Americans. The Senate will be voting on a bill that will direct American military resources not at an enemy shooting at our military in a war zone, but at American citizens and other civilians far from any battlefield — even people in the United States itself.
Senators need to hear from you... https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA ...on whether you think your front yard is part of a “battlefield” and if any president can send the military anywhere in the world to imprison civilians without charge or trial.
The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president—and every future president — the power... https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA ...to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world. Even Rep. Ron Lawl (R-Texas) raised his concerns about the NDAA detention provisions during last night’s Republican debate. The power is so broad that even U.S. citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.
The worldwide indefinite detention without charge or trial provision... https://secure.aclu.org/site/Advocacy?cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=3865&s_subsrc=fixNDAA ...is in S. 1867, the National Defense Authorization Act bill, which will be on the Senate floor on Monday. The bill was drafted in secret... http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress/senate-panel-pushes-ahead-with-defense-bill-over-white-house-objections-on-terror-suspect-plan/2011/11/15/gIQAEUoYPN_story.html ...by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) and passed in a closed-door committee meeting, without even a single hearing.
(((Continue Reading the rest of this article Here)))
http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/senators-demand-military-lock-american-citizens-battlefield-they-define-being
Well, conspiracies exist all the time. You can conspire to make a film and not release any details until it hits the theaters, for example. Any criminal enterprise involving more than one person is legally a conspiracy, as another example. That would even include petty things like vandalism.
The term "conspiracy theory" though seems to have a more specific use, to refer to ideas that are generally bizarre and arrive at their conclusions through very suspect methodology. It's a subjective term; one person's conspiracy theory might be the next person's plausible explanation.
So I'll give my subjective views.
In other words, if I say the Federal Reserve system and fractional reserve banking is at the root of our economic woes. Is that a conspiracy theory?
No, thats just an economic opinion. Could be right, could be wrong, but an incorrect economic opinion would not be a conspiracy theory anyway (unless it were something like the Jews control the world, or something like that).
How about if I say the Federal Reserve is not a government agency but a private corporation?
This is not a conspiracy theory and it is a technically correct statement, but its not quite accurate. The Federal Reserve is privately operated, that is, it is not part of the civil service and operates largely independantly. However, it is not privately owned, it is publicly owned. Sort of. The government appoints the Board of Directors, it has congressional oversight, and the profits go to the government. It does, however, have "member banks" that are privately owned. So really its not clearly either private or public, it has characteristics of both.
How about if I say fractional reserve banking allows banks to continue to create money out of nothing and then lend it out requiring interest be paid on essentially something that didn't exist. Is that a conspiracy theory?
No. That is money creation in a fractional reserve banking system. Every first-year economics student learns this. Certainly not a conspiracy theory.
I conspired a theory that judging by the emptiness of my fridge yesterday, that I would probably have to go buy groceries today. Guess what happened ..I did...
It was only a theory, but I conspired to do it, and I'll be damned. It really happened.
Proof again, that yesterday's conspiracy theory often becomes today's fact. And a full fridge.
I'd say an inability to let any rational thought undermine your point of view.
It constitutes conspirators are all agreeing to keep quiet about their actions of course.
Conspiracy therories are usually conceived plots, with disputed thruthfulness, whose purpose would be obtaining advantages for a specific party.
In common language, when in speech someone refers to "conspiracy theory" the speaker points out the academical nature of the plot, unlikely to exist in real life.
Also, conspiracy theories consitute a type of literature, in which the writer - basing himself on real life circumstances - makes assumptions of the causes and purposes behind it. The truthfulness of such assumptions is difficult to proof and sometimes the assumptions can even be misleading (i.e. UFO theories; american security agencies foreign affairs etc.). The real goal of any writer of conspiracy litterature is to create an unique, desirable and realistic theory for the reader, in order to make his work profitable.
(I tried to be as accurate as possible; hope it answers your point)
i can't speak to the point of what the site admins will say, but in essence, a theory is an idea which can't be proven, whereas a conspiracy fact is a conspiracy which is backed by solid evidence. Generally speaking, they call them conspiracy theories in order to invalidate them.
This site is not the place to explore such issues because they are too complicated and off topic, it makes more sense to use the wiki, where it can all get organized.
if i was running the site i would do the same thing, theres not enough room on this forum for such noise and confusion and ultimately the press is likely to use such in order to make us out to be wingnuts.
About 9 out of ten conspiracy theories are garbage... and this is not the place to sort it all out.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Israel;_A_Fascist_Rogue_State
The wiki on the other hand can handle the bandwidth and complexity and organizational problems effectively.
The problem is that this site is about occupy wall street protest. So a discussion of money and the current monetary model is very relevant. Unfortunately, in the minds of many, to say that the Federal Reserve a private corporation owned by member banks that has complete control of monetary policy and in practice is completely independent. In the words of Allen Greenspan "there is no other agency of the government that can overrule actions that we take". But if you mention this, they immediately label you as a wacky conspiracy theorist that shouldn't be allowed to say such things. The problems with wall street are a direct result from a lack of oversight and transparency with the federal reserve.
You have to talk about banksters meeting at Jekyll Island in order to make it a conspiracy theory.
More on conspiracy theories:
http://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n8qzuvvoEU