It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Paranoics Playground.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Well thank you for informing me that there are two sides to an argument, I did not realise that beforehand.

The thread is my theorem on the sudden emergence of 'new age conspiracism'. If you have any other theories why this has suddenly come about please bring them to the table for discussion. I am not expecting to end at a definate conclusion and was not to begin with.

I do believe eventually a one world government will emerge, how long it will take I cannot predict.

Just to inform you the term 'skeptical conformist' in the jargon of conpiracism is actually not an oxymoron since the terms do not contradict each other.

[edit on 20-12-2006 by superpaul55]




posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 07:51 PM
link   
Sucper, as stated your theorom starts out on the wrong foot, due to the fact that your facts are wrong.


Sucper Paul, recent polls indicate that over 55% of Americans believe that we have been visited by extraterrestrials from other planets. I could be wrong, but I doubt very seriously that if polls were taken on some of the other conspiracies you mentioned, those said polls would come even close to 55%. It seems to me you are getting your data from this site, a site that quite frankly, can have extreme topics discussed.

The belief among humans that we are being visited is, by and far the most popular belief on the planet. By the nature of your topics, it seems that perhaps this scares you? Once again, I'm glad I could be of some assistance, Sucper Paul.


As far as a sudden emergance of the belief in extraterrestrial visitation, this idea hasn't be as "sudden" as you would think. Some quick research by yourself, can verify this.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 07:54 PM
link   
I am not debating the emergence of the crowd believing in extra terrestrials, I am debating the 'new age conspiracist movement'. They are not the same.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
Well thank you for informing me that there are two sides to an argument, I did not realise that beforehand.

The thread is my theorem on the sudden emergence of 'new age conspiracism'. If you have any other theories why this has suddenly come about please bring them to the table for discussion. I am not expecting to end at a definate conclusion and was not to begin with.

I do believe eventually a one world government will emerge, how long it will take I cannot predict.


It isn't new. You just have been misled. The New Age isn't new either. None of this is new. I'm rather conformist on some things, and less so on others. But as is the tendency of we humans, we tend to stereotype people we disagree with. For example, those who are not christians think christians are the reason the UFO reality hasn't been revealed. It surprises them to learn that many christians also believe in the reality of UFOs, although the interpretation may be different, the desire to see it brought out of closet is practically the same. You are told or lead to believe, by those who have a particular agenda, that these people over here, or those people over there, are your enemies. It's not just true for the non-skeptic but for the skeptic as well. See, this is all one big battle of ideas. The last guy standing is the one with the biggest/most guns, currently, due to the mainstream focus on survival of the fittest scenarios, which are the real problem IMO (But you know what opinions are).



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Palasheea,

I'm just paraphrasing the OP. I find it really ludicrous when people toss around absolutes like that. Think about it. Skeptical Conformists. That's a huge oxymoron. This guy apparently doesn't see the irony of it at all.


I know... it's sad isn't it?



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
I agree with you on the basis that it is not new, but however since the introduction of the internet the 'new age conspiracy' movement has certainly gained alot more recognition and grown massively. I claimed this is my original post and this is why I am interested. What I am concerned with in the post is where this movement is heading towards in the future due to this gain of growth. It is a political movement after all and is therefore of importance to society as a whole. As you say this is one 'big battle of ideas', this is an idea and involved in the battle.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
I agree with you on the basis that it is not new, but however since the introduction of the internet the 'new age conspiracy' movement has certainly gained alot more recognition and grown massively. I claimed this is my original post and this is why I am interested. What I am concerned with in the post is where this movement is heading towards in the future due to this gain of growth. It is a political movement after all and is therefore of importance to society as a whole. As you say this is one 'big battle of ideas', this is an idea and involved in the battle.


It's too late superpaul. You've already managed to alienate a good many members of this board with your bullying and rude remarks -- not to mention all your slanted interpretations of anything that we say or show so as to make us look like complete fools when in fact we are anything but that.
A few minutes ago I almost was feeling sorry for you when you got philisophical on us but that quickly passed and truth be told, I think you need to take a breather and come back here sometime when the holidays are over.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55

The best possible explanation I have concluded for this is that these people are the first, or some of the first to show signs of 'future shock'.

This 'new age conspiricism' I have concluded is the slowly emerging threat to society. It cannot be prevented and as I have stated is the result of a mixture of future shock and separation.


"conclusions" is a term which usually suggest there is no room for debate. When one uses the term "i have concluded", this usually suggests that they seek no further information on the subject, and have already reached a "conclusion" that they accept is the truth.


No proof or evidence is required for the conspiracist or the worshipper, just faith or willingness to believe.


Since "conclusions" have already been made (which suggests no further input is required), without supplying "proof" , then which catagory would you fit into? Are you the conspiracist or the worshipper?



The parallels between religion and conspiracism are huge, but go easily unnoticed even by the conspiracist and worshipper. Put simply - Heaven is to the Christian as 'The Truth' is to the conspiracist. They believe as soon as the public consciousness is aware of this truth, all will be good.


You said:
"They believe as soon as the public consciousness is aware of this truth, all will be good."

Is it wrong to believe that when the truth is known all will be good?
Certainly you are not implying you are ant-truth, are you? You know some people would consider that stance on "truth" to belong to a disinfo-agent. But, don't worry what other people think. I still love you.




[edit on 20-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   
It is not my fault you cannot hold real debate Palasheea. Go and tell some people about your 'experiences' and how reptilians are 'interdimensional' beings. Internetuser said you brought irrelavence to the threads and I totally agree. You just find it hard because you have nothing of interest to anyone to bring to the forum, only your quite bizzare prophetic and spiritual jargon which the majority ignore. Nobody believes your 'itc experimentor' claims and everybody knows what your doing. Try and slander me as much as you can. It only makes me look more correct about my theories.

[edit on 20-12-2006 by superpaul55]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
I agree with you on the basis that it is not new, but however since the introduction of the internet the 'new age conspiracy' movement has certainly gained alot more recognition and grown massively. I claimed this is my original post and this is why I am interested. What I am concerned with in the post is where this movement is heading towards in the future due to this gain of growth. It is a political movement after all and is therefore of importance to society as a whole. As you say this is one 'big battle of ideas', this is an idea and involved in the battle.


You had commented that it's the emergence of the crowd into these theories, that bothers you and that you see as a future dilemma. The problem is, you're using the internet to define the crowd, and frankly, there's so many people out there that don't own a computer or are not even remotely interested in these issues, that have absolutely no idea. They just go with the flow because they can't afford to expend the time and effort making conscience choices. If challenged on the subject, they look to whoever makes official proclamations for their particular belief system, mark it off the list of unanswered questions and go about their daily lives. Some don't even bother to find the answers because they don't care. And some, don't want the answers because it scares them. And yet others, don't have time to find the answers or have other issues that take precedence (like dying family members, personal illnesses, and so on). These are the people who you should worry about. The ones that follow the party line, whatever that might be, without asking themselves if what they are being told is even true to begin with or that there's even a reason they should want to be informed. Informed choices are always the best, even if the choice is in disagreement with someone elses, but at least, it's an informed choice. Making uninformed decisions because you don't have time to find out, or the desire or courage to know if it's the right choice, is really the biggest advantage dictators have over the populace at large.

[edit on 20-12-2006 by undo]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 08:59 PM
link   
It looks to me like the OP is projecting his "future shock" fear of the internet onto everyone else.

Knowing that Power is a corrupting influence, it is our duty to question the motivations of those who wield the power, even if there isn't absolute proof of corruption.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 09:00 PM
link   
Esoteric, I see you have taken to your hobby of taking apart sentences. The reason I have posted this is to hear other peoples conclusions and ideas.

I have made my conclusion does not imply it stays constant into the future.

I had concluded there are similarities between religion and conspiracism, not that you must be a member of either.

"They believe as soon as the public consciousness is aware of this truth"
The key word for you is 'this'.

"Is it wrong to believe that when the truth is known all will be good?" - I assume you talk of your truth and therefore yes, you would believe all will be good. Please correct me if I am wrong.

I never said I was anti or pro truth, simply that the 'new age conspiracist' is pro his truth.

Do you have any opinions on the matter at hand at whole?



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
I'd like to add that the scientists of 400 years ago had a particulary peculiar set of circumstances to deal with. They were in a moral dilemma that vacilliated between their faith in the Holy Roman Church and what nature was telling them. Eventually, enough of them challenged the mainstream answer to science to bring the truth regarding various aspects of science in nature, to life. We have arrived at yet another such line of demarcation between officialdom and emerging truth, however now, the shoe has switched feet. Instead of the scientists fighting to get the truth out, they have taken over the role of the officiating priests, pontificating truth to all and sundry and holding religiously to their interpretation, fighting tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. I realize a certain amount of conformity is necessary to arrive at answers and solutions, but that conformity should never become an ends to a means or you end right back to the same spot. Even conformity needs to take a back seat to the truth, but of course, that's interpreted locally, not universally, from what I can tell.

And if the interpretation is local (and it is), there's really no need in bashing each other upside the head for a difference of opinion, since it's the fact we even have an opinion of our very own, that shows we've taken the time to investigate and make informed choices.

[edit on 20-12-2006 by undo]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Back to the original post, I think that there are many ways to look at it. I base all of my opinions on conspiracy theories on the facts that I have and my interpretation of them. I believe there was a 9/11 conspiracy of some sort (even if it was just that we intentionally looked the other way, that's still technically a conspiracy ... I don't have a set opinion on what it is though). I do not believe in any sort of NWO situation, I think that there are simply a few with the power and the money but they will NOT take over the world. I do not believe in chemtrails, but do believe in many psychic and paranormal theories.

The lone exception to this is alien existence. To my analytical mind, there is not enough direct evidence to say they do definitively exist. However the pure number of planets in the universe, combined with a simple personal feeling is enough for me to say, yes, I believe in alien life. Do I believe in annukai etc? I think it's possible, but most likely not.

My point with all this is twofold: first off, no, not all people are strictly CTers or debunkers. And secondly, there are MANY reasons to believe/disbelieve in theories. For example someone who lost a direct family member in 9/11 might be more likely to believe in a conspiracy because they are close to the tragedy and are looking to displace their pain and suffering. Or someone who sees firsthand an example of a loss of freedoms might believe in an NWO situation. It is NOT a black and white matter. It's a gray issue.

I will say if you have a closed mind you would be more likely to be on the debunker side, because even in the face of blatant evidence (or lack thereof) these people will refuse to see the truth (much like the proponents of slavery in the united states ... there is no way around it, they were WRONG). And if you are too open to any theory that's presented on here, you risk becoming a fool and start thinking that your keyboard is purposely designed to generate revenue for doctors treating carpel tunnel.

The truth can be both in the form of a conspiracy OR the lack thereof.



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
It is not my fault you cannot hold real debate Palasheea. Go and tell some people about your 'experiences' and how reptilians are 'interdimensional' beings. Internetuser said you brought irrelavence to the threads and I totally agree. You just find it hard because you have nothing of interest to anyone to bring to the forum, only your quite bizzare prophetic and spiritual jargon. Nobody believes your 'itc experimentor' claims, everybody knows what your doing. Try and slander me as much as you can. It only makes me look more correct about my theories.


I'm not interested in having debates superpaul but obviously you are and I can see clearly that that's the only reason why you are here.
And did Internetuser answer any of your most recent questions as to the veracity of his repililian story? no and in fact he never even answered one of your questions yet you never dogged him about that which leads me to believe that you target in only on those who have the most convincing evidence to prove that what they are saying is true. You don't like that superpaul because you have a real aversion toward the TRUTH and this explains your 24/7 watch of this board like some kind of a gargoyle sculpture on some cold stoned building blackened by the fallen hopes and strivings of those generations of souls who have walked by it everyday since the day it was built who too have searched for the truth but can't see it because they simply refuse to.
But I do believe that you are here in your search for the truth and regardless of your animosity toward those of us who claim to have found it, I do think that somewhere deep down in your unbelieving self, there's a small voice that's shouting to you to stop being such a fool. You know it's there and it's high time you start listening to it!





[edit on 20-12-2006 by Palasheea]

[edit on 20-12-2006 by Palasheea]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 09:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55

Do you have any opinions on the matter at hand at whole?


I think the thread introduction is very interesting, and you expressed your views very well. I strongly believe there is justification for not disregarding the information you presented, as most of it is most certainly true, and the rest of it is most certainly plausible.

I'm a bit put off (as i believe others may be) at the fact that your "theories" seem to imply that people who due subscribe to the belief that worldly agencies (governments & societies) withold certain truths while influencing the population's actions and behaviors may only be due to their incapability to adapt to change. Or that people who subscribe to such theories of conspiracies are somehow suffering from a dellusional sickness, or from anti-social behavioral dissorders. If this is not your stance on this subject, i have misinterpretted the intentions of your threads and post subject matter.

I have endured prolonged periods of times where the only constant in my environment was that it was constantly changing, and although i agree with you that such experiences do alter a person's mental status, i'm not sure if i agree with you that it is a basis for a dissorder that induces the signs and symptoms you suggest are the cause for their beliefs.

i hope this makes sense. Yes, i believe there is merit concerning your thoughts on this subject matter. Due to personal experiences though, i can not believe you are right and stay "sane". To adopt your views on this matter would require me to disregard things i have seen and heard. And, forgive me, i find it difficult to choose to adopt your viewpoint over my own senses.

I get the impression from your posts that it is your belief that no one on this planet knows anything about intelligent life elsewhere and that no such "conspiracy" exists, nor has any alien life ever came to earth.

I'm not trying to change your mind concerning what i have deducted are your views on this subject. I merely urge you to keep an open mind that perhaps people who believe otherwise are not suffering from a psychosis of some sort.

Happy Holidays,
Sergeant John, usaf

[edit on 20-12-2006 by Esoteric Teacher]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by superpaul55
There is no sarcasm in this thread and it insults nobody. I have written a theorem and expected peoples opinions. I also expected people to flip out as is normal around here.

There is a difference between being reasonable and acting like a facist. You are acting like a forum facist and should refrain from your pro ultra-right wing new age conspiracism rantings. I accept you don't like what you read and understand why.

Alot of people read my threads but only a few seem to actually understand them. I will not refrain from posting. This is a serious thread intended for serious debate. Not for some kid to appear and start ranting his views like a Nazi.


Actually Paul, what is frustrating to many moderates or fair skeptics on this board is that for all your seemingly endless energy for posting your viewpoints, you have absolutely no interest in anyone else's opinions. Which makes you a troll on what is set up, literally, as a discussion forum. It's really you that does not seem to understand that "this is a serious thread intended for serious debate."

I'll give you this, you've gotten me closer to flaming than I have ever been comfortable with. It's no secret that there are a lot of posters on this board that have only a passing acquaintance with reality. There are also many eminently reasonable, open-minded posters here that are interested in 'paranormal' subjects that would be happy to discuss real and theoretical phenomena with you, but cannot, because you insist on generalizing about 'believers' with an extremely phobic, rigid, and hostile attitude. I know, because I've attempted to engage you in reasonable discussion several times now. You're not interested, because you are a troll. A sometimes articulate troll, but still a troll.

For the fifteenth time, Paul, we (...) get it. At this point, you might want to try an alternate environment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Edited censor circumvention





[edit on 21/12/06 by masqua]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
Some very interesting points, but I do feel you're in danger of falling into the same thinking as the rabidly religious or rabidly conspiralicious when you say:





It will continue to grow and has deep rooted opposition in the idea of a single world government which eventually will emerge. This government will be deemed evil by them and opposed, undoubtably many will die in this oppostion fighting for what they truely believe in. The introduction of the internet has started the rapid growth of this movement and it will gain ground over the following decade forming a genuine oppostion rooted with its own ideas and theories as to how society should be run and by whom.


The conclusion assumes there is a conspiracy afoot to form a NWO, and seems to lament the opposition the introduction points out is becoming pathological. I'm not sure if you're angry about the conspiracy theorists or their poor logic.

Mentioning the internet is an aspect of the argument that I feel merits elaboration. The phenomena of isolation and social interaction becoming more focused on internet communication is contributing to a sicker world. Maybe not because of what people subscibe to believing but because it tends to lend itself to a sort of virtual reality world coupled with a new form of addiction. Internet addiction, they are treating it in many countries including China, is in itself a form of psychosis. It is both escapist and isolated. There is a form of psychosis that results from isolation. I think that these two things combined with passionate opinion can be less conducive to real discussion and more of a fantasy over which people fight for control.

Paul, you say:


People live in increasingly separated realities, most move to simple alternative realities such as the television.


The internet is TV on steroids.

Paul says:


The parallels between religion and conspiracism are huge, but go easily unnoticed even by the conspiracist and worshipper. Put simply - Heaven is to the Christian as 'The Truth' is to the conspiracist


Religion is either a helpmate to spiritual growth or a terrible hindrance. When it becomes religiosity, it's an addiction. A doctrine being used in an escapist manner. The same holds true for conspiracy theories, they can either act as a springboard for investigating underlying issues to a greater extent or as a waste-basket into which to cast blame and escape from difficult realities.

Ridicule and insults are always fallacious and never further an argument.

What I have noticed is the absolute disintegration of some people in the virtual reality world of the net. Combined with the often outlandish and terrifying theories being bandied about and reinforced by poor logic and ridicule, which only reinforces mob think, it can be very destructive.

Each issue should be carefully deconstructed, without the need for insult. That way all opinions can enrich rather than detract.

The tendency towards otherworldliness combined with argument becoming an exchange of insults rather than differing opinions on the issues, is a toxic mix - indeed.

If all the world's a fantasy over which the biggest bully wins, there's not much to win, but for the meek.





[edit on 20-12-2006 by clearwater]



posted on Dec, 20 2006 @ 11:13 PM
link   
That is why i call myself a 'Conservative Believer'.

Some things interest me, and i am willing to debate, but i only go so far. A lot of the theories you are talking about border on insanity in my opinion.

I can agree though that there is a few people who seem to believe every theory that comes out. Once again, only an opinion, i believe that they give 'believers' a bad name. The whole stereotype of the foil hat etc etc.



posted on Dec, 21 2006 @ 05:50 AM
link   


You have voted superpaul55 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


Completely agree with you superpaul.

I stopped coming to ATS after a while (04-05) due to the sheer amount of garbage that was being posted.

Your post and your theories are well thought out and very interesting to read.




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join