- 4,019
- Riga
The Illuminati and other Conspiracy Theories thread
- Thread starter Ryanswannell
- 1,373 comments
- 86,284 views
Alex jones being banned or having blogs banned from multiple streaming services.
Any thaughts?
I think it's ok. Those platforms have the right not to be associated with sandy hook deniers.
And while jones has the right to express his opinion he doesn't have a right to anyone's platform but his own.
Any thaughts?
I think it's ok. Those platforms have the right not to be associated with sandy hook deniers.
And while jones has the right to express his opinion he doesn't have a right to anyone's platform but his own.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
I think it's pretty Rotten, what we just saw was a collaboration between Silicon Valleys Giant Tec company's to take out what they thought of as a problem.
Sure they have the right to, but the collaboration I'm not a fan of, and the way it was done does not look like it will be the last person.
I'm not defending what Alex Jones does though, he is a clear as day liar, who pushes it at comedic rate.
@mustafur I can accept that it's uncomfortable. I myself find it uncomfortable, but didthey actually agreed on thisband done it?
As I understood Spotify initiated it, from a marketing point of view you need to react to that. Not doing so could as wel mean you're going to become the far right conspiracy ass of social networks. And we all know the regressive left will most defenitly try and get your advertisers to drop you for that. Hence the smart thing to do is follow suit.
On the other hand you get away with a lot of **** on a lot of social network sites.
Claiming tragedies like sandy hook didn't happen is not something you should get away with.
And his kind of following have been proven to be ok to act on what they hear/read. Like the guy who went into the pizza shop armed and.ready to expose pizzagate.
As I understood Spotify initiated it, from a marketing point of view you need to react to that. Not doing so could as wel mean you're going to become the far right conspiracy ass of social networks. And we all know the regressive left will most defenitly try and get your advertisers to drop you for that. Hence the smart thing to do is follow suit.
On the other hand you get away with a lot of **** on a lot of social network sites.
Claiming tragedies like sandy hook didn't happen is not something you should get away with.
And his kind of following have been proven to be ok to act on what they hear/read. Like the guy who went into the pizza shop armed and.ready to expose pizzagate.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
It's stupid because essentially it's a ban for an opinion, a factually wrong one at that, but facts are not law. The internet was a place people could have an opinion but with the large mega companies formed from it, it's trying to play with morals.
The ban is easily going to have the opposite effect though, like these guys know what they are doing.
Alex Jones prays for this to happen.
But it's not criminalised (in the US). He still has every right to spew his ********,... over at infowars. Just FB said we use our freedom of speech to say we don't want your speech on our platform.
When the government would start saying they have to have the right to be on fb it's stopping fb's free speech.
First the internet IS a place where you can express your idea's if you want so. You do have to buy a domain (which is cheap). You don't have the righ to use other people domain to use your free speech.
You have everh right to ban someone feom your house for using speech you don't agree with. This wouldn't mean he can't use his speech anymore. He can, just not in your home.
Your last paragraph + final thought is making this a difficult issue. I think we lose either way. Banning it gives him more ammo to work with, on the other hand giving those people all platforms as if that's a right is just as counterproductive as they know many people operate under the idea where there's smoke there is fire and are thus very easy to convince they say something truthfull.
So I don't know the answer to this question and I don't really want to have a formed opinion but for as much/little research I've done so far I still don't know which way to swing. So I'm interested in your (everyones) opinion.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
The thing is these companies are based on expressing yourself, now they are deciding what is ok and what is not, and they are combining together leaving no out for others.
Use the business argument all you want but if it was your opinion in that was being banned what would you think then?
The Free market will eventually correct either way, Facebook and Youtube are losing their way.
Ow but I don't believe in the goodness of the free market. But I think I see a very big diffrence in perspective. I don't believe fb was ever created to express yourself, it was add machine from start as we, the users, never had to pay. I thus also believe fb or spotify or... ever had the intention of applying morals but had the intention to maximise profit.
I don't think banning is ok because of the slippery slope argument but fb defenitly has the right to deceide what happens in their house.
The fact that all major social media follows suit probably means marketwise it's the best choice. I don't think they hired a dark room got togather and conspired to block alex jones.
An other issue is while I accept free speech and am afraid of the slippery slope, I don't think speech is without harm. Talking about sandy hook as if it's a false flag is harmfull to all the survivors and those left without their loved ones. This while this particular speech isn't benefitial in any way.
The fact that people still listen to Alex jones shows keeping the idea alive for the sake of free speech doesn't help.
The biggest issue with conspiracies is that wathever good fact you come up with as counter argument can be dismissed as falsified to cover up the conspiracy so discussing it is counterproductive.
The next thing is we on gtp like to discuss things to see other points of view and/or have our views challenged in other words to learn. If a 'winning' in this situation means learning for both parties and onlookers. There is however an other side to debating where content is 'irrelevant' but where being the one who makes the assertions and being the one who keeps the debate moving is considered winning by an audience so form over content. And this is exactly the way they use free speech they don't defend statements they just push on to rhe next attack due to which a significant part of the population considers them the winner and thus his opinion must be fact. In that regard freedom of speech is hurting the thruth.
- 23,800
- Philippines
Here's the thing:
Nobody is silencing Alex Jones. He still has his very own website to spew whatever potentially libelous or damaging BS he wants.
It's just that sharing platforms are starting to decide they don't want to be part of any messy legal or civil (or civic?) actions springing from that.
-
There's no such thing as completely unfettered free speech, online, mind you... or even offline.
Not even the sanctified First Amendment will protect you from the consequences of promoting Child Pornography or inciting rebellion.
-
I weep not for the idiot. He will probably still do very good business catering to the conspiracy crowd... who will find particular glee in accessing his now harder to reach material. (It's an entire Google Search away! )
Nobody is silencing Alex Jones. He still has his very own website to spew whatever potentially libelous or damaging BS he wants.
It's just that sharing platforms are starting to decide they don't want to be part of any messy legal or civil (or civic?) actions springing from that.
-
There's no such thing as completely unfettered free speech, online, mind you... or even offline.
Not even the sanctified First Amendment will protect you from the consequences of promoting Child Pornography or inciting rebellion.
-
I weep not for the idiot. He will probably still do very good business catering to the conspiracy crowd... who will find particular glee in accessing his now harder to reach material. (It's an entire Google Search away! )
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Perhaps, but anybody who thinks that their entire motive is so altruistic is probably kidding themselves.
Yes, it's their right to free speech in their name. I thought you'd support that?
They're choosing the same thing. If two (or more parties) choose to say, for example, that they don't want to carry the messages of an individual who publicly harangues the parents of murdered children and calls them 'liars' then it's hard to think that's the wrong decision, surely?
I'd be annoyed, I imagine, wouldn't you? Let's be clear though - no opinions are being banned, it's just that some parties are choosing no to have those opinions broadcast in their name. Alex Jones would be proud of that kind of stance.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 4,806
- Sweden
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Unexplained animal mutilations have been a thing since the 70's. After much reading and research (yes, I've seen dead cows), I tentatively concluded the phenomenon was due to a covert epidemiological survey, a good(?) thing. Remember Mad Cow disease?
Still occurring at a low rate in the US, it seems to be booming in South America.
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/08/unexplained-cattle-mutilations-linked-to-lights-in-the-sky/
Unexplained Cattle Mutilations Linked to Lights in the Sky
Brett TingleyAugust 10, 2018
A classic example of unexplained cattle mutilation has just hit Argentina, and veterinarians are at a loss to explain what could have caused the unfortunate animals’ injuries. According to Argentine newspaper Clarín, a rancher in the village of Colonia Durán woke up to discover seven of his cows horrifically mutilated without a trace of blood nearby. Even more horrifying, each of the seven was pregnant.
Why do they always go for the anuses?
Clarín reports that the animals were found with their tongues and genitals surgically removed with “precise cuts.” Local rancher Norberto Bieri told Clarín that experts have inspected the animals and are at a loss to explain how these wounds might have been inflicted with such precision and cleanliness:
Even stranger, eyewitnesses reported that scavengers and insects refused to touch the mutilated carcasses lying in their fields. Of course, the legendary chupacabra has been thrown around as a possible suspect, but Norberto Bieri believes the mutilations might have extraterrestrial explanation, claiming to have witnessed anomalous aerial phenomena coinciding with similar unexplained mutilations in the area. “The thing about the lights is true,” Bieri told reporters. “I’ve seen it.”
If aliens are responsible, why do they only seem to choose cows for their victims?
Cattle mutilations remain one of the more macabre modern mysteries. Argentina is a major beef producer, so livestock mutilations are fairly common there as a result. It’s often claimed that alien experimentation is to blame for this gruesome phenomenon, although there is little hard evidence suggesting that may indeed be true. Are military groups testing new forms of weapons on livestock? Could these cattle be the unfortunate victims of occult rituals? Why is there rarely any blood left at the scenes of these mutilations? And what is being done with all of those cow anuses and genitals?
Oh, right.
Still occurring at a low rate in the US, it seems to be booming in South America.
https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/08/unexplained-cattle-mutilations-linked-to-lights-in-the-sky/
Unexplained Cattle Mutilations Linked to Lights in the Sky
Brett TingleyAugust 10, 2018
A classic example of unexplained cattle mutilation has just hit Argentina, and veterinarians are at a loss to explain what could have caused the unfortunate animals’ injuries. According to Argentine newspaper Clarín, a rancher in the village of Colonia Durán woke up to discover seven of his cows horrifically mutilated without a trace of blood nearby. Even more horrifying, each of the seven was pregnant.
Clarín reports that the animals were found with their tongues and genitals surgically removed with “precise cuts.” Local rancher Norberto Bieri told Clarín that experts have inspected the animals and are at a loss to explain how these wounds might have been inflicted with such precision and cleanliness:
Even stranger, eyewitnesses reported that scavengers and insects refused to touch the mutilated carcasses lying in their fields. Of course, the legendary chupacabra has been thrown around as a possible suspect, but Norberto Bieri believes the mutilations might have extraterrestrial explanation, claiming to have witnessed anomalous aerial phenomena coinciding with similar unexplained mutilations in the area. “The thing about the lights is true,” Bieri told reporters. “I’ve seen it.”
Cattle mutilations remain one of the more macabre modern mysteries. Argentina is a major beef producer, so livestock mutilations are fairly common there as a result. It’s often claimed that alien experimentation is to blame for this gruesome phenomenon, although there is little hard evidence suggesting that may indeed be true. Are military groups testing new forms of weapons on livestock? Could these cattle be the unfortunate victims of occult rituals? Why is there rarely any blood left at the scenes of these mutilations? And what is being done with all of those cow anuses and genitals?
Oh, right.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Well, that was a graphic shock as I ate my lunch.
UKMikey
Premium
- 18,389
- Grea'er Laandan
- UKMikeyA
- UKMikeyA
I gave up waiting for an explanation and googled the conspiracy theory.With respect... could you just write why?I don't fancy agreeing to that huge tracking statement just to watch that video
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...to-the-only-conspiracy-alex-jones-doesnt-like
Vice
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Vice
Vice really don't like Bill Hicks!
Aside from that... that's really quite stupid, but if it annoys Alex Jones then I suppose it's worth it
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Is there a conspiracy, even if only intuitive and inchoate, for government and mainstream media to collude in denying the truth to the people? The up and down career of investigative journalist Seymour Hersh is instructive.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/seymour-hersh-and-the-disappearing-iconoclast/
Seymour Hersh and the Disappearing Iconoclast
He won a Pulitzer for My Lai and cracked Abu Ghraib wide open. But this reporter is still a lonely breed.
By JAMES BOVARD • August 17, 2018
Journalist Seymour Hersh in 2009. Credit: Institute for Policy Studies/Flickr
Seymour Hersh, Reporter: A Memoir, Sy Hersh. Knopf, June 2018, 368 pages
When people are comforted by government lies, trafficking the truth becomes hellishly difficult. Disclosing damning facts is especially tricky when editors en masse lose their spines. These are some of the takeaways from legendary Seymour Hersh’s riveting new memoir, Reporter.
Shortly before Hersh started covering the Pentagon for the Associated Press in 1965, Arthur Sylvester, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, berated a group of war correspondents in Saigon: “Look, if you think any American official is going to tell you the truth, then you’re stupid. Did you hear that? Stupid.” Hersh was astonished by the “stunningly sedate” Pentagon press room, which to him resembled “a high-end social club.”
Hersh never signed on to that stenographers’ pool. He was soon shocked to realize“the extent to which the men running the war would lie to protect their losing hand.” Hersh did heroic work in the late 1960s and early 1970s exposing the lies behind the Vietnam War. His New Yorker articles on the My Lai massacre scored a Pulitzer Prize and put atrocities in headlines where they remained till the war’s end.
Hersh’s 1974 expose on the CIA’s illegal spying on Americans helped spur one of the best congressional investigations of federal wrongdoing since World War II. (Many of the well-written reports from the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities remain regrettably relevant to the Leviathan in our time.) By the late 1970s, despite revelations of CIA assassinations and other atrocities, Hersh was chagrined that “[n]o one in the CIA had been prosecuted for the crimes that had been committed against the American people and the Constitution.” Welcome to Washington.
Any journalist who has been hung out to dry will relish Hersh’s revelations of editors who flinched. After Hersh joined the Washington bureau of the New York Times, he hustled approval for an article going to the heart of foreign policy perfidy. Bureau chief Max Frankel finally approved a truncated version of Hersh’s pitch with the caveat that he should run the story by “Henry [Kissinger] and [CIA chief] Dick [Helms].” Hersh was horrified: “They were the architects of the idiocy and criminality I was desperate to write about.” A subsequent Washington bureau chief noted that the Times “was scared to death of being first on a controversial story that challenged the credibility of the government.”
After Hersh exited the Times, snaring high-profile newshole became more challenging. When he pitched a piece to the New Yorker on the turmoil and coverups permeating the 1989 U.S. invasion of Panama, editor Robert Gottlieb told him to “go for it.” But as Hersh was exiting Gottlieb’s office, the editor added: “Sy, I just want you to know that I don’t like controversy.” Gottlieb had the wrong dude. Elsewhere in the book, Hersh slams a gutless specimen at Life magazine, “If there is a journalism hell, that editor belongs there;” he also clobbers the Times business section’s “ass-kissing coterie of moronic editors.” On the other hand, throwing a typewriter through a plate glass window would perturb even the paper’s non-moronic editors.
Despite superb demolitions by Hersh and other reporters, the credibility of government agencies soon revived like a salamander growing a new tail. After Nixon was toppled, “the pendulum had swung back to a place where a president’s argument that national security trumps the people’s right to know was once again carrying weight with editors and publishers,” Hersh noted. A few weeks before the 9/11 attacks, New York Times columnist Flora Lewis, wrote that “there will probably never be a return to the… collusion with which the media used to treat presidents, and it is just as well.” But the collapse of the World Trade Center towers made the media more craven than at any time since Vietnam. Washington Post Pentagon correspondent Thomas Ricks complained that, in the lead-up to the U.S. invasion of Iraq, “There was an attitude among editors: ‘Look, we’re going to war, why do we even worry about all this contrary stuff?’”
Hersh’s career revived after 9/11 with a series of New Yorker exposés on the lies, failures, and shenanigans of the War on Terror. He soon “began to comprehend that 8 or 9 neoconservatives who were political outsiders in the Clinton years had essentially overthrown the government of the United States—with ease.” Hersh eventually concluded that “America’s neocons were a menace to civilization.” But, with the exception of his explosive work on Abu Ghraib and the torture scandal, his articles rarely received the attention they deserved. Hersh’s reports on the war on terror have been far more accurate and prescient than the vast majority of the stories touted by cable news, but he is rarely credited for his foresight.
In recent years, Hersh has been criticized for writing articles that rely too heavily on too few, and not altogether authoritative sources. After his articles on the killing of Osama Bin Laden (he presented an alternative scenario that questioned the Pentagon’s version of events) and White House claims about a 2013 Syrian chemical weapons attack were rejected by American publications, he published them in London Review of Books and has continued to publish his gumshoe reporting there and in places like Germany’s Welt am Sonntag. In his book, Hersh declares that “insider sources” are “what every reporter needs.” But some of the sources he now relies on may have long since retired or no longer have access to 24 karat insider information.
There are some excellent investigative journalists at New York Times, USA Today, and elsewhere, but the most visible media venues have often ignored the most potentially damning stories. The mainstream media continues to pursue Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential campaign like Captain Ahab chasing Moby Dick. At the same time, they almost completely ignore how U.S. government manipulations are paving the path to war with Iran. Most of the American media coverage of the Syrian civil war has been appalling, touting a fairytale of terrorist extremists as freedom fighters, and ignoring the flip-flops and contradictions in U.S. policy. In a 2013 interview, Hersh derided the American media’s fixation on “looking for [Pulitzer] prizes. It’s packaged journalism so you pick a target like are railway crossings safe and stuff like that.”
Reporting nowadays rarely penetrates the Leviathan’s armor. Fourteen years after Hersh broke Abu Ghraib, many of the details of the post- 9/11 torture scandal remain unrevealed. Could anyone imagine Liuetenant William Calley, who was convicted of mass murder for the 1968 My Lai carnage, subsequently becoming a favorite media commentator on military ethics, foreign policy, and democracy? No. But the main culprits in the torture scandal and coverup—from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, to former CIA chief John Brennan—are all regularly touted these days as founts of wisdom. The veneration of Bush, Cheney, and Brennan is one of the starkest measures of the failure of journalism in our time.
Hersh’s Reporter has plenty of tips for journalists willing to vigorously hound government wrongdoing. But finding good venues for smoking guns may be more difficult now than ever. As Assistant Pentagon Secretary Sylvester scoffed at reporters in that 1965 Saigon briefing, “I don’t even have to talk to you people. I know how to deal with you through your editors and publishers back in the States.” Unfortunately, there are too many editors and publishers who would rather kowtow than fight.
James Bovard is the author of Lost Rights, Attention Deficit Democracy, andPublic Policy Hooligan. He is also on the USA Today Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter @JimBovard.
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/seymour-hersh-and-the-disappearing-iconoclast/
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
The sudden evacuation and closure of a solar observatory by the FBI may be the latest and hottest conspiracy topic on the web. Theories start with aliens, but include terrorism, catastrophism and espionage.
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article218345090.html#storylink=cpy
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/nation-world/article218345090.html#storylink=cpy
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
It's probably just a coincidence, or another rumor, but these other observatories were said to have also been suddenly closed the same day:
- AXIS 232D Network Dome Camera located in Sydney Australia
- Webcams located at SOAR Observatory
- The Southern Astrophysical Research Telescope located in Chile BRT Tenerife Telescope
- Webcam located in Spain Webcam located at Mauna Kea observatory at the University of Hawaii Hilo
- Webcam from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope observatory in Hawaii
- Webcam at JAT OBservatory in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania
- AXIS 232D Network Dome Camera located in Sydney Australia
- Webcams located at SOAR Observatory
- The Southern Astrophysical Research Telescope located in Chile BRT Tenerife Telescope
- Webcam located in Spain Webcam located at Mauna Kea observatory at the University of Hawaii Hilo
- Webcam from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope observatory in Hawaii
- Webcam at JAT OBservatory in Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
That sounds like one of a couple of scenarios. Either they use the same core server or, more likely, they share a network component that's contaminated/compromised. By human activity.
EDIT: A quick google suggests another (much less plausible but not impossible) theory - there's some activity going on related to the Russian satellite that was in the news a few weeks ago. I'm not sure that would need a large on-site FBI presence though, or that those specific observatories would go dark when others aren't doing the same.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Latest best rumor: Chinese spy cameras, antennae and other spyware were discovered at the Sunspot observatory. The observatory has a commanding view of White Sands test range and Holloman AFB.
Similar threads
