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.


The Dilemma with Conspiracy Theorists Asking for Help

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 12:07 AM
As we all know, the majorities of problems that arise in this day and age have to do with the concept of money. From my perspective, as destructive as it may seem, the destruction of the dollar would create an absolute collapse of the entire world, as we know it today. But with that collapse comes a snowball effect of what humanity, as a whole, views as necessities to last as a functioning society and the opportunity to survive. However promising this fairy tale of mine could be, it is not my main objective with this post.

A lot of recognizable names, mainly Steven Greer and David Icke, receive a bulls-eye from everyone on here as people that are only presenting material in the hopes of receiving money from “gullible” donators that believe in their cause.

Like it or not, THIS IS THE WORLD WE LIVE IN THESE DAYS. To have anything presented or published, you have to have money. We don’t all have obnoxious availabilities to money, like Foster Gamble, to release what was a really well presented documentary to the public. But how come his name hasn’t become as popular as the likes of Greer or Icke? Probably because of the simple fact that his last is associated with money, being a Gamble and all. More people recall the material in his documentary when you hear the name Thrive rather than who put it together. I do not claim to know all of the facts associated with Gamble and would love to be told of any input into why he has not released any more material.

My point is this:

Foster Gamble released a good documentary in Thrive without asking for any funding on the part of the viewers. It is accepted by the majority and has a large amount of beneficial material. However, whether or not you agree or disagree with the material he presented, his name is never under scrutiny solely on the fact that he didn’t ask for you money. But his documentary is out there. If it is ever questioned, it is from what he presented, not because of him as a person.

But then there’s Icke and Greer. They release essentially the same type of message, it doesn’t matter if it’s the exact same topic, overall it steers towards a collective idea. But because Greer and Icke don’t have the same funding as a Gamble would have, their PERSONAS are place in-between the crosshairs instead of the message they are trying to present. And I am sorry for the pound symbol later in this sentence, and I’m certainly not a fanboy of Greer by any means, but you can # off if you think someone with MD makes anything near as much as someone within the Gamble family.

My whole point to this thread is to learn. I obviously have somewhat of a viewpoint on it, but I would just like to get opinions. It just appears that presenters that ask for help get targeted more than their material. I’m sure Thrive received its fair amount of criticism but I haven’t notice it being directed towards the presenter. Just would like everyone’s input haha.

posted on Jun, 1 2013 @ 01:16 AM
You are in luck sir. David Icke is trying to come out with a radio station and an online television network called "The People's Voice".
He has a video more about it and the start up. I think it would be a meaningful way for ATS members to have an opportunity for their views to be heard.
The People's Voice

I personally like the guy and I am going to donate, because it is a real platform.
If everyone who watched his youtube videos, everyone who follows his twitter or views his webpage donated $1 to his cause, I know the potential for good that would certainly come from it.
If the system as a whole fails, I want to know that I did not turn my back on the people who needed my support, for something as meaningless as material wealth.
39% of all wealth is owned by the top 1% alone.
That is fact, not a conspiracy theory and I refuse to be the one who continues to cause divisions anymore amongst my people because of inaction.
I support change, and if I can throw money away for something I will never win with the purchase of a lottery ticket, I can most certainly contribute to something meaningful just as easy.

"Man becomes great exactly in the degree in which he works for the welfare of his fellow-men."
-Mahatma Gandhi

posted on Jun, 11 2013 @ 02:54 AM
To be honest, Icke is the only one of those three you mentioned I've heard of, so I might not have all the info to make a very good post. That said, I think people probably associate asking for money with charlatans. Possibly especially if it's an extreme or weird message they are giving.

Plus, I suppose that if you already thought that someone was a bit of a nut or a liar, you might be especially willing to find something that would make doing that sound worth while to them.

"Oh, he's charging 50 Quid (that could be the right British word...I know it something like that) for tickets! He must be in it for the money." But they never consider that it costs money to travel and pay for lodgings, etc. And who knows how much money he (...oh, sorry, I'm talking about David Icke here) needs to spend to do his research. Ofcourse, Icke was a public figure/celebrity before all of this and that could also be a reason for why people have a hard time believing that he needs their money. That or a general difficulty for people to think of anyone who stands on a stage, writes books, or gets on television as someone who would need their money.

posted on Jun, 17 2013 @ 08:04 AM
reply to post by nickendres

That is fact, not a conspiracy theory and I refuse to be the one who continues to cause divisions anymore amongst my people because of inaction.

Hmm interesting attitude some have difference of opinion on division my self & others would simply call it diversity and quite healthy. Is there any truth movement to speak of? I doubt it the numbers are too small globally for example there is no trace of any such movement in Australia where I am.
In the US and UK where it is organised it is too fractured to be called a fluid movement.
These fractures are healthy they mean no one figure can dominate the truth dictator style.
The fact some folks see to think there should be homogenous movement seems to show how cult and mob like their thinking is. It is quite dangerous considering the herd mentality folks fall into.

Seems the AJ Bilderburger thing was more akin to flash mob. Folks seemed to be too diverse to be in complete agreement except for being whinging reactionaries if that where not the case then AJ hecklers would not have also been present which they clearly were.

edit on 17-6-2013 by Theprimordialocker because: (no reason given)

top topics

log in