posted on May, 20 2005 @ 07:12 AM
OK. I've spent some time on this board and I've seen plenty of folk mention, off hand, such things as:
-The NWO, in all its many forms and interpretations. (Is any one person actually referring to the same thing when they use the phrase?)
-The "Globalist" conspiracy, usually involving the IMF and/or WTO.
-The Rotheschildes and Bilderbergers controlling the world from behind the scenes.
-A base at Dulce.
-Armageddon in some shape or form.
-U.N. plots of various types, usually involving black helicopters and any number of the above items.
-Books, documentaries, and claims by David Icke, Alex Jones, John Titor, and any number of other authors.
Now, what all of these have in common, so far as I can tell, is that they can all be read about in mass market paperbacks and dime-a-dozen
My rant, question, gripe, what have you, is this: How many people actually base their conspiracy theories on primary sources, instead of the
for-profit professions of others?
I suppose you could reply, "Well, no one bases all their knowledge on primary sources and first hand knowledge, completely." But some of these
theories are just so grandiose in scope they clearly defy the dictum that "all things being equal, the simplest explanation usually holds true."
When I, say, listen to some freaky sounding guy on the Art Bell show, my first reaction is to go to my library or write some letters off and try to
verify in some way what has been claimed. I wonder if this sort of reaction exists in every conspiracy theorist, or if there is a "new breed"
emerging that is just drawn to the coolest, craziest, and spookiest sounding stories. The industry is clearly there to support such a lot.
[edit on 20-5-2005 by koji_K]