Darrell Castle On The New World Order

Darell Castle, the Constitution Party’s 2008 vice-presidential candidate, talks about the New World Order in his latest podcast. Recently, Vice President Joe Biden called for the New World Order to be implemented in a speech to the Export Import Bank’s 38th annual conference. The video runs 7 minutes and 42 seconds.

80 thoughts on “Darrell Castle On The New World Order

  1. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    This is why I continue to like the CP despite the fact that I no longer identify with them like I used to. They are unafraid to speak out about “controversial” topics like this. I could never imagine seeing a post about the NWO on the Libertarian Party’s Facebook page.

  2. Anon

    That’s because kooky conspiracy theories drive people away, and the LP knows this.

  3. Jill Pyeatt

    How can anyone call the “New World Order” a “kooky c0nspiracy theory”? Most people I know are aware of it and see it as part of a larger agenda.

    I know some people here on IPR will disagree, but the whole phrase “kooky conspiracy theory” has been widely debunked and is meaningless. I’m tired of people trying to discredit those of us who are paying attention.

  4. olde reb

    FUNDING THE NEW WORLD ORDER

    The chaos of Greece has resulted in massive layoffs of government and civilian employees, loss of governmental services, impoverishment of the nation, riots, and has reduced much of society to dumpster-diving. Goldman Sachs assisted politicians in 2003 to cook the books and impose massive debt upon the citizens without their knowledge. Cyprus is now being ravished by the IMF and others.

    Goldman Sachs agents are also alleged to control the economy of Germany, Italy, Belgium, France, UK, and Cyprus to guarantee debt to bankers. Ref. http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/12996-goldman-sachs-global-coup-de-tat.

    Is this evidence that the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank who have rapaciously exploited lesser developed nations for decades are now moving up to developed nations? Is their four step scenario the touted utopian advancement of the New World Order ? Is the United States in the developing stages of their sequenced conquest? Is the funding that drives the scheme from profit concealed by the Federal Reserve bank of New York City which legally belongs to the government?

    The answer is a collective YES.

    The frustrating part is that the financiers received and hid the entire value of the U.S. debt when it was created but will again profit when their fraudulent Ponzi scheme collapses.

    *******anipped from . http://www.scribd.com/doc/115919607/FUNDING-OUR-OWN-SELF-DESTRUCTION ********

    Note: David Rockefeller touted a utopian society led by elite banker as the New World Order in his MEMORIRS.

  5. Brian Holtz

    @1 The LP is unafraid to confront the nanny state head-on. We take the stated intentions of nanny-staters at face value, and argue against the policies that the nanny-staters are proud of.

    We won’t be free until we show that well-intentioned nanny-statism is still wrong.

  6. Gene Berkman

    BH @ 7 – it is possible that there is no corroborating evidence for the statement that Ted Koppel made on Nightline, June 9, 1992 in regard to U.S. supply of military equipment to Iraq.

    But there is plenty of evidence that the Reagan administration ensured that military equipment would be sent to Iraq, to head off a military victory by Iran:
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article1413.htm

    http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=us_iraq_80s

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqgate#Foreign_Materiel_Acquisition_and_Bear_Spares

  7. Gene Berkman

    BH @ 8 is correct – Libertarians understand that statists often act with good intentions, even if their policies cause more harm than good.

    Likewise, antiwar Libertarians understand that supporters of military force often “mean well” even if the policies they support result in the death of innocents.

    Antiwar Libertarians generally believe that undertaking a war – even for a “noble” end – often leads to more misery than banning 32 ounce sugar filled sodas.

  8. just polling

    @3 @4 —

    Public Policy Polling asked US voters this spring if they are aware of and concerned about the NWO.

    28% of US voters are against the NWO.

    1% of US voters cast a ballot last November for the LP Presidential candidate (who “never heard of” Agenda 21).

    Arithmetic.

  9. Gene Berkman

    BH @ 11 – You cleary have not refuted the notion that the U.S. government under President Reagan provided aid to the Hussein regime in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war – it is actually validated by the links you posted.

    In fact no historian or journalist disputes the fact that the U.S. government provided aid to Iraq during the Iran/Iraq war. Why would you dispute it?

  10. Brian Holtz

    You repeated the standard blogosphere claims that the U.S. “supplied weapons” to Saddam.

    I’ve checked those claims before.

    They’re false.

    You don’t always know what you think you know.

    Instead of repeating secondary sources under confirmation bias, read primary sources critically.

    Or else you’ll end up writing about “weekly planeloads of weapons”, and believing theories like in the video @4.

  11. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    I’m what you call a “conspiracy theorist”, and I find it amusing how you believe anything the government and lamestream media shoves down your throat and have absolutely no interest in questioning the fairy tale accounts of so many events we’ve been fed with.

    Why is it so hard to believe that government lies about pretty much everything? Why do you trust them? Is it really so hard the “owners” of this world are involved in shady conspiracies against humanity? The New World Order has been admitted, multiple times. Both Ron Paul and Rand Paul have talked about it.

    Obama Deception is a good film too. Alex Jones is a hero.

  12. Dave Metzger

    ” Is it really so hard the “owners” of this world are involved in shady conspiracies against humanity?”

    Just don’t dare say who these owners are or your comment will get removed by….these same owners.

    ” The New World Order has been admitted, multiple times.”

    Let’s call it what it is: the Jew World Order!

    “Alex Jones is a hero.”

    Alex Jones is a zionist occupied government puppet who can’t admit who it is behind the curtain.

  13. Krzysztof Lesiak Post author

    @18 lol

    Alex Jones is pretty much silent on on Zionists and the Israel lobby because if he talked about them he’d be off the air. I don’t mind that he doesn’t, though. There’s plenty of other people to fill that role.

  14. Brian Holtz

    you believe anything the government and lamestream media shoves down your throat and have absolutely no interest in questioning…

    If this is directed at me, then it says as much about your commitment to Truth as “planeloads of weapons” says about Gene’s.

    The first rule of Truth is: do your homework.

  15. Jill Pyeatt

    BH says: Do your homework. I’ve done my homework. Hours and hours of it. I’m utterly convinced there’s a plan by some very evil people who impose their will on much of the world if they are allowed to. Hopefully enough of us know about this that we’ll make it impossible.

  16. Robert Capozzi

    JP, yep, it’s possible that the Lizard People, or the Grays, or Queen Elizabeth, might be up to some global conspiracy.

    Still, distorting/inventing facts to fit/amplify the narrative seems contra-indicated to me, as such things destroy integrity.

  17. Nathan Bishop

    ” I’m utterly convinced there’s a plan by some very evil people who impose their will on much of the world if they are allowed to.”

    It’s not like they have written a book about it:

    http://www.revisionisthistory.org/talmudtruth.html

    “Hopefully enough of us know about this that we’ll make it impossible.”

    Hey, that’s the way to stop world domination…to refer to some vague “very evil people” without saying who they are. Right? That’ll stop them…when you can’t even name them!

  18. Brian Holtz

    Wikipedia nails it:

    A conspiracy theory is a belief which explains an event as the result of a secret plot by exceptionally powerful and cunning conspirators to achieve a malevolent end. The appeal of conspiracism is threefold: First, they appear to make sense out of a world that is otherwise confusing. Second, they do so in an appealingly simple way, by dividing the world sharply between the forces of light, and the forces of darkness. They trace all evil back to a single source, the conspirators and their agents. Third, conspiracy theories are often presented as special, secret knowledge unknown or unappreciated by others. For conspiracy theorists, the masses are a brainwashed herd, while the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters’ deceptions.

  19. Francis Sobran

    …” the conspiracy theorists in the know can congratulate themselves on penetrating the plotters’ deceptions.”

    …Only if they are not confused about who the conspirators are, and are not shy about saying it.

    Can someone buy these folks a clue?

    Oops, sorry, I just sneezed.

  20. Kevin Turner

    We will only restore the honor of our race and nation by spilling the blood of the alien race of parasites that has feasted on the flesh of our children.

  21. Rod Stern

    New world order is no unproven “conspiracy theory”. It has been mentioned publicly in numerous speeches, books, interviews, articles, and so on by its proponents. You can read many of the details in Foreign Policy magazine on a regular basis.

    The organizations involved are well known to exist, such as the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. It’s not a secret that they hold meetings and events, and that many members of these groups also participate in other events such as the Bohemian Grove. The meetings themselves and what is discussed or agreed on at them are secret, but you can get much of the general gist from public statements.

    You can reasonably disagree just how far reaching their control is, or just how malevolent they actually are, but it’s simple ignorance to deny that these institutions exist and that their members have on any number of occasions said on the record that they are creating a “new world order” or various words to that effect.

  22. Brian Holtz

    You can reasonably disagree just how far reaching their control is, or just how malevolent they actually are

    Bingo. The answers are 1) not any farther by virtue of the associations you’re worrying about, and 2) the usual statist amount.

    If government were competent enough to pull off the conspiracies you guys imagine, then libertarianism would be invalid. Thus it’s no coincidence that basically none of the top libertarian public intellectuals buy into these conspiracy theories.

  23. The Ghost in the Machine

    “If government were competent enough to pull off the conspiracies you guys imagine, then libertarianism would be invalid.”

    Not that I believe the “New World Order” is some omnipotent or ultra-competent entity, but how would a mob-like power cartel encompassing people highly placed in government, industry, media, academia, entertainment industries, religious institutions, etc., all around the world, comprised of malevolent sociopaths invalidate libertarianism, regardless of their level of competence?

    Supposing in fact such a hypothetical power cartel were in fact highly competent at enriching and empowering itself at the expense of most other people, libertarianism could still provide the greatest good for the greatest number.

    No?

  24. The Ghost in the Machine

    Conspiracy theories don’t posit that the conspirators are economically efficient. Only that they succeed at parasitically increasing their share through force (much like thugs and dictators everywhere) and subterfuge (much like organized crime, but penetrating more thoroughly the higher ranks of legitimate institutions). Since IIRC you are an atheist, we can also use religion as an example of hoodwinking the masses.

    Despite any economic inefficiencies, thugs, dictators, absolute monarchs, con men, criminals, mobsters, charlatans, cartels (above board and otherwise) and organized religions have existed all through history. In what ways do they conform to these economic models in which a hypothetical global conspiracy can’t?

  25. Brian Holtz

    much like thugs and dictators everywhere

    No, my point is that the level of competence attributed to the NWO conspirators is not like that of anybody, anywhere, anytime:

    That level of competence and coordination would allow them to solve the calculation problem, and increase Kaldor-Hicks efficiency better than free markets can.

    Arguments trying to expose such an omnicompetent organization are self-refuting. Why? Because anyone rational who believes in an organization this omnicompetent should be seeking to join it, not expose it.

    cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_Wager

  26. The Ghost in the Machine

    “No, my point is that the level of competence attributed to the NWO conspirators is not like that of anybody, anywhere, anytime”

    That’s only a difference of scale, not kind.

    “Because anyone rational who believes in an organization this omnicompetent should be seeking to join it, not expose it.”

    Maybe they have a moral objection to its methods. Or maybe they aren’t satisfied with not being at the top of the pyramid of power.

    Neither of those objections is irrational.

  27. Brian Holtz

    That’s only a difference of scale, not kind.

    Said the molehill to the mountain.

    Maybe they have a moral objection to its methods.

    You don’t understand my reference to Pascal’s Wager. The point is that the expected value (under any social utility metric you want) of joining/influencing the omnicompetent conspiracy is higher than the EV of trying to expose it.

    But speaking of wagers, it’s time for conspiracy theorists to put up or shut up.

    To anybody who wants to debate conspiracy theories with me:

    Consider the steep epistemological hill that your conspiracy theory has to climb. Can you think of a historical conspiracy the theory of which was dismissed for many years as kooky, but later came to be generally accepted as true without any major revelation turning the epistemological tide?

    I can’t.

    So if a conspiracy theory keeps losing in the marketplace of ideas for many years, it’s quite safe to provisionally declare it false in the absence of new corroborating revelations.

    Your conspiracy theory is failing in the marketplace of ideas, and I bet it will continue to fail.

    Pick any specific major conspiracy theory (e.g. JFK, 9/11) and any number N<=20, and I'll bet you $1000 that in N years your conspiracy theory still will not have joined the standard lists of history's authentic conspiracies. We each have to put our wager in escrow with an arbiter -- Robin Hanson, Chuck Moulton or any other GMU-affiliated libertarian would be fine. I make my deposit when yours is confirmed. Any takers? What we need is an Intrade for conspiracy theory futures. As it says on the Ron Swanson Pyramid of Greatness, markets are "God's way of determining who is smart and who is poor". 🙂

  28. The Ghost in the Machine

    “You don’t understand my reference to Pascal’s Wager. The point is that the expected value (under any social utility metric you want) of joining/influencing the omnicompetent conspiracy is higher than the EV of trying to expose it.”

    This seems to presume that joining it is morally acceptable, or that influencing it is plausible.

  29. Steve M

    BL,

    Henry Ford died 66 years ago…. have you any more recent and relevant information?

    ops never mind I don’t believe in the bible as a non-fictional work.

  30. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH@37,

    “Can you think of a historical conspiracy the theory of which was dismissed for many years as kooky, but later came to be generally accepted as true without any major revelation turning the epistemological tide?”

    My impression is that the JFK assassination conforms to that description.

    That is, for some time the majority of Americans accepted the general outlines of the Warren Commission report and believed that Oswald acted alone, but over time the majority opinion has shifted to believe that there was a conspiracy of some sort, even though all the major variants of the “there was a conspiracy” theory seem to have been in public view from relatively early on.

  31. Brian Holtz

    GitM: This seems to presume that joining it is morally acceptable, or that influencing it is plausible.

    No, it just presumes that the implausibility of influencing it is not greater than its magical powers to influence the world.

    TK: By “generally accepted”, I mean generally accepted by journalists and historians.

    28% of Americans think Saddam was involved in 9/11.

    48% of Americans believe in ghosts.

    2/3 of Americans believe aliens have contacted humans, and half believe aliens have abducted humans.

    The sheeple are often confused. The JFK assassination is in fact the poster child for my thesis that conspiracy theories don’t win.

  32. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH,

    I haven’t seen any polls on the beliefs and journalists of historians regarding their opinions of the JFK assassination, and see no reason to assume anything about their beliefs.

    As far as “winning” is concerned, the “probably a conspiracy” theory eventually won with the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

  33. Brian Holtz

    The HSCA’s conclusion hinged on the now-discredited Dictabelt acoustic recordings. The HSCA rejected essentially all the popular JFK conspiracy theories, but said that since they think there was a fourth (missed) shot, maybe somebody from the mob was involved.

    No mainstream newspaper or history book reports a JFK assassination conspiracy as generally-accepted fact — not even the HSCA’s tepid version.

  34. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH @ 43,

    “No mainstream newspaper or history book reports a JFK assassination conspiracy as generally-accepted fact”

    In other words, you think like a conspiracy theorist — any newspaper or history book that accepts any conclusions other than yours becomes, by definition, “not mainstream.”

  35. Brian Holtz

    No, I don’t define “mainstream” with reference to conspiracy theories. (Project much?)

    For our purposes, we could define a mainstream newspaper as one that has won a Pullitzer prize for journalism. And we could define a mainstream history textbook as one used in an Ivy League undergrad survey course.

  36. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH @ 45,

    “Project much?”

    “For our purposes, we could define a mainstream newspaper as one that has won a Pullitzer prize for journalism. And we could define a mainstream history textbook as one used in an Ivy League undergrad survey course.”

    So “mainstream” is defined as “characterized by an exceedingly small and insular sample?”

    Defining “mainstream” in that way is somewhat like defining “average physicist” as “Einstein.”

  37. Thomas L. Knapp

    Or, to put it a different way:

    There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 1,400 daily newspapers in the US. In any given year, a maximum of 14 of them will win the Pulitzer.

    There are 2,774 four-year universities in the United States. The Ivy League consists of eight of them.

    So your definition of “mainstream” is “a portion somewhere between a lower end of 2/10ths of 1% and an upper end of 1%.”

  38. Brian Holtz

    Special Relativity isn’t considered true just because Famous Scientist Einstein said it’s true. Rather, Einstein is a Famous Scientist because Special Relativity was verified by the scientific community as true.

    Only 1% of newspapers win Pulitzers, but their agreement with the other 99% is not simply because the 1% get to decide what is “true”.

    I wasn’t trying to define “mainstream” as “top 1%”. I was defining “mainstream” as the consensus that you see reflected in what the top 1% say.

    I’m making a claim about how the marketplace of ideas functions through mechanisms like peer review and journalistic competition. You tried to dismiss my thesis by pretending that I simply redefine academic/journalistic consensus to match my personal beliefs. That’s not a serious objection.

    Indeed, conspiracy theorists will be the first to tell you that the “mainstream” of academics/journalists doesn’t (yet) agree with them. If their conspiracy theories weren’t rejected by the “mainstream”, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

    Tom, fencing with you was more fun back when it was over big real disputes, not little fake ones. 🙂 I suspect the problem is we’ve gradually moved somewhat closer to each other’s positions.

  39. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH @ 49,

    “I suspect the problem is we’ve gradually moved somewhat closer to each other’s positions.”

    Not so far as I can tell.

    You and I both tend to be very skeptical of, broadly speaking, “conspiracy theories.”

    You seem to enjoy a higher confidence level in the conclusions of what you consider “mainstream” thought leaders than I do. That’s always been the case, and continues to be the case.

    With respect to the JFK assassination, you seem fairly confident in the conclusion that Oswald acted alone.

    I’m open to that conclusion, but not convinced of it. But neither am I particularly convinced of any of the alternative theories I’ve seen put forward.

    To the extent that we’re different on that subject, I don’t know if it’s because you’ve done more research on the subject than I have (I’m sure you HAVE done more research on the subject than I have), or if it’s because we take a different approach to the subject.

    I’m convinced that most people broadly described as “conspiracy theorists” are driven by an obsession with having everything “make sense.” Any incident, to their mind, must eventually resolve to a neat package of known facts and understandable motives.

    I’m comfortable with the possibility that some things will never “make sense”– there will always be questions we can’t answer and motives we can’t discern, and pretending to have answered those questions or to have discerned those motives may make us feel smarter or better than others, it isn’t the same as actually having done so.

  40. Brian Holtz

    You seem to enjoy a higher confidence level in the conclusions of what you consider “mainstream” thought leaders than I do.

    Not the thought leaders, the thought market. I plead guilty to having more confidence than you in the marketplace of ideas. 🙂

    There’s only one person that is important to be smarter than: your past self.

  41. Gene Berkman

    The New World Order is a term a used by conspiracy theorists, but it has also been used by prominent people in the U.S. government – notably President George H.W. Bush.

    NWO is not a fixed thing, but a general tendency of U.S. government policy since the oil crisis of 1973. It involves attempts to coordinate intervention in Middle East oil producing countries by the western industrial countries dependent on that oil.

    Far from being a project of the Zionists, the New World Order has featured a closer alignment of U.S. government policy with the regime in Saudi Arabia. If anything, Israel is likely to become a victim of NWO policies adopted by the U.S. government.

  42. Brian Holtz

    you seem fairly confident in the conclusion that Oswald acted alone

    No, there was an accessory to Oswald’s assassination work.

    Someone who knew that Oswald had used the Carcano rifile to try to assassinate notorious right-winger Gen. Edwin Walker, and who failed to report it. This person also knew that Oswald still had access to the Carcano, and had taken a picture of Oswald holding the rifle, and had written on the back of the photo: “hunter of fascists”.

    There was also a government cover-up in the case. Oswald delivered a threatening note to the FBI just a couple weeks before the assassination, but the FBI destroyed it soon after the assassination.

    There’s even a link between the note and the accessory. Fun stuff!

  43. Jill Pyeatt

    Brian, I’m curious: on a day like today with national events unfolding, do you automatically believe what you here? Does it never enter your mind that there might be something entirely different going on?

  44. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Someone who knew that Oswald had used the Carcano rifile to try to assassinate notorious right-winger Gen. Edwin Walker”

    Interesting. I’ve never read extensively on that particular incident, but I see from Wikipedia that I met one person who was peripherally involved — Bill James Hargis, the preacher who was sponsoring Walker’s lecture tour.

    I was working at a book store in Branson, Missouri in the early 1990s when Hargis came in to inquire about selling his books on consignment. We didn’t do that kind of thing (this was one of those “discount mall cutout bin” book stores), but we conversed for awhile and he left me a couple of books, presumably to aid me in getting right with Jesus. Courteous guy, but he struck me as a charlatan (I had no knowledge of his past scandals, etc. — had never heard of him at the time).

  45. Andy

    “Krzysztof Lesiak // Apr 17, 2013 at 8:00 pm

    I’m what you call a ‘conspiracy theorist’, and I find it amusing how you believe anything the government and lamestream media shoves down your throat and have absolutely no interest in questioning the fairy tale accounts of so many events we’ve been fed with.

    Why is it so hard to believe that government lies about pretty much everything? Why do you trust them? Is it really so hard the “owners” of this world are involved in shady conspiracies against humanity? The New World Order has been admitted, multiple times.”

    Krzysztof is like what, 17 years old or somewhere around there, and he’s already got more wisdom than a lot of people who are much older than he is.

  46. Thomas L. Knapp

    Krzysztof,

    There’s a lot of ground between between “believing anything the government and lamestream media shoves down your throat” and “accepting as fact every claim that conflicts with what the government and lamestream media say.”

    The people on both ends of that continuum like to lay claim to solidarity the people in that middle ground when it suits them, while dismissing those same people in other situations.

    For example, when challenged on his “9/11 inside job” claims, Andy loves to point out that lots of people “question the official account,” implicitly claiming all of those people as supporting his claims. Then when someone who does “question the official account” points out that in more than a decade he has yet to publicly disclose so much as a crumb of evidence for his particular theory, he dismisses them as “believing anything the government and lamestream media shoves down their throat.”

    On the other end of that continuum, supporters of the “official account” will trot out some obvious fact that nobody could disagree with, thus implicitly claiming that the people in the middle ground are on their side. Then when someone from that same middle ground poses a difficult question, supporters of the “official account” write the same people off as “wacko conspiracy theorists.”

    It’s a great con when you can get away with it. Unfortunately, you can’t get away with it here. At least not as long as I’m around, nor, I think, so long as Mr. Holtz is present.

  47. Steve M

    I guess, I am more of a believer in a new world disorder…. government is messy and corrupt, the bigger it gets the more messy and corrupt it gets…..same goes for businesses…. think of it as an inertia limit…. So the bigger the thing you are trying to control the more people you have to have in your conspiracy… the more competing conspiracy groups working against you…

    In general, I am not worried and would just like to move our little part of the world into less top down control.

  48. Andy

    “Brian Holtz // Apr 19, 2013 at 9:20 pm

    Making demonstrably false statements about fellow freedom-lovers counts as ‘wisdom’ now?”

    I don’t know which false statements to which you are referring that he made, and it appears to me that said “freedom-lovers” are naive people with their heads shoved up their collective asses if they don’t think that people within government engage in conspiracies, both small and large.

  49. Brian Holtz

    Andy @61: I don’t know which false statements to which you are referring that he made

    You yourself quoted them @57.

    Thanks for letting us measure your commitment to truth and accuracy about fellow libertarians. Readers should keep that in mind the next time you repeat your standard accusations about them on other topics.

  50. Jill Pyeatt

    BH @ 55: What if you read something that conflicts with what you’ve read before? For example, if you google “Osama bin Laden death 20o1”, you’ll see many reports that he died then, from many different sources. I’m curious what sources you would use to learn whether he died when Obama said, or back in 20, when many people believe he died.

  51. Brian Holtz

    JP @ 65: What if you read something that conflicts with what you’ve read before?

    You want me to explain to you how I know what I know? That would take an entire book. My book about knowing is here.

    KL @66: And yet my questions remain unanswered. I wonder if a “Libertarians for 9/11 Truth” page would have the courage to link to my questions.

  52. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH @ 68,

    Some of those questions are interesting, but the page goes off the rails before it gets to them by asserting that “the 9/11 ‘Truth’movement believes …”

    That movement, unless defined in an unjustifiably narrow sense, is not monolithic in either its belief set or its arguments, any more than all Roman Catholics are priests who sodomize children.

  53. Brian Holtz

    is not monolithic

    Let’s test your theory. Andy/KL/JP: which if any of those 6 propositions do you not believe?

    I bet we get no more than 2 denials out of a possible 18.

    In researching the Truthers, I’ve noticed that their psychology makes them subject to a ratcheting one-upsmanship phenomenon. If one Truther proposes some extra epicycle in the conspiracy, the others don’t want to be outdone, and tend to fall in line — or at least not bother to argue against the epicycle. (Such is their commitment to “Truth”…)

    The exception to this phenomenon proves the rule. From Truthers who admit that the missile-hit-the-Pentagon idea is preposterous, I’ve heard the theory that missile-Truthers are actually planted by The Conspiracy to discredit the Real Truthers. I kid you not.

  54. Thomas L. Knapp

    BH @ 70,

    I do not believe propositions 1 or 2, because I’ve never seen so much as an iota of evidence to support them.

    I’m open to proposition 3, although I disagree with the phrasing: While I’ve never seen what a hole in concrete made by a passenger airliner looks like, I have seen what a hole in concrete made by a JDAM or cruise missile looks like, and the hole in the Pentagon looks like that.

    I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hypothesize that Flight 77 might have been shot down over the Atlantic in order to prevent it from reaching its target — and then a hole put in, as you say, “the least important wing of the Pentagon” precisely so that the government wouldn’t have to answer for shooting down a plane full of innocent civilians (and a few hijackers).

    What I don’t claim, of course, is to have proof of, or even substantial evidence for, that proposition, and I’m under the impression that there’s at least some evidence which militates against the proposition.

    Ditto proposition 4, only more so, especially given that there’s no reason at all that there couldn’t have been a “passenger revolt” AND a shootdown.

    As to proposition 5, I’ve seen no evidence which suggests that it is the only plausible, or even A plausible, explanation. Confusion, breakdown of chain of command, etc. are at least as explanatory, far more plausible, and have a lower burden of proof to anyone who’s ever worked in a large hierarchical organization under massive stress.

    Proposition 6 isn’t especially relevant, insofar as manufacturing “claims of responsibility” is easy, while there would be few people in al Qaeda with the knowledge to claim or disclaim responsibility.

  55. Rod Stern

    @70 does not test the theory of what all truthers believe, since you are asking a tiny and not randomly selected sample.

  56. Brian Holtz

    what all truthers believe

    Strawman. “All” is not my word.

    It’s true that not all 9/11 Truthers believe in a Pentagon missile or a Flight 93 shootdown, but most do. Only 2 of my 10 questions are aimed at these 2 parts of the 9/11 Truth Canon.

    OK, next strawman/deflection?

    My questions remain unanswered, and my bet remains unaccepted.

  57. Rod Stern

    In the interest of clarity, then, you should say “some truthers believe…” rather than just “truthers believe…”

  58. Rod Stern

    Given subsequent discussions, however, it may be an attempt to blur the distinction.

  59. Rod Stern

    That video is over an hour long. Any time code in particular you are directing our attention to?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *