United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Conspiracy Theories From The Elders of Zion to Epstein's Youngsters
Source:
Signs Of The Times
URL Source: https://www.sott.net/article/418926 ... of-Zion-to-Epsteins-Youngsters
Published: Aug 21, 2019
Author: Gilad Atzmon
Post Date: 2019-08-23 16:38:33 by Deckard
Keywords: None
Views: 1028
Comments: 6
Following Jeffrey Epstein's alleged suicide last week we have been deluged by a tsunami of narratives that do not adhere to the shifting official reports of his death. Presumably a few of the intimate secrets of the most powerful people on this planet will be buried with Epstein. While it is rational to believe that people powerful enough to impoverish continents or launch world wars that kill tens of millions could easily arrange the death of a single registered sex criminal in a NY prison cell, anyone who advanced such a scenario, however plausible, was immediately denounced as a 'conspiracy theorist.' 'Conspiracy theory' is how the mainstream media characterizes any narrative that differs from their reporting of the official line. What is a conspiracy theory? Can it be defined in categorical terms? Can a conspiracy theory be validated forensically or refuted by similar means? What criteria can be used to differentiate between a conspiracy theory and theoretical musings? Comment: Asking those questions makes you a conspiracy theorist. In short, anyone thinks instead of reacting as programmed/instructed. The labelling of a theory as 'conspiratorial' is an attempt to discredit its author/authors and deny its validity. A 'conspiracy theory' usually involves an explanatory thesis that points to a malevolent plot often involving a secretive interested party. The term 'conspiracy theory' has a pejorative connotation: its use suggests that the theory appeals to prejudice and/or involves a farfetched, unsubstantiated narrative built on insufficient evidence. Those who oppose conspiracy theories argue that such theories resist falsification and are reinforced by circular reasoning, that such theories are primarily based on beliefs, as opposed to academic or scientific reasoning. But this critique is also not exactly based on valid scholarly principles. It isn't just 'conspiracy theories' that resist falsification or are reinforced by circular reasoning. The philosopher Karl Popper, who defined the principle of falsifiability, would categorically maintain that Freudian psychoanalysis and Marxism fail for the same reasons. The Oedipal complex, for instance, has never been scientifically proven and can't be scientifically falsified or validated. Marxism also resists falsification. Despite Marx's 'scientific' predictions, the proletarian revolution never occurred. I have personally never come across anyone who refers to Marx or Freud as 'conspiracy theorists.' 'Resisting falsification' and "reinforced by circular reasoning," are traits of non-scientific theories and do not apply only to 'conspiracy theories.' The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event". The Oxford dictionary does not set forth the criteria that define a conspiracy theory in categorical terms. The history of mankind is saturated with references to hidden plots led by influential parties. The problem with refuting conspiracy theories is that they are often more elegant and explanatory than the official competing narratives. Such theories have a tendency to ascribe blame to hegemonic powers. In the past, conspiracy theories were popular mostly amongst fringe circles, they are now becoming commonplace in mass media. Alternative narratives are widely disseminated through social media. In some cases, they have been disseminated by official news outlets and even by the current American president. It is possible that the rapid rise in popularity of alternative explanatory theories is an indication of a growing mistrust of the current ruling class, its ideals, its interests and its demography. The response to the story of Jeffrey Epstein's suicide is illustrative. The official narrative provoked a reaction that was a mixture of disbelief expressed in satire and inspired a plethora of theories that attempted to explain the saga that had escalated into the biggest sex scandal in the history of America and beyond. The obvious question is what has led to the increase in popularity of so called 'conspiracy theories'? I would push it further and ask, why is a society that claims to be 'free' threatened by the rise of alternative explanatory narratives? In truth, the question is itself misleading. No one is really afraid of 'conspiracy theories' per se. You will not be arrested or lose your job for being a 'climate change denier.' Comment: In general, no. Not yet anyway. That may change though: Australian court rules marine scientist's sacking by James Cook University over climate change research critique is 'unlawful' You may speculate on and even deny the moon landing as much as you like. You are free to speculate about Kennedy's assassination as long as you don't mention the Mossad. You can even survive being a 911 truther and espouse as many alternative narratives as you like, however, the suggestion that 'Israel did 911' will get you into serious trouble. Examining 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion' as a fictional, however prophetic, piece of literature can lead to imprisonment in some countries. Digging into the true origin of Bolshevism and the demographics of the Soviet revolution is practically a suicidal act. Telling the truth about Hitler's agreement with the Zionist agency will definitely result in your expulsion from the British Labour party and you will be accused of being, at the very least, theoretically conspiratorial. I suspect that one is allowed to deviate from the official narrative and speculate on hidden plots on any given topic except probably the Jewish related ones. This is where things become complicated because there are no Jewish conspiracies; all is done in the open. Israel, Zionism, Jewish institutions and individuals operate in the public eye and don't conceal their actions. AIPAC doesn't attempt to hide its agenda nor do America's elected politicians make an effort to cover their shameless capitulation at AIPAC conferences. That Labour Friends of Israel is acting against the Labour party and its democratically-elected leader is mainstream news. The Israeli jets that attacked the USS Liberty on 8 June 1967 were decorated with Jewish symbols. Jeffery Epstein didn't disguise his 'Pedophile Island'. He operated in the open. I am afraid that there is not much evidence of Jewish conspiracies. But there is plenty of evidence of institutional suppression of any attempt to discuss any of this. AIPAC's agenda is openly avowed, criticising its agenda is strictly forbidden. The same applies to other Israel Lobby activity, Israeli war crimes and even crimes committed by Jewish individuals. Jewish power, as I define it, is the power to suppress discussion of Jewish power. For obvious reasons Jews are alarmed by theories that focus on their politics, culture, religion, folklore etc. It seems that Jewish bodies have been sufficiently forceful to silence most attempts to criticise Jewish and Israeli politics. That leads to the question of why Jews, Zionism, Judaism and Jewishness are so often the subject of conspiratorial theories. Is it that anti-Semitic prejudice again or is there perhaps something about Jewish ideology, culture and politics that invites such theories? It is worth consulting Jesse Walker's The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory. According to Walker there are five kinds of conspiracy theories: Such hostile foreign domination has been explored by various media outlets including Al Jazeera's exposé of the Israel Lobby in both Britain and the USA. The current American administration and its biased policy in favour of Israeli positions gives credence to those who see Israel as the 'enemy outside.' Yet, none of the above has 'conspired' behind the scenes. All is done in the open. You just can't discuss it in the open. The 'Enemy Within' could easily point at the intensive work of Israel advocates, Jewish Lobbies (AIPAC, J Street, etc.) and Israeli stooges within American politics and other Western countries (Britain, France etc). Similarly, those who uphold deep Christian values may identify Jewish progressive elements as the enemy of their conservative life-style. The same applies to anti-immigration advocates who see Jewish pro-immigration supporters as their enemies from within. The prominent role of Kushner and his proximity to the president doesn't help gainsay doubts about the so called 'enemy within.' But the Jewish Lobby in America is loud and provocative and Jewish progressive and pro-immigration supporters are at least as loud. Kushner doesn't hide his affiliation with Chabbad or his Zionist sympathies. There is no hidden plot, yet, you can't discuss this openly. The 'Enemy Above' is an apt description of Epstein's close orbit and its high connectivity within the world's ruling classes. And, as we know, Epstein didn't bother to conceal his operation. Calling his Boeing 727 the Lolita Express was little short of titling his private fleet 'Pedo Air' or 'United PedoLines.' Bernie Madoff falls within the same rubric. The man who was at one point NASDAQ's Chairman, didn't work that hard to disguise his Ponzi scheme, in fact Madoff admitted that he was surprised by law enforcement's failure to uncover his crimes. Some might regard George Soros as a prototype of the 'enemy above.' Soros is a Jewish billionaire who uses his wealth to fund identiterian causes and social changes that are not exactly welcomed by the conservative/nationalist crowd. Again, Soros doesn't hide a thing. He does his funding through his Open Society Institute. Yet, for some reason, criticism of Soros' agenda is frequently denounced as perpetuating 'conspiracy theories'. The 'Enemy Below' can be illustrated by Jewish involvement with revolutionary movements, human rights campaigns, the gender revolution, the feminist movement, LGBTQA advocacy and so on. Again none of this occurs behind a curtain. Jews often boast of their prominent role in these liberal and humanitarian causes. But criticism of these movements, and especially their supporters, is pretty much forbidden. 'Benevolent Conspiracies' are demonstrated by Tikun Olam's philosophy: the idea that it is down to the Jews to 'fix the world and reinstate its ethics.' Those who refuse to 'be fixed' may well see Jewish elements at the core of a progressive cause and may see a malevolent dark force in such altruism. Most ethnic or interest groups fit into only one or two of the types described by Walker's Conspiracy Theory Model; Jewish politics fit with them all. In the eyes of ardent bigoted European nationalists such as Tommy Robinson, Muslim immigrants represent an 'Enemy Outside.' Racists who hate Black people may see those with dark skin as the 'Enemy Within.' Those who disapprove of Gays and their culture may find them to be the 'enemy below.' Still it is bizarre how easily Walker's entire five conspiracy theory types can be found among Jewish politics, individuals, institutions, activist networks and campaigns. How is it possible that one relatively small ethnic group manages to embody all the types of 'conspiracy theories?' In my recent book Being in Time, I argue that Jews tend to dominate the discourses that are relevant to their existence and interests. I refer to it as Jewish survival instinct. Jewish activists and intellectuals also tend to dominate the dissent to problematic symptoms associated with their group identity: Jews are often, for instance, associated with capitalism, banking and wealth in general, and Jews are also equated with Marxist and socialist opposition to capitalism, banking and wealth. Obviously, many Jews are associated with the Jewish State and the Zionist project but it is no secret that Leftist Jews also dominate the anti-Zionist discourse and politics. Jews, at least in the eyes of some, are leading pro-immigration advocates. But some of the most vocal anti-immigration and anti-Muslim campaigners are also Jewish. In Being in Time I argue that the fact that Jews dominate both poles of pretty much every topic relevant to their existence isn't necessarily 'conspiratorial.' It is only natural for ethical and humanist Jews to oppose Zionism, or Wall Street. It is also natural based on their history, for Jews as a group to simultaneously oppose and support immigration. Natural as it may be, the presence of Jews in key ideological, political, cultural and financial positions is undeniable. It is more than likely that their domination on both sides of so many crucial political debates invites conspiratorial thoughts. Jewish economist Murray Rothbard contrasts "deep" conspiracy theories with "shallow" ones. According to Rothbard, a shallow theorist observes an event and asks, who benefits? He or she then jumps to the conclusion that the posited beneficiary is responsible for covertly influencing events. Under this theory, Israel benefiting from the events of 9/11 made it into a prime suspect. This is often a completely legitimate strategy and is exactly how detective and investigative researchers operate. In order to identify the culprit, they may well ask who would benefit from the crime. Of course this According to Rothbard the "deep" conspiracy theorist begins with a hunch and then seeks out evidence. Rothbard describes deep conspiracy theory as the result of confirming whether certain facts actually fit one's initial 'paranoia.' This explanation pretty much describes a lot of how science works. Any given scientific theory defines the realm of facts that may support or refute its validity. Science is a deductive reasoning process, so that in science, it is the theory that defines the relevance of the evidence. Would Rothbard describe Newtonian physics as 'deeply conspiratorial'? I doubt it. My guess is that, bearing Rothbard in mind, attributing a 'conspiratorial nature' to a theory is an attempt the deny the relevance of the evidence it brings to light. If for instance, the theory that Epstein was a Mossad agent is 'conspiratorial,' then the facts that he was a business partner of Ehud Barak and involved in a company that uses Israeli military intelligence tactics become irrelevant. The same applies to former Federal Prosecutor Alex Acosta's admission that Epstein "belonged to intelligence" and that was why he was the beneficiary of a laughable plea deal. If, for example, the theory that it was the Jews who led the 1917 Bolshevik revolution is 'conspiratorial,' then the facts regarding the demography that led the revolution and its criminal nature are of no consequence. The labelling of a theory as conspiratorial is an attempt to erase uncomfortable evidence by reprioritising the relevance of certain facts. It seems that Rothbard and others have failed to produce categorical criteria to identify or define Conspiracy Theories. We may have to accept that, as of now, there is no categorical standard to define a conspiracy theory. We may have to learn to live with the fact that some theories are superior; simpler and more elegant than others. We will have to accept that some of these theories make a few people pretty uncomfortable and they will explore every avenue to discredit such theories and their authors. Attributing a conspiratorial nature to an explanatory theory is just one of these methods. Comment: As with 9/11 and Russiagate, Epstein's 'suicide' is yet another instance where the official story is the whackiest tinfoil hat conspiracy theory of all. This essentially proves that the term has no actual explanatory power other than to identify and smear theories that are not sanctioned by the 'reality-creators'. See also: 
It is fairly easy to figure out that each of Walker's conspiracy types describes an openly manifested aspect of Jewish politics, culture or religion.
The 'Enemy Outside' could be a legitimate American patriotic/nationalist reaction to foreign domination of American foreign policy. This kind of argument is supported by well-researched academic studies such as that of Mearshehimer and Walt as well as that of James Petras who studied the Israel Lobby and its impact.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Deckard (#0)
This writer is an Israeli musician and writer. He is a secular Jew and is anti-Zionist. He's been accused many times of being anti-semitic.
It is a CIA construct used for propaganda purposes to denigrate critics of the Warren Report. It is a meaningless set of words, similar to "quality health care." One is designed to project a negative connotation and the other a positive connotation, with neither actually saying a damn thing. The Warren Report was the official government conspiracy theory. Perhaps Earl warren was a conspiracy theorist. Quality health care could be great, good, bad, or killer. It is bravely going where no man had gone before -- into the black hole of verbal pollution.
The Frosted Flakes have learned if you put a tree hugger adjective, within their socialist AGENDA, it sells better to the sheeple. Like SENSIBLE gun laws. They are evil, educated and organized. They’ve been that way for the last 50 years... but they could never have forecasted Trump, setting them back, like he has. It’s why they’ve doubled down. Just wait to see how low they get after Trump wins 2020.
It is bravely going where no man had gone before -- into the black hole of verbal pollution. False realiTy lefTisT ideaology Liberal north pole saTTeliTes Hovering The deaTh hole Gps on a defuncT planeT Incurable schizophrenics A vacuum fuelled universe FloTsum / jeTsom of ouTer space junk how abouT qualiTy horse care How to Curb Your Horse’s Urge to Kick 24 Nov, 2014 PetPlace Staff Kicking is an innate behavior that is undesirable in the domestic horse. The behavior can be suppressed through careful training. In the wild, horses react to predators in one of two ways: by fleeing, or if they feel trapped, by threatening and kicking. On the ranch or stable, domesticated horses may try this same maneuver on their human handlers if they don’t want a person near them or they sense fear, danger, imminent pain or territorial compromise. A Defense Response “Kicking is the horse’s most common defense mechanism,” says Dr. Ross Hugi, an equine veterinarian in Mundelein, Ill. “It’s the thing a horse will do as a response to either not wanting to flee or not being able to flee.” For instance, if a stallion approaches a mare and she doesn’t want to mate, she’ll often kick him. Generally speaking, if two horses get in a fight, they kick each other. When a horse kicks a human, it’s often due to fear. “A horse may view a certain person as a threat and see no way of escape when that person comes into his stall and so the horse may try to protect himself by kicking,” Hugi says. Or perhaps the horse is just irritable; he might kick to try to prevent his owner, or the farrier or veterinarian, from doing something he doesn’t like. A horse may also kick when he’s startled from behind. “Your horse has a spot right at his tail and if he doesn’t see you coming, his natural response may be to kick,” says Dr. Kathryn Houpt, director of the Animal Behavior Clinic at Cornell University. Kicking is a behavior that we should not reinforce. Kicking reactions can be reinforced in foals, so you must be very careful how you pattern your training during the early months of development. Foals as early as two days of age will start to “backfire” in response to your needling of them by slapping them gently on the rump, startling them, or approaching them while not clearly in view. However amusing or benign, it is important to avoid this interactions with young foals and to approach them in a slow, methodical, visually obvious fashion. Entering their domain in a crouched position, for example, can help. Tips to Protect Yourself Never approach your horse directly from behind. If you do, your horse may not see you coming and may be startled. Instead, approach your horse from a side angle and talk to him as you walk up to his stall so that he knows you’re coming. If you have no choice but to walk past your horse from behind, give him lots of space. Make sure you’re far enough away so your horse’s back leg can’t reach you if he does decide to kick. Give a kicker time to learn that you aren’t a threat. Through repeated daily contact, your horse will learn that you bring him food, caress him by grooming, talk to him softly and mean him no harm. Eventually, this will reduce his fear and the consequent impulse to kick. Reprimand your horse the instant he threatens to kick you. If your horse turns his rump toward you suddenly, while pinning his ears at the same time, he’s threatening to kick you. Tell him “Stop!” or “Quit!” in a loud, firm tone of voice and walk out of the horse’s range. In general, physical punishment does not work well and sets a bad example for people around you. If the physical penalty does not work, there is the tendency to think that the horse is stubborn or hopeless, and this unfortunately has caused physical punishment to escalate in many cases. This is a bad cycle. Just as physical punishment of a child does not alter fear- based behavior, similar punishments do not work on horses with certain fears. On the other hand, well-controlled and gentle use of the whip, or better, the threatening approach with a whip, may be necessary to bail out of a dangerous situation. Examples are the mare that will not move away from a foal that is very sick and in need of help, or the gelding that sustained a laceration that refuses to be caught and would rather kick the intruders. Use physical punishment only if you’re out of kicking range and do not delay the punishment more than five seconds after the bad behavior. In general, physical punishments should be avoided since they will often backfire, inciting more fear and more protective behavior. Be Consistent and Patient In most cases, the issue that cannot be resolved is the threat of kicking, rather than the act itself. For example, we have all known the horse that is difficult to catch and shows his back end. Some horses develop this behavior in a new environment out of fear. There often is a lack of routine in the handling/handler of the horse, such as a new mucker. Alternatively, if there is too much variation in feeding, exercising, or traveling, a horse can get sour and attempt to kick or at least threaten to do so. Some horses appear to be reacting to chronic pain, environmental stress, or over-training. In fact, only recently was over-training found to contribute to a horse’s physical well-being, specifically giving them sore muscles, making them lose weight and showing signs of depression. Being ‘sour’ is a related sign and must be given attention before more violent behaviors such as kicking ensue. The threat to kick by turning in the stall is one of the most difficult habits to deter. It must be viewed upon as a fear response. Any form of punishment will strengthen the fear and worsen this habit. Maybe you can catch the horse using force, but the problem will come back. Although necessary at times, the use of wheelbarrows, brooms, and other “armory” also compound fear and should only be used if necessary. It appears that months of careful consistent gentle interactions, with a single or very few people will improve the situation. Relapses should be suspected, however, so limit the personnel that has access to such a horse for a period of time. If your horse is actually kicking other horses, it may be necessary to move the horse to a different social group or turn him out alone. Seek Professional Help If you’re having little success deterring a habit – threatening to kick or actually carrying the threat out – seek advice from a professional. There are different approaches to behavior problems, including the “veterinary behaviorist” and the “trainer” or “clinician” or “natural horseman.” It is often difficult to choose which person will benefit the horse. The behaviorist and trainer may work with entirely different assumptions and implement different tools. It is probably a good idea to talk with a veterinary behaviorist first, as they also have the background in physical problems in the horse, which must be considered. Behaviorists are also abreast of new developments and research concerning behavior modification and pharmacologic approaches. The advantage of a trainer or horseman is that they have the time and experience to evaluate, sometimes repetitively, the actions of the horse, and to work with the horse on the ground and under saddle. This can be extremely effective in getting the problem under control before someone gets hurt. Any use of repeated or harsh physical punishment should be avoided and that goes for anyone handling the horse. https://www.petplace.com/article/horses/general/curb-horses-urge-kick/2/
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Something weird happened to you in LIFE. You have no understanding of individual freedoms or liberties.
#2. To: Deckard (#0)
What is a conspiracy theory?
#3. To: nolu chan (#2)
quality health care
#4. To: nolu chan (#2)
Quality health care could be great, good, bad, or killer.
#5. To: Buckeroo (#4)
Bucking
#6. To: BorisY (#5)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]