Conspiracy Theorists and Cult Mentality

[RickS]

I agree completely. I was just pointing out that the PS does make it very easy for anyone to find this thread. Break out the troll spray!

[Freeski]

The question I have to ask is why anyone who thinks we are a bunch of mindless cultists would even want to be here at all unless they were sent to sow dissension among us?

woojootahkinbout?

[northoftheborder]

I have to agree with the OP on this.

 Take Texe Marrs for example. Sorry Texe, but your information reads more like a tabloid than a study in anthropology or theology, and some of it is just outright wrong. Sensationalism is great at selling books and DVDs, but that's pretty much it's only purpose.

I have to strongly agree with you regarding the Marrs material. I was quite eager to read his works, but when I did I was so very disappointed. It was the lowest quality, bigoted tripe I've had the misfortune to read in a long time. I was genuinely so surprised at how poor it was.    I would not recommend his material to anyone. Waste of time, energy and money. Stay well clear folks!

[Denton]

I have to strongly agree with you regarding the Marrs material. I was quite eager to read his works, but when I did I was so very disappointed. It was the lowest quality, bigoted tripe I've had the misfortune to read in a long time. I was genuinely so surprised at how poor it was.    I would not recommend his material to anyone. Waste of time, energy and money. Stay well clear folks!

Really?
Ok, i'll burn my copy of "Codex Magica" because of your very well written criticism. 

[TheGoodFight1984]

Bit of an overstatement / misjudgement - the 9/11 truth movement is about as cult as a stadium full of football fans, people rally around what they believe in and it's fully healthy and normal, despite what we're led to believe by the MSM etc. Just speaking for myself there - I find a lot of the 'out there' theories intriguing and don't dismiss them but I also don't necessarily believe them either - nothing wrong with discussing them.
I'll agree that there is a percentage of unfounded accusation towards the gov't with little to no proof and I do agree that there is a percentage of unfounded 'you're a sheep / troll' accusations also, sometimes right, sometimes not, I don't think calling people mindless buffoons or idiots in any way helpful or productive towards reaching our goal - despite my o'reilly sheep avatar.

[mickswann]

Here we go again. Someone challenges the orthodoxy and now they're a "troll", whatever that means.

Do you not think that he has a point, not about the teens (yuck and yuck again...by the way pederasty involves boys) but about the way that people have a tendency to be very uncritical about the information that they recieve from anti-NWO sources.

One only has to look at the UFO, lizard, satanist, jew, muslim or catholic orientated threads on this forum to see that we are doing a fine job of spreading disinformation among ourselves without the need for "trolls" or "disinfo-agents", "cointelpro" or any of that other paranoid clap-trap.

What was wrong with the old way of doing things? When did we give up fact-checking and start putting our faith in talking heads?

Wasn't that how we fell asleep in the first place?

[Biggs]

Here we go again. Someone challenges the orthodoxy and now they're a "troll", whatever that means.

Do you not think that he has a point, not about the teens (yuck and yuck again...by the way pederasty involves boys) but about the way that people have a tendency to be very uncritical about the information that they recieve from anti-NWO sources.

One only has to look at the UFO, lizard, satanist, jew, muslim or catholic orientated threads on this forum to see that we are doing a fine job of spreading disinformation among ourselves without the need for "trolls" or "disinfo-agents", "cointelpro" or any of that other paranoid clap-trap.

What was wrong with the old way of doing things? When did we give up fact-checking and start putting our faith in talking heads?

Wasn't that how we fell asleep in the first place?

I would agree with you entirely, but looking at the selection of his other posts that were quoted above the guy is a troll - although his OP above does by no means prove it, his other choice phrases do.

Still i do agree that there is a tendency to blindly believe anthing anti-NWO, I am guilty of it myself at times. yet the sad fact is that much of this stuff is really really hard to prove. e.g. Satanic rituals and practice, easy to prove they exist and what they contain, harder to prove that elites are involved directly. Or Jesuits, SMOM and their influence, Napoleon, jefferson, Lincoln and others tell us they are bad, but proving it ain't easy - that is the nature of secret societies. Ditto with high masonic and high occult info, really proving it and proving that all US presidents are 32nd degree or upward is not that easy.

There is a certain level of word of mouth that is sadly necessary, yet by taking word of mouth as a source does indeed leave us open to accepting false truths as accurate.

oh being a firey anti-war left winger was so much easier, I yearn for the day, I could have been a proper writer by now if I had not woken up to the NWO, life was so much clearer and the enemy easier to prove and identify when they were just a smallish band of neocons and ziocons.
 

[Denton]

Here we go again. Someone challenges the orthodoxy and now they're a "troll", whatever that means.

Do you not think that he has a point, not about the teens (yuck and yuck again...by the way pederasty involves boys) but about the way that people have a tendency to be very uncritical about the information that they recieve from anti-NWO sources.

One only has to look at the UFO, lizard, satanist, jew, muslim or catholic orientated threads on this forum to see that we are doing a fine job of spreading disinformation among ourselves without the need for "trolls" or "disinfo-agents", "cointelpro" or any of that other paranoid clap-trap.

What was wrong with the old way of doing things? When did we give up fact-checking and start putting our faith in talking heads?

Wasn't that how we fell asleep in the first place?

I don't agree. Am i now a cult member following blindly my master? 
You call me a mindcontrolled cult member, i call you a troll. 

[mickswann]

I don't agree. Am i now a cult member following blindly my master? 
You call me a mindcontrolled cult member, i call you a troll. 

When did I call you, or anyone else, anything of the kind?

If you wish to reply to one of my posts at least have the common courtesy to read and understand it before you do so.

You have chosen to quote my post, while, it seems, replying to the first post on this thread. A post which I did not write.

I too am one of the 'cultists', to which the original poster refers. However, my response to such an allegation was to clearly demonstrate that I am able to take a step back and analyse my own belief structure, thus demonstrating that I am in no way brainwashed and managing to deal with such an allegation without resorting to the usual hackneyed and pointless name-calling and labelling.

I apologise if my means of discourse was too subtle for you.

An apology would not go amiss.

[pac522]

Here we go again. Someone challenges the orthodoxy and now they're a "troll", whatever that means.

Do you not think that he has a point, not about the teens (yuck and yuck again...by the way pederasty involves boys) but about the way that people have a tendency to be very uncritical about the information that they recieve from anti-NWO sources.

One only has to look at the UFO, lizard, satanist, jew, muslim or catholic orientated threads on this forum to see that we are doing a fine job of spreading disinformation among ourselves without the need for "trolls" or "disinfo-agents", "cointelpro" or any of that other paranoid clap-trap.

What was wrong with the old way of doing things? When did we give up fact-checking and start putting our faith in talking heads?

Wasn't that how we fell asleep in the first place?

Case in point:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoytrHE821o

I cant stop watching this guy I'm ROFLMMFAO.

[TheGoodFight1984]

I too am one of the 'cultists', to which the original poster refers. However, my response to such an allegation was to clearly demonstrate that I am able to take a step back and analyse my own belief structure, thus demonstrating that I am in no way brainwashed and managing to deal with such an allegation without resorting to the usual hackneyed and pointless name-calling and labelling.

right on the money there Mick.

[Denton]

When did I call you, or anyone else, anything of the kind?

If you wish to reply to one of my posts at least have the common courtesy to read and understand it before you do so.

You have chosen to quote my post, while, it seems, replying to the first post on this thread. A post which I did not write.

I too am one of the 'cultists', to which the original poster refers. However, my response to such an allegation was to clearly demonstrate that I am able to take a step back and analyse my own belief structure, thus demonstrating that I am in no way brainwashed and managing to deal with such an allegation without resorting to the usual hackneyed and pointless name-calling and labelling.

I apologise if my means of discourse was too subtle for you.

An apology would not go amiss.

You did agree with the original poster, right?
Since the original poster is a obvious troll, i thought why wasting time and replying to him if i can go and reply to those who are doing the mocking-bird song for the troll. You've demonstrated your mocking bird skills and you have analysed your belief system or whatever, but the result of it was you defending the attacks of the troll. And that tells me something about your analysing skills. They suck.

[mickswann]

You did agree with the original poster, right?

On an ancillary component of his argument, yes. I outlined the small part of his post that I agreed with in my reply. That the critical appraisal of information within our movement leaves much to be desired.
Had you read the above post you would, no doubt, already know that. It does not follow that I therefore blindly agree with every point that the poster made.
Surely, in a thread in which we are challenging the notion that, as the poster implied, we are all brainlessly dogmatic, such an assumption, on your part, is more than a little ironic?

Since the original poster is a obvious troll, I thought why wasting time and inreplying to him if I can go and reply to those who are doing the mocking-bird song for the troll.

Well, mixed-metaphors aside, I thought that the issue that I addressed was worth addressing, it's really rather gnomic. In amongst the dross there was a good point and wherever a good point is made and regardless of by whom it may be written, it is worth responding to. It is a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

You've demonstrated your mocking-bird skills and you have analysed your belief-system, or whatever, but the result of it was that you defended the attacks of a troll. And That tells me something about your analysing skills of analysis, they suck.

Knee-jerk anti-intellectualism isn't really the answer is it? I have simply stated that I, and many others, find this movement to be uncritical on occasion and I believe that we should, as a matter of course, be willing to personally attempt to confirm information, from different sources, whenever we can.

A clear example can be seen with the 'no-plane' people. They have taken onboard new information without critical appraisal, subject, largely to a desire to believe and, probably, peer pressure. The result has been a split - thankfully not a very serious one - in the movement.
If all information is verified then such schism can be minimised.
Surely vigilance is the very polar-opposite of dogma and helps to prevent such splits?

If you disagree then please discuss it with me amicably, there really is no need to appear from nowhere and start making silly childish insults, we're better than that surely?

As for your penetrating assessment of my analytical skills; you are of course, quite free to express your opinion but it might be better served by actually bringing something to the table.
 

[dogmadestroyer]

I'm with you, Mick. This bothers me as well.

[mickswann]

I'm with you, Mick. This bothers me as well.

Thank you.

But I fail to see why such a common sense issue seems to be so controversial?

The sceptical assessment of information is absolutely central to what we are doing. Fact checking should be a matter of ingrained habit to all of us. On reading, or hearing, something we should immediately seek corroboration. This is the way that you avoid "disinformation". Not by calling people names on the web.

I think it is a problem that we will sceptically check the information from MSM much more readily than we do from our preferred talk-radio hosts. For the most part I think we have become complacent rather than dogmatic, but the issue needs a good airing and if that airing comes from a "troll", then so be it.

We really have to talk about this.

[Wanted]

Some quotes from Timiat:

"Al Gore is one of the smartest men alive."
"Marrying Teens = Fighting the NWO"
"i can never take loose change, or anybody from the so called 9-11 truth movement seriously"
"Oh and uhh...can i plz haz ur teen daughters now? ;p"
"Eat, sleep, screw. At it's core, thats all lifes really all about."
"fu*k the alleged "truth" movement, and everyone in it."
"I have no problem with anyone saying that someone sending a 9-11 conspriocy dvd to a troop in a iraq, should be killed. I 100% agree"

These quotes are horrible, not even trolish but yet very pervertive. Dont ban him just yet, let him stick around maybe he shall give us some clues, on what the next NWO move is.  (nah better ban him not worth, still DISGUSTING quotes.)



But yes i must agree "some" not all in here do exhibit the overlly "all NWO theories are right and everyone else is wrong", but then again this could be the anger and overexcitement for the NWO and all the shit that we are heading to. 

A good thing to do is USE YOU HEAD, research the material you are not sure of and decide for yourself you cant agree on everything a 100% percent, even the sheep sometimes arent 100% sheep..lol. 

Most important thing use YOUR HEAD and BE PREPARED to face the NWO. 

[GoingEtheric]

Thank you.

But I fail to see why such a common sense issue seems to be so controversial?

The sceptical assessment of information is absolutely central to what we are doing. Fact checking should be a matter of ingrained habit to all of us. On reading, or hearing, something we should immediately seek corroboration............

Cmon.
We have to draw a line. This guy isn't about 'fact checking', or balancing our faith with him skepticism; he pops up, makes controversial statements guaranteed to incite conflict, then disappears. When do we get to call a spade a spade?

[netizen_x]

Osiris, appreciate what you say, but with your method of waiting first until you prove things to your own satisfaction, you risk always being one step behind everything that happens ahead.

Not disrespecting you in any way, just suggesting that you only need to hear a duck quack once like a duck, and walk once like a duck, to know for sure you've got a duck in front of you.  I'm saying that for you, it still ain't no duck, you'd always want more 'proof' time after time.

I guess the CT people are just a lot quicker on the uptake and are prepared to some degree. I'd rather hedge and be on their side of the fence.  The catalog of proven things our governments have done or tried, Northwoods, Tonkin, nerve-gas tests on troops... jeezus that list sounds like something out of a nutjob Conspiracy Theory... but it is all true and proven.

I submit if you accept all of the above happened, you'd have a screw loose to think all CT are wrong. They know their enemy.

Tuskegee syphilis experiment: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0762136.html

AIDS research on black and Hispanic orphan children: http://liam.gnn.tv/articles/1475/The_NIH_Scandal_and_the_Future_of_AIDS_Research

88,000 and 139,000 massacred with Viox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rofecoxib

All the people involved in all the experiments above still walking and experimenting.

[Freeski]

Thank you.

But I fail to see why such a common sense issue seems to be so controversial?

The sceptical assessment of information is absolutely central to what we are doing. Fact checking should be a matter of ingrained habit to all of us. On reading, or hearing, something we should immediately seek corroboration. This is the way that you avoid "disinformation". Not by calling people names on the web.

I think it is a problem that we will sceptically check the information from MSM much more readily than we do from our preferred talk-radio hosts. For the most part I think we have become complacent rather than dogmatic, but the issue needs a good airing and if that airing comes from a "troll", then so be it.

We really have to talk about this.

But...

You make tons of excellent points BUT when you reach a certain level of knowledge about the way the world really works, it's okay to spend a little less fact checking - I'm talking about every bit of evidence that all governments are corrupt (for example), we know that's true so another piece of the puzzle doesn't make it "more true" - it already is.

[mickswann]

But...

You make tons of excellent points BUT when you reach a certain level of knowledge about the way the world really works, it's okay to spend a little less fact checking - I'm talking about every bit of evidence that all governments are corrupt (for example), we know that's true so another piece of the puzzle doesn't make it "more true" - it already is.

With all due respect, that is the complacency that I'm talking about.

If people took a bit more time to develop their critical skills then we wouldn't have so many "trolls" and we would have been spared from having to deal with that fraud Fulford.

We need to draw a distinction between evidence, rumour and unfounded allegation and, at the moment, this forum is not serving that task particularly well.

[Real Truth]

Maybe Cter's always blame the governemnt for everything because THEY USUALLY ARE THE BLAME FOR EVERYTHING

they manipulate diseases
they poison their own people with chemtrails
they have cure for diseases but instead offer poison medicine
they start wars FOR MONEY but they don't die in war oh noes they send you to die in war
THEY FIX ELECTION
we have no power they trample on our constitution and bills of right

I think I have a good reason to blame the government

[Freeski]

With all due respect, that is the complacency that I'm talking about.

If people took a bit more time to develop their critical skills then we wouldn't have so many "trolls" and we would have been spared from having to deal with that fraud Fulford.

We need to draw a distinction between evidence, rumour and unfounded allegation and, at the moment, this forum is not serving that task particularly well.

I'm talking about the minutiae here. You don't taunt a bear every day just to prove they bite.

[JTCoyoté]

Here we go again. Someone challenges the orthodoxy and now they're a "troll", whatever that means.

Do you not think that he has a point, not about the teens (yuck and yuck again...by the way pederasty involves boys) but about the way that people have a tendency to be very uncritical about the information that they recieve from anti-NWO sources.

One only has to look at the UFO, lizard, satanist, jew, muslim or catholic orientated threads on this forum to see that we are doing a fine job of spreading disinformation among ourselves without the need for "trolls" or "disinfo-agents", "cointelpro" or any of that other paranoid clap-trap.

What was wrong with the old way of doing things? When did we give up fact-checking and start putting our faith in talking heads?

Wasn't that how we fell asleep in the first place?

"Here we go again..."  Gawd, how I love that intro... takes me back to the old and days, the days before fluoride, Prozac, and when cable TV was new... well at least no fluoride in Colorado...

I hate to be the bearer of sad news, there Mick, but most who pound those subjects, are not among ourselves, much as you, my slithering friend, are not one of ourselves.

In the vein of the originator of the thread, his first three sentences, your entire post above,  is a meandering mesmerizing mist of sleep dust.. that states a false problem...  by calling attention to the subjects you state, that are always carried to the "beyond research" level by the membership here... when in fact it is the trolls who enter here who do the tripe spreading,  and exit these pages almost as quickly as they morph...
 
But then, you even call into question the well proven time tested terms such as dis-info agents, co-Intel Pro... and then you encapsulate its all in the term paranoid claptrap...

Mick , I knew that if I gave you a couple of days in here alone, after removing your two buddies... and let the general membership continue posting, you would eventually be on the eggs like a viper on a ground-terns nest.

There are a lot of us here who were never asleep...  in my case, I was taught the Constitution and Bill of Rights, along with the teachings of Jesus, with my morning pancakes... after milking, and before going to school... virtually every morning, until high school...

I don't agree. Am i now a cult member following blindly my master? 
You call me a mindcontrolled cult member, i call you a troll. 

When did I call you, or anyone else, anything of the kind?

If you wish to reply to one of my posts at least have the common courtesy to read and understand it before you do so.

You have chosen to quote my post, while, it seems, replying to the first post on this thread. A post which I did not write.

I too am one of the 'cultists', to which the original poster refers. However, my response to such an allegation was to clearly demonstrate that I am able to take a step back and analyse my own belief structure, thus demonstrating that I am in no way brainwashed and managing to deal with such an allegation without resorting to the usual hackneyed and pointless name-calling and labelling.

I apologise if my means of discourse was too subtle for you.

An apology would not go amiss.

What a marvelous and empathetic post...  you chide him first for his mistaking you, for the original poster... due no doubt to the similarity in style... but with more craft in the way you weave... then you climb up on your precipice of superiority and admonish him for not answering the post that he quoted...

Then you dive back into the masses stirring their sentiments as you identify yourself as one of the "cultists" too... only to climb back onto your high pulpit of supposed clear analysis, supplying the beginning of your reaction scenario at which time you apologize for your superiority, but continue it by soliciting an apology in return, equally as subtle in nuance...

You did agree with the original poster, right?

On an ancillary component of his argument, yes. I outlined the small part of his post that I agreed with in my reply. That the critical appraisal of information within our movement leaves much to be desired.
Had you read the above post you would, no doubt, already know that. It does not follow that I therefore blindly agree with every point that the poster made.
Surely, in a thread in which we are challenging the notion that, as the poster implied, we are all brainlessly dogmatic, such an assumption, on your part, is more than a little ironic?

Since the original poster is a obvious troll, I thought why wasting time and inreplying to him if I can go and reply to those who are doing the mocking-bird song for the troll.

Well, mixed-metaphors aside, I thought that the issue that I addressed was worth addressing, it's really rather gnomic. In amongst the dross there was a good point and wherever a good point is made and regardless of by whom it may be written, it is worth responding to. It is a matter of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

You've demonstrated your mocking-bird skills and you have analysed your belief-system, or whatever, but the result of it was that you defended the attacks of a troll. And That tells me something about your analysing skills of analysis, they suck.

Knee-jerk anti-intellectualism isn't really the answer is it? I have simply stated that I, and many others, find this movement to be uncritical on occasion and I believe that we should, as a matter of course, be willing to personally attempt to confirm information, from different sources, whenever we can.

A clear example can be seen with the 'no-plane' people. They have taken onboard new information without critical appraisal, subject, largely to a desire to believe and, probably, peer pressure. The result has been a split - thankfully not a very serious one - in the movement.
If all information is verified then such schism can be minimised.
Surely vigilance is the very polar-opposite of dogma and helps to prevent such splits?

If you disagree then please discuss it with me amicably, there really is no need to appear from nowhere and start making silly childish insults, we're better than that surely?

As for your penetrating assessment of my analytical skills; you are of course, quite free to express your opinion but it might be better served by actually bringing something to the table.
 

Ah.... now you have him, with the question, "you do agree with the original poster, right?"

Then you begin weaving your nonsense...  stating the ancillary agreement you have with the original poster on several points... but then you move to refine those points even further... your student wasn't quite as smooth as you would like him to be... without mentioning a particular issue you ramble a well woven mesmerism almost complete with wheel... saying absolutely nothing. You begin this paragraph by stating, "mixed metaphors aside", only to end it on a metaphor... slick, Mick...

The man asked you a question, which you did not answer, instead you laid out a circular diatribe to several points, then set out in a schizoid instant with the question that... "if you disagree then ...  no need to appear from nowhere and start making childish insults..."  There was no childish insult... there was an observation, and the proper word was used to describe that observation... a word you are hoping to demonize here, along with the people who use it...

I'm with you, Mick. This bothers me as well.

Thank you.

But I fail to see why such a common sense issue seems to be so controversial?

The sceptical assessment of information is absolutely central to what we are doing. Fact checking should be a matter of ingrained habit to all of us. On reading, or hearing, something we should immediately seek corroboration. This is the way that you avoid "disinformation". Not by calling people names on the web.

I think it is a problem that we will sceptically check the information from MSM much more readily than we do from our preferred talk-radio hosts. For the most part I think we have become complacent rather than dogmatic, but the issue needs a good airing and if that airing comes from a "troll", then so be it.

We really have to talk about this.

But...

You make tons of excellent points BUT when you reach a certain level of knowledge about the way the world really works, it's okay to spend a little less fact checking - I'm talking about every bit of evidence that all governments are corrupt (for example), we know that's true so another piece of the puzzle doesn't make it "more true" - it already is.

With all due respect, that is the complacency that I'm talking about.

If people took a bit more time to develop their critical skills then we wouldn't have so many "trolls" and we would have been spared from having to deal with that fraud Fulford.

We need to draw a distinction between evidence, rumour and unfounded allegation and, at the moment, this forum is not serving that task particularly well.

Then DD comes in in support... but he hasn't really understood one thing that you said... but he will sidle up to the power, or what he sees or perceives as that... I don't fault him for it... he's always one to live by the rules and by God that deserves an honorable mention at the very least.

Then Free comes in and attempts to rationalize what you are saying... only to get the same, circular "demonize the word troll" spiel, and then you use Fulford as an example... that is comparing Soup and nuts, buddy boy, soup and nuts....

In any case, you then follow up with some drivel about common sense... common sense which you haven't demonstrated, or proved really, at least not to anyone who understands your drivel. Then, you state a secondary facet to your reaction, which is that, somehow everyone here doesn't check sources, and somehow everyone here is a blind dumb follower... you say we check the msm, but not Alex....

Not true Mick, only those who tout that particular disinformation believe that BS... that would be you Mick.... yet undaunted, you continue demonizing everyone because you, like we, are all "cultists". How sacrificial of you Mick... does this mean you don't research what is said by Alex and his guests...? Shame shame Mick... Are you noticing how your little compatriots are slowly disappearing from the board... you didn't teach them well enough Micki lee... I'm not going to let you finish the end-game Mick, I think all of the members here have pretty much figured it out...

There is no gain without mistakes, and sometimes, by making a mistake you gain volumes and volumes in experience... you were asking this membership to follow your method, yet there was nothing clear in your "method"... to listen to you... it would be your method, that will successfully stop the trolls... Yes, it will but only because the trolls will have won... 

The message that is brought forth, by Alex and his guests, draws the NWO trolls like flies to a picnic... and every week we let in 150 or so people, and let out about 50 trolls... 51 this week!

Cigarette... Blindfold...

Any last words... try to keep it brief....

JTCoyoté

"Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning, they want the ocean without the awful roar of its waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand... It never did... and it never will... Find out just what the people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." -- Frederick Douglas (1857)

[mickswann]

I hate to be the bearer of sad news, there Mick, but most who pound those subjects, are not among ourselves, much as you, my slithering friend, are not one of ourselves.

I wish there was time to ask you to explain yourself, to ask you to what gives you the authority to determine who is and isn't a part of the movement. It becomes clear that you don't want other opinions being part of this. For my part I would say that 860+ posts and a sincere opposition to the aims and objectives of the NWO makes me a part of this struggle.

It appears that my time here is to be brought to an end. I would like to thank you all for your time, your views and your opinions. I have enjoyed many of the threads here and it has opened my eyes a great deal. The access to so many people's vigilant research has been a terrific benefit and I will be sorry to ose this forum as a resource.

We are on the cusp of the darkest age that man has known. Our liberties are being stripped from us and our children are likely to know the jack-boot of authority all too well. It is essential to remember that all authority is grounded in consent, blindly marching off to the camps is no answer, you must fight. Be very certain before you allow anyone to have authority over you.

Other than that, thank you, stand strong, be true to each other and never relent.

Oh, and watch what you write.....

[life0repeats]

while i agree that the original poster is a "troll" (i don't care for the term, but he's obviously someone who tries to stir things up in a negative way most of the time), I do think the issues he brought up have merit.  They are gross generalizations tho.  every group has examples of what he brought up.  but since we are supposed to be awake I do think its important that we are awake about our own ways as well as the ways of others.  looking in the mirror every so often never hurts.

[mickswann]

The message that is brought forth, by Alex and his guests, draws the NWO trolls like flies to a picnic... and every week we let in 150 or so people, and let out about 50 trolls... 51 this week!

Cigarette... Blindfold...

Any last words... try to keep it brief....

JTCoyoté

The last four hours, spent on the phone, trying to stop a friend from taking her own life have changed my perspective. You are simply beneath my concern.

When the time comes I will have your back and fight by your side without a moment's hesitation, although I will do so for better reason than mere loyalty to an entertainer.

In the meantime, exercise your power and delete me, do what you must you tiny, insignificant little man.

[Real Truth]

I don't really think the original poster is a troll but he made it sound like that, trying to stereotype CTers, and didn't really give any proof just his thoughts with nothing to back it up. But I do see what he's talking about

[mickswann]

I don't really think the original poster is a troll but he made it sound like that, trying to stereotype CTers, and didn't really give any proof just his thoughts with nothing to back it up. But I do see what he's talking about

That's because the response has been constructed to demonise dissent. It is pure crowd control.

The word "troll" is used, on this forum, as a way of quashing debate. At first it was used to silence newbies, but the campaign has spread and now anything that challenges the orthodoxy is branded "trolling."

Would you put up with this level of censorship in a public meeting?

[netizen_x]

The word "troll" is used, on this forum, as a way of quashing debate. At first it was used to silence newbies, but the campaign has spread and now anything that challenges the orthodoxy is branded "trolling."

I agree with you Mick, and at times I have been guilty of jumping on the troll bandwagon (as well as being accused of trolling myself). But it's a fact that there are a number of trolls operating in this forum and they usually appear as newbies because they have to keep changing identities.

Their technique seems to be: "I know a lot of people are not going to like this......I like Alex Jones but....his voice is a problem....his listeners are a cult.....he doesn't criticise the vatican/zionists...then the newbie F#Ks off, changes name and does it again. Some of them are getting the art of trolling down to a professional level.

We should be careful about branding newbies trolls but also monitor them.

[White Rose Sophie]

I agree with you Mick, and at times I have been guilty of jumping on the troll bandwagon (as well as being accused of trolling myself). But it's a fact that there are a number of trolls operating in this forum and they usually appear as newbies because they have to keep changing identities.

Their technique seems to be: "I know a lot of people are not going to like this......I like Alex Jones but....his voice is a problem....his listeners are a cult.....he doesn't criticise the vatican/zionists...then the newbie F#Ks off, changes name and does it again. Some of them are getting the art of trolling down to a professional level.

We should be careful about branding newbies trolls but also monitor them.

I'm just now jumping in here, but have seen his type (Timiat) before.  While I think everyone should double-check what is said from ANYONE (Alex and PrisonPlanet included), the OP's labeling of 'cult-mentality' is what really makes him suspect. 

If anyone wants to know what cult-mentality is - please do some research yourself. Steve Hassan's "Freedom of the Mind" site is a good start, as well as Margaret Thaler Singer's book, "Cults in our Midst".

Having been in a 'cultic-type' organization before - I am fairly familiar with their methods of operation.  One of which - is the control of information - something I certainly would not accuse Alex or Prison Planet of doing. The OP is displaying his ignorance in how 'cults' actually operate, but unless people have personal experience in thought reform techniques, they would not know this. "Cults' are not defined by their belief system - they are defined in HOW they perpetuate/maintain that belief system. If a group of people all believe in a spaghetti bowl 'GOD" - that does not make them a cult.  It is HOW that group  operates that determines whether it has 'cultic' characteristics.

His (the OP) assertion that we all follow Alex blindly is insulting in the extreme - but that is exactly what he meant to do. By 'tarring' us with that brush, he can then ridicule not only those here on the forum already - but anyone new who might be interested in the information offered.

[White Rose Sophie]

Just re-read his post again, and it's amazing, really.

The vast majority of posters on here will provide links, or sources for their positions.......and yet he says that those are the ones who 'blindly" refuse to see another HIS point of view.

His remark about the NWO 'not causing' earthquakes...when there is ample evidence in their OWN words of the existence of 'weather modification' weapons and which has been provided by me and others........proves one thing. That sources, links, etc are MEANINGLESS to someone who does not want to believe in anything other than his own position.     

[netizen_x]

Just re-read his post again, and it's amazing, really.

If you go through his previous posts you will see that he definitely is a troll. He supports Michael Reagan's call to shoot people who send 911 truth videos to the troops.

Check it out: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=profile;u=6052;sa=showPosts

And he calls us a cult. What a joke.

[Real Truth]

If you go through his previous posts you will see that he definitely is a troll. He supports Michael Reagan's call to shoot people who send 911 truth videos to the troops.

Check it out: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?action=profile;u=6052;sa=showPosts

And he calls us a cult. What a joke.

lolll after reading his recent posts he was complaining about mark dice sending dvd's to soldier, wow sorry for trying to educate people. Ya he's a troll(and im not jumping on no "cult mentality" as he says)

[Real Truth]

Oh god, is this about the guy who's sending troops in Iraq 9-11 conspirocy dvds?? That makes my stomach turn. Do none of you have respect for the fact that they are AT WAR? Do none of you care that every day they see someone get maimed, or killed, or raped, or worse? I have no problem with anyone saying that someone sending a 9-11 conspriocy dvd to a troop in a iraq, should be killed. I 100% agree because unlike the cowards sending the DVDs, the troops are facing real death every day. They don't care about your stupid 9-11 complaints. Nobody does, honestly. 9-11 happened 7 years ago, get over it and move on. Do something other than yelling "9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!" to everybody you meet. Get a job, life, girlfriend..anything except waste your time with this.

Did he just say.....that someone sending a 9-11 "conspircy" dvd to a troop in iraq, should be killed".......

[Biggs]

all well and good, but allowing all the trolls on here will lead to a flood of morons, trolls, repugs, agents & psyops on here until sensible discussion is virtually impossible and the place is full of racial haters and fake extremist militia types.

so I am all for banning troll types, at least mostly speaking, a little is good but to stop banning would lead to a flood and we would end up like GLP with some great stuff but loads of major trolls wreaking havoc.

[White Rose Sophie]

May I give my two cents worth here?
I don't see anywhere in the U.S. constitution where it says, "freedom of the press can sometimes be abridged." Whether this person is a troll or just a nutcase, the individual has the right to post whatever is on his/her mind~regardless of what other posters or global moderators think!
Let the "trolls" post their happy little asses off, The truth will prevail,regardless of their opinions!
If it offends you (especially you mods) tough!
Bitch and moan all you want, you just end up pouring gasoline on his/her fire!

Freedom of the press does not extend to 'private' domains.....of which this is one.  The owner of this forum and those who moderate it are well within their 'rights' to ban whomever they want.  Frankly I'm amazed it took this long to get Timiat out - considering he has broken the rules of this forum many times. If I had a forum and a poster consistently broke the rules that I had in place for said forum - guess what?  Out they go.

[GoingEtheric]

May I give my two cents worth here?
I don't see anywhere in the U.S. constitution where it says, "freedom of the press can sometimes be abridged." Whether this person is a troll or just a nutcase, the individual has the right to post whatever is on his/her mind~reg......

Oh blah blah.
I engage in conversation just fine here. If there are members who take more rthan they give to this forum, I want them out. I've disagreed with plenty here ( almost one disagreement per person ) and I don't get called a troll. If you think conspiracy theories are stupid and won't acknowledge any evidence, i want you gone. Not because you disagree, but because you will add nothing positive to this forum; only disruption and conflict. I even Personal Message people for whom I've met THROUGH disagreement. There are means of disagreeing and yet not become a disruptive force. It's a fine line to walk, but there it is.
Two cents indeed.

[mickswann]

all well and good, but allowing all the trolls on here will lead to a flood of morons, trolls, repugs, agents & psyops on here until sensible discussion is virtually impossible and the place is full of racial haters and fake extremist militia types.

Do you really believe that their are 'psyops', 'agents' and the like really posting here?

Or could it be that there is a mix of the usual internet baiters and one or two people, among whom I must include myself, who are down with the fight against the NWO but simply disagree with the party line being pushed by the mods?

[GoingEtheric]

Do you really believe that their are 'psyops', 'agents' and the like really posting here?

yes. reading and writing

[mickswann]

yes. reading and writing

I'm not sure that they would need to.