It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Might not the elite use competing conspiracy theories to divide the theorists?

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:13 AM
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.

(Continued below.)

[edit on 3/28/2008 by AceWombat04]

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 08:14 AM
In my opinion it's possible that both sides in the three above examples are being played against each other in order to keep us distracted, divided, and confused. In my view, as long as that remains the case, if there is a global elite at work... they win. Why do I say that they win in such a scenario of division and ideological conflict? Well, take global warming for instance. If it's real and we are the cause, then they win because nothing is done about it and millions die and are displaced due to radical climate change. If it isn't real, and it’s a carefully crafted scare tactic, then they win by instituting their depopulation agendas in order to "save the planet." Either way they win, and we die in order to lower the global population. And the reason they win, in my opinion, is because we're all too busy fighting each other to see that they benefit from either outcome... at least in theory.

Again, these are all just speculative thoughts that have occurred to me on numerous occasions. I welcome people’s own opinions, hypotheses, and feelings on these and any related matters. Thank-you for reading!

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:49 PM
When people lunge into supporting conspiracy theories without any supporting evidence, of course you're going to get contradicting theories. Just as if you randomly flip a coin, chances are you're going to get heads AND tails turn up.

The "conspiracy theorist" community has only itself to blame, for not weeding out the paranoid-delusional, baseless, or even obviously-mistaken conspiracies.

Just look at the 2012/Nibiru/Planet X fiasco to see what I mean. There's no evidence for any of it, yet people are running around like it's the gospel truth, as if it was backed by serious scientists saying it's going to happen. Try pointing that out to supporters, and you get to see the real side of their support - fanatical. A rational person would not even get as far as believing something so absurd and baseless, yet some of these folks dedicate their lives to such rubbish.

Rant over. Sorry

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 12:58 PM
Indeed, we should (in my opinion) always refrain from jumping on a conspiracy theory’s bandwagon without educating ourselves and thinking for ourselves first. However, while I may or may not concur about the presence or lack of evidence in support of specific theories, I would prefer to avoid debating one theory's merits versus others. It isn't simply a matter of theories lacking evidence and thus being unsupportable in the instances I'm referring to. It's a case of there being some evidence in support of two extremely polarized views of an issue - just enough to attract people's attention and engage them in a debate - but never quite enough to prove anything.

It isn't my intent to weigh the pros and cons of any specific theory or group of competing theories, but rather to explore the possibility of potentially deliberate (or at least passively exploitative) distraction and confusion as a result of such polar hypotheses surrounding specific events or scenarios. The search for truth, whatever it may be, becomes co-opted by the search for ego gratification and "victory" for one side's agenda or favored theory.

At least that's how it feels to me a lot of the time, and I am considering the possibility that this may not be coincidental. What do others think?

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:04 PM

Originally posted by AceWombat04
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.

That's just what they want you to think. The real truth of the matter is that people only appear to be arguing the points of controversial topics, when in fact everybody really agrees on the basic foundations of the arguments, which is the important thing.

Look at all the arguments about "God" in the religion forums, for instance. It's not really that important that some people disagree about certain details. The point is that almost everybody agrees on the fundamental basis of the arguments, e.g., of a concept of God that is good enough for use in a debate.

It's all part of the plan, man. The thing we have to fear is not our disagreements, but what we tacitly agree on.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Nohup]

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 01:08 PM
reply to post by AceWombat04

Very true. Also the term "conspiracy" implies stupidity or lunacy thereby anyone participating is nothing more than "group think" and have no credibility.

They hide in the truth in plain sight- but to believe it means you're an idiot. The deeper the involvement the bigger the idiot. If course this is not true- but we are meant to believe it.

This formula buys THEM more time.

It is this simple and thinking for ourselves reveals this very clearly and also leads to true freedom- which leads to THEIR destruction.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by dk3000]

posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 09:56 PM

Originally posted by Nohup
It's all part of the plan, man. The thing we have to fear is not our disagreements, but what we tacitly agree on.

[edit on 28-3-2008 by Nohup]

Actually, I feel that this might be an important point. Perhaps underlying assumptions are at times used to sway people's attention away from alternate explanations. For instance, could it be possible that the prevailing extraterrestrial hypothesis - regardless of which particular theory within that subset of study one entertains most - is distracting from alternatives such as a human military (or other human) case?

Those are the types of potential misdirection are what I find highly suspicious and it seems at least possible, especially given how little firm evidence exists in any sort of complete form. There is evidence of many hypotheses, but never enough to elevate one above others (in most cases.)

new topics

top topics


log in