What exactly *is* the conspiracy theory?
Ingrid Harry
Ok, I don't want to sound hopelessly ignorant, but I'd appreciate it if
someone would please explain to me all about the conspiracy theory.
Thanks,
Ingrid
Brian Redman
In a previous article, IHa...@clb.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu (Ingrid Harry) says:
>
>
>Ok, I don't want to sound hopelessly ignorant, but I'd appreciate it if
>someone would please explain to me all about the conspiracy theory.
Others may correct me on this, but so far as I know there is
no standard theory. There are a lot of occurrences that fit
in the category of "conspiracy" and so far as I know there
isn't one theory that is accepted to the exclusion of all
others.
So when you say "*the* conspiracy theory" I would say there
is no "*the*".
--
Brian Francis Redman bi...@prairienet.org "The Big C"
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Justice" = "Just us" = "History is written by the assassins."
--------------------------------------------------------------
John William Chambless
Brian Redman <bi...@prairienet.org> wrote:
>Others may correct me on this, but so far as I know there is
>no standard theory. There are a lot of occurrences that fit
>in the category of "conspiracy" and so far as I know there
>isn't one theory that is accepted to the exclusion of all
>others.
>
>So when you say "*the* conspiracy theory" I would say there
>is no "*the*".
Well... that SHOULD be true...but, unfortunately, there are among us those
who would attempt to establish One New World Conspiracy Theory.
Be warned!!
People like Dan Gannon, Serdar Argic, and John Winston have consistently
attempted to push their own private paranoid fantasies on the rest of us,
denying us our Constitutional Right to our OWN, PRIVATE paranoid fantasies,
(and violating the Prime Directive at the same time!).
You see, it's all part of the Intergalactic Communist-Jewish-Klingon-Vatican-
Microsoft-ACLU-Liberal-Media-Banking Conspiracy.
Don't say I didn't warn you all.
Bryan McGuire
>In a previous article, IHa...@clb.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu (Ingrid Harry) says:
>>
>>
>>Ok, I don't want to sound hopelessly ignorant, but I'd appreciate it if
>>someone would please explain to me all about the conspiracy theory.
>Others may correct me on this, but so far as I know there is
>no standard theory. There are a lot of occurrences that fit
>in the category of "conspiracy" and so far as I know there
>isn't one theory that is accepted to the exclusion of all
>others.
>So when you say "*the* conspiracy theory" I would say there
>is no "*the*".
I think the main conspiracy theory touted in this newsgroup is that
the US government is nothing more than a puppet whose strings are pulled
by huge multi-national banking institutions. Said institutions also
pull the strings of other puppet governmets (for instance, the UK) and
have an alleged agenda to form a one world governmet. Most other
theories are based on variations on this theme.
Financial Opportunities
Buy a copy of William Still's excellent and inexpensive paperback
"THE NEW WORLD ORDER". That'll cover pretty much all of the basic
background you'll need to develop an understanding of the "theory" as
such. Much more to read, of course, but that's a good way to start.
Then watch carefully to see what topics, individuals, laws or
institutions Ted Frank defends here on alt.conspiracy. The more
passionate and incomprehensible his defense of them, the greater the
danger they pose to us. It's only a rough rule of thumb, but millions of
us on the Net [not to exaggerate - it's probably more like virtually the
*whole* Net population] find it a useful and extremely reliable one.
[Hi, Ted. I'm back!]
Cheers!
John W.
John William Chambless
Financial Opportunities <financial.o...@canrem.com> wrote:
>Then watch carefully to see what topics, individuals, laws or
>institutions Ted Frank defends here on alt.conspiracy. The more
>passionate and incomprehensible his defense of them, the greater the
>danger they pose to us. It's only a rough rule of thumb, but millions of
>us on the Net [not to exaggerate - it's probably more like virtually the
>*whole* Net population] find it a useful and extremely reliable one.
Wow -- Ted, you're a STANDARD now!!!!
Has the RFC been released yet? I wanna write it!!
RFC 8F45: Conspiracy theory evaluation.
1) Any theory that T.Frank ( Pueudo-Jew and noted troller ) defends
shall be declared rubish.
2) Any theory that T.Frank ( genetically political lawyer-scum ) opposes
is, by definition, correct.
3) This standard shall be considered to obsolete all previous standards,
including RFC 1 : Independent thought.
=========================8X==== cut here ==========
Good job, John!! Now nobody has to think anymore!!
You've really done YOUR part to usher in the New World Order!
--
* Billy "in more killfiles than Joel Furr and Serdar Argic combined" Chambless
* Secular pseudo-Jew and general pain at large....
joseph.m.knapp
>IHa...@clb.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu (Ingrid Harry) says:
>
>>Ok, I don't want to sound hopelessly ignorant, but I'd appreciate it if
>>someone would please explain to me all about the conspiracy theory.
>
>Others may correct me on this, but so far as I know there is
>no standard theory. There are a lot of occurrences that fit
>in the category of "conspiracy" and so far as I know there
>isn't one theory that is accepted to the exclusion of all
>others.
>
>So when you say "*the* conspiracy theory" I would say there
>is no "*the*".
A conspiracy theory can't be called THE conspiracy theory without the
following elements:
* The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
* reference to sinister plans to "disarm" the USA
(alternatively, there may be a reference to attacks on male
sexual function, such as fluoride and sapping of "precious
bodily fluids"
* acknowledgement that the US government has already been taken
over by "Communists" bent on implementing their sinister plans
to enslave American patriots and line our women up at communist
pleasure resorts
The following ad from the Nov. 1963 issue of _American Opinion_, the John
Birch Society publication, is a case in point:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"THE CONSPIRACY THEORY"
Many suspect it . . . .
Some belittle it . . . .
Kent and Phoebe Courtney prove it in their new book
DISARMAMENT
A Blueprint for Surrender
178 Pages -- Indexed -- $2.00 (paperback)
(discounts available on quantity orders)
_______________________________________
A documented expose which proves that key members of the Kennedy
Administration who are promoting the clandestine, de facto,
unilateral disarmament of the U.S.A. are members of the Communist-
accommodating Council on Foreign Relations.
The Courtneys also prove that the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty is part
of the Soviet strategy for disarming Western Nations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I believe DISARMAMENT -- A "They (the Courtneys) believe
BLUEPRINT FOR SURRENDER that disarmament policies are
should be a 'must' for every- 'furthering the aims of Commun-
one who is interested in pre- ist Russia's conquest of the
serving our Republic and our world'... Singling out the
Constitution...." Council on Foreign Relations as
active in promoting disarmament,
-- Congressman Albert Watson and through using selected
(Dem., S.C.) quotations from the group, gov-
ernment officials and individuals,
they chalk up their points."
"...you have covered the subject - News Orleans TIMES-PICAYUNE
comprehensively."
- William S. Milburn, Associate
Editor, TUCSON (Ariz.) DAILY CITIZEN
Order today your copy of DISARMAMENT -- A BLUEPRINT FOR SURRENDER
from your local patriotic bookstore, or order from the publisher....
THE CONSERVATIVE SOCIETY OF AMERICA
P.O. Box 4254
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118
---
Joe Knapp
Brian Redman
In a previous article, financial.o...@canrem.com (Financial Opportunities) says:
[...]
>
>Then watch carefully to see what topics, individuals, laws or
>institutions Ted Frank defends here on alt.conspiracy. The more
>passionate and incomprehensible his defense of them, the greater the
>danger they pose to us. It's only a rough rule of thumb, but millions of
>us on the Net [not to exaggerate - it's probably more like virtually the
>*whole* Net population] find it a useful and extremely reliable one.
Having given some thought to Mr. Frank, here is my theory:
He is a masochist (note, I'm not saying there is anything
necessarily wrong with that -- whatever turns you on). I
used to think maybe Mr. Frank was actually on our side and
was playing the role of "devils advocate", but I have
rejected that. What Mr. Frank does is 1) he sets himself up
with his outlandish posts and his stubborness 2) sooner or
later, he gets what he wants -- abuse of various degrees.
Certain persons have strong "guilt complexes" (whether
deservedly or no). Mr. Frank gets his "relief" via
the public whippings he solicits.