This is not an attempt to laud or discredit any specific hypothesis, theory, belief, or philosophy. It is merely an exercise in considering a
possibility which has played at the edges of my imagination for quite some time now: the possibility that competing versions of conspiracy theories
may in fact exist in order to keep us distracted and divided. I am not saying that this is in fact the case, or even that I believe it is. I do
however see the potential for it to be true, and that is why I have decided to create this thread. I deeply respect the views of everyone who reads
this, ignores it, disagrees with it, or regards it as being ridiculous. I fully understand that we are all different, have different experiences, and
different feelings about a multitude of issues. It would probably be a poor thing indeed if we did not.
I have observed, particularly of late, that there are a lot of examples of duality and contradiction in the “conspiracy theorist” community.
Granted, this is true of any community. However, the level of specific polarity
that is at times achieved among “competing” conspiracy
theories often seems to me to border on something beyond coincidental or naturally occurring. I have harbored this thought, or suspicion, for some
time. However, today I watched the video referenced in this thread
and felt that it
provided an excellent opportunity to point out some of these apparent contradictions. Please note that it is not my intent to cast aspersions or doubt
on the maker of the video in question, as I have absolutely no reason to believe that they were being in any way divisive or polarizing by design.
These are but a few examples, and this phenomenon is by no means a rare or limited occurrence.
1) The video notes JFK's "Freedom from war" U.N. draft, which proposed the total disarmament of the U.S. (and other nations') military, followed
by a strengthening of U.N. peace keeping forces. It depicts this as one of a number of machinations on the part of the global elite to curtail our
freedoms. However, other individuals, videos, documentaries, films, and books all depict JFK's own assassination as being perpetrated at the whim of
the very same global elite. So was JFK helping them or hindering them? Was he a hero who died because of what he knew, as some claim, or was he part
of their plans? Well, that's the problem. We're never given enough information to make such a determination. We only get a few pieces of the puzzle.
The result is this: two camps form, with one worshipping and deifying JFK as a martyr for truth who sought to put a stop to such plans, and the other
depicting him as a part of a plan to weaken national sovereignty and strengthen a coming global government. Those two camps then perpetually debate
the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions, but without any clear evidence to cinch either side's case, so nothing ever gets
accomplished or concluded definitively.
2) The video also indicates the possibility that global warming is being pushed as a threat as part of an agenda to institute population reduction
through U.N.-led sustainable living programs. It goes on to say that scientists who don't believe in man-made global warming have been systematically
suppressed or ridiculed. However, the Bush administration which has been such a focus of conspiracy theorists and which the same video depicts as
being a part of the global elite itself, has repeatedly denied that global warming is a threat, and has been accused of suppressing and instigating
professional ridicule against scientists who speak out in favor of man-made global warming and climate change. So which is it? Are the global elite
trying to cover up and downplay global warming, or are they artificially playing it up in order to seize more control and change the world order?
Well, nobody ever gets to know the answer to that question and the result is the same: two camps form which endlessly debate which scenario is real,
and each side blames the other for complicity and labels one another "sheeple" or something similar. Does anyone else notice also how Al Gore - a
favorite among many of what the mainstream media and body politic chooses to label as liberals (I personally dislike labels of any kind) who feel that
his election was stolen by Bush and who are already predisposed to fight global warming - is at the head of the pro-global warming camp? While,
meanwhile, the Bush administration - who is reviled
by liberals and lauded by many so-called conservatives (again, these are not terms I would
use as I dislike labels) - are the ones denying that global warming exists? This does nothing, in my opinion, but deepen the divide between the
"left" and "right" in the U.S. and throughout the world. Is it possible that that is the goal? Are they all just playing us against each other?
3) The video depicts the preeminence of nature or "Gaia" over the welfare of human development as one of the global elite's main agendas, and
describes how this can only be achieved through massive depopulation and death on an enormous scale. But at the same time, a large number of supposed
abductees and anti-authoritarian activists are attracted to and involved in "new age" and/or Earth-oriented belief systems that aren't all that
different. So which is it? Are pagan, Earth-centric belief systems a threat to our industrialized society and progress? I certainly know some pagans
who would find such a suggestion shocking if not offensive and hurtful. Or are they the bastion of those resisting the global elite? I know some
totally irreligious and non-spiritual friends who are every bit as opposed to any such global machinations who would find the suggestion that only
deeply spiritual individuals can properly resist them offensive as well. I have seen people on ATS and elsewhere take both positions, and I've
witnessed the two sides argue with one another in a heated fashion that resulted in nothing more than distrust, hostility, and egotism personified.
[edit on 3/28/2008 by AceWombat04]