|Originally posted by donnybrasco |
I'm reposting this from the Fed. Bank thread (in case you don't see it there), because it relates directly to what's now being discussed in this thread, and I'd like you to consider my view on the matter on a completely serious note (from me) for a change. Thanks:
"Your answer is interesting, I grant you that.
But I think conspiracies on the level you see them are too complex to be realistic. You're giving too much credit to the powers that be in terms of their ability to bend our will and public opinion to suit their desires for wars.
Now I'm not saying that these same powers won't or don't engage in deception from time to time, in order to perpetuate some of their agendas. I'm also not saying that they don't have a vested interest in making more money or gaining more power. But you have to draw a line between what is possible, and what is logistically NOT possible.
We live in a country with a free press. Do they catch everything that's newsworthy and report it all, all the time? No. But do they miss the really big stories? Not at all. If there were conspiracies afoot at the levels to which you see them, there is NO reason why they wouldn't be widely reported. Is there bias in the media? Sure. But there are enough competing outlets with variances in their bias to make sure that the larger stories don't go ignored.
There is also a two-party political system that is always latching on to the tiniest snip-its of negative news about their opponents, in the hopes that they can ruin them politically.
Given these checks and balances, "Grand" conspiracies are not possible. Small ones are, sure...ones between 2 or 3 or 4 people. Like a conspiracy to rob a bank, or to commit murder. But if "history" has proven ANYTHING, it's that keeping a secret amongst any more than two people is almost impossible! People talk. Someone ALWAYS gains something by talking and exposing a conspiracy. And also (to be repetitive), people TALK!! It's in our human nature to want to talk, confess, gossip, gain favor by exposing, etc.
But the real bottom line is; The incentive to perpetuate a conspiracy has to be greater than the incentive to expose it...ESPECIALLY the more people that are involved. The more people you involve, the more likely it is that someone is going to have a dissenting view and will expose the conspiracy for this reason.
So in many of these threads where you see conspiracies afoot, I don't see the incentive for them...not on the scale that you're advocating. They defy logic in many cases, and logistics in all of the rest...or both."
Don't waste your time trying to convince me about anything in regards to conspiracies or social conditioning and propaganda. I mean, I understand that you're obligated in trying to perpetuate doubt about all of these things on this board but I've already researched several somewhat grand conspiracies and know that what you just posted, while having a coupleof good points, is really just another feeble attempt at trying to get people to stop searching for the truth.
You'd be surprised at how quiet people can be when they're either bribed or have their (or their family's) lives or career's threatened.
Add that to the fact that even if there were groups of footmen doing things like say, planting explosives at the WTC's on 9/11, why would they risk indicting themselves for the sake of blowing the whistle on the attack planners or other superiors who probably remained completely anonymous to them and everyone else throughout the whole thing, anyway.
Oh, and don't kid yourself about our "free press!" The media blackout surrounding Ron Paul made it clear and perhaps even emphasized to many of us the level of control which our media actually exerts upon us American's.