Author Topic: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories  (Read 1933 times)

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #30 on: January 31, 2019, 05:43:42 PM »
No, your example of some pissant internet drama doesn't prove that conspiracies don't exist.

Every interest group of every size and description is conspiring for group gain. Groups of sufficient influence understand basic procedures to minimize damaging leaks, are able to impose costs on traitors, and can pretty successfully obfuscate when leaks happen in any case.

You sound ignorant mocking at Freemason conspiracies. They are a prime example of the successful conspiracy. It's also ludicrous to speak of radical ideologues as if they aren't being intentionally formed by interest groups (which previously operated discreetly but thanks to their success are now considered prestigious)

Where people go wrong is in attributing inordinate effects to the machinations of interest groups which in reality have sociological causes which are under nobody's control. I say the Freemasons were a successful conspiracy but they were also riding a wave of technological and economic revolution.

Even if there was massive mechanisms for damage control and preventing leaks, wouldn't there be some evidence available?

Everyone and their dog apparently knew that McCarrick was busy sodomizing boys and yet I'm sure it was just a conspiracy theory among the N.O. crowd.

Do you doubt that Hillary Clinton is incredibly sick?  Imagine if she visited your town and you personally witnessed her hit the floor, presumably you would imagine this would be major news and you'd be hearing about it on CNN in a couple hours.  And yet you wouldn't.  And if you tried to tell anyone about it on Twitter, they'd call you a nut.  And besides, there are videos of her acting like one extremely sick person, and yet its still the "official" story that Sick Hillary is a conspiracy theory.

Just because something is true does not mean that its what people believe is the truth.  What's more, just because there is overwhelming and publicly available evidence that something is true, that still does not mean that the public en masse will believe it.

Jeffrey Epstein was busy raping little girls on his private island and inviting all the wealthy to rape along with him.  Do you think this was unknown?  It was obviously well known among the elites.  And yet a few years ago if you were to discuss this private island where the elites go to rape little girls, people would call you a nut.  And yet it was true the entire time.

The reality is that elites do not need to hide perfectly what they are doing.  Famous people can abuse hundreds of prostitutes and not be concerned that one will spill their secrets, because they know that no one will believe them.  Elites can even do things relatively publicly and be confident that it will not affect their
credibility.  Consider a prison guard who brutally beats a prisoner in front of the cell block.  He can do this likely without receiving any punishment because every prisoner is thinking the following:  I know that everyone else is seeing this and I know that everyone else is not going to say anything and that everyone else is allowing this to happen without putting a stop to it.  Furthermore, everyone else sees that I see it and that I am not going to say anything nor am I doing anything to stop it right now.  The truth of the situation is that the guard brutalized the prisoner.  But the "truth" as per the common belief among the people is that it was just another normal day, and if someone whispers about hearing through the grapevine of a beating in which everyone saw and yet nothing was done about it, we'd just call them liars.  For if something so stupendous were true, the guard clearly would have been fired!

You might find this relevant:  https://www.epsilontheory.com/when-does-the-story-break/  Especially the riddle of the green eyed islanders.

I've read many conspiracy theories.  Many are nuts.  The ones you listed are so obviously true I am quite baffled you doubt them.

While I personally believe there is conspiracy at the level of government, and the government actively works with mass media corporations for the suppression, censorship of information and the spreading of false information - as there are too many anecdotal incidents to suggest such an accusation isn't credible (for instance, Frank Olson's mysterious "suicide" after he quit the CIA in protest to MK Ultra experiments, as well as Gary Webb's mysterious "suicide" after he claimed that the Contras were earning massive profits from the crack / cocaine trade in LA, being encouraged and protected by the CIA; and the British government and mass media's repeated censorship of Jimmy Savile's child abuse allegations, which it was revealed post mortem he did, in fact, molest dozens if not hundreds of kids, etc.; I wouldn't even be surprised if I found out from God after death that Alex Jones was nothing more than controlled opposition to hinder investigation into serious government corruption / conspiracies),

I don't see how it follows, though, that this is indicative of the fact that there's an organizational - human - puppet master in the form of Jews, Illuminati, Freemasons, or Theistic Satanists.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 05:58:18 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #31 on: January 31, 2019, 06:00:43 PM »
Like, I firmly believe in the fact that the US government was directly involved with the whole Russian Orthodox / Ukrainian schism in supporting the schismatic Kievan Patriarch; the fact that the US State Department felt the need to demonstrate unequivocal support through public declarations, the fact that we have leaked phone conversations which show the US State Department was involved in supporting it, and the fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch has met with several major US Government figures suspiciously (Joe Biden, Kerry, etc.), demonstrates that the US government was directly involved.

Still though, how does Illuminati / Freemasonry / Jews follow from this?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 06:02:57 PM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline Davis Blank - EG

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 516
  • Thanked: 666 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #32 on: January 31, 2019, 10:34:42 PM »
Ok, I think I better understand your misunderstanding.  It is not the case that there is one (or several) secretive groups of people through which all orders are given.  The puppetmaster analogy is not correct.  There are certainly organizations and private families which are, by orders of magnitude, more powerful than others, but its not as if everyone needs to kiss the Rothschild or Fugger ring before choosing which type of pancakes to eat for breakfast.

Instead what you have are organizations & families which are exceptionally influential and each one has its own private motives.  Through their businesses, political connections, business connections and general social networks (I don't mean Facebook, I mean true social connections), people in these organizations and families will work to make changes in society that are beneficial in obtaining their motives.

The conspiracy angle of it is that usually these groups and families downplay their influence.  Taking an extreme example, someone like Mussolini was rather upfront with what he wanted and how he was going to do it.  By comparison, the Freemasons act in such a way that only their top level masons know the primary goals of the organization - the lower levels just think its about drinking and social connections.  But the higher level masons pass down their objectives indirectly to the lower level masons, whom will then go forward into society to influence.  Imagine a hypothetical in which the top level masons thought the world was over populated, especially humans with darker skin, and they wanted to do something about this.  Further imagine that they chose to do so via abortion.  They could then organize pro-abortion speakers to give presentations at lodges in which they tell emotional stories that manipulate the men into thinking that abortion is virtuous.  They will then carry that forth into society, the work place, and of course their homes, and influence others.

This is the conspiracy.  These groups do exist, they are very powerful, they are very secretive, and they are very against the Catholic (+Orthodox) Church.  Something like Planned Parenthood is not a conspiracy - it is very open with the evil it is all about.  But again, something like the masons, are a conspiracy, because they are evil and so secretive that the vast majority of masons are but victims of their own conspiracy.
 

Offline Graham

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1117
  • Thanked: 741 times
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #33 on: January 31, 2019, 11:53:09 PM »
The argument needs to be reframed. Saying "if conspiracies were real, wouldn't there be PROOF?" contains a number of fallacies. "Conspiracy" is defined in the most caricatured way imaginable. Fact: EVERY group conspires, and EVERYBODY believes in conspiracies. Yet in these arguments you find people (who admit they believe in certain conspiracy theories) seriously arguing as if "conspiracy theory" only refers to theories of all-powerful shadowy cabals. They then attempt to set up a heads-I-win-tails-you-lose scenario: any conspiracy that is known after it fails is proof that conspiracies never work, while any conspiracy known after it succeeds is not a conspiracy by virtue of the fact that it emerged into the open after it succeeded. Consider how often power shifts hands over the course of history, in any context, familial, corporate, national, whichever, and in how many different ways (gradual out-maneuvering, bribery, sudden coups d'état and revolutions, crime, electioneering, etc.) Are we to suppose these things all "just happen"? Or do we think maybe some people foment or plan and organize them without letting everyone else know beforehand?
« Last Edit: January 31, 2019, 11:58:47 PM by Graham »
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #34 on: February 01, 2019, 12:18:48 AM »
I'll reframe it clearly -

That there exists hidden, or at least partially hidden, organizations or groups of people that are so omnipotent in - at least - Western society, that they are capable of an almost international level of moral / dogmatic cultural subversion, and this is done intentionally, maliciously, by specific cliques of people within those groups for unclear end goals.

That's what I mean by conspiracy, and what I don't buy due to there not being substantial or convincing evidence.
There's a lot more evidence of Satanic Ritual Abuse or "the Deep State" (the latter meaning that there exists a powerful and corrupt social network within our government which seeks selfish end goals) than the categories of Theistic Satanists, Freemasons, Illuminati, etc. falling under such a definition.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 12:25:04 AM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #35 on: February 01, 2019, 12:23:23 AM »
Quote
Ok, I think I better understand your misunderstanding.  It is not the case that there is one (or several) secretive groups of people through which all orders are given.  The puppetmaster analogy is not correct.  There are certainly organizations and private families which are, by orders of magnitude, more powerful than others, but its not as if everyone needs to kiss the Rothschild or Fugger ring before choosing which type of pancakes to eat for breakfast.

Instead what you have are organizations & families which are exceptionally influential and each one has its own private motives.  Through their businesses, political connections, business connections and general social networks (I don't mean Facebook, I mean true social connections), people in these organizations and families will work to make changes in society that are beneficial in obtaining their motives.

The conspiracy angle of it is that usually these groups and families downplay their influence.  Taking an extreme example, someone like Mussolini was rather upfront with what he wanted and how he was going to do it.  By comparison, the Freemasons act in such a way that only their top level masons know the primary goals of the organization - the lower levels just think its about drinking and social connections.  But the higher level masons pass down their objectives indirectly to the lower level masons, whom will then go forward into society to influence.  Imagine a hypothetical in which the top level masons thought the world was over populated, especially humans with darker skin, and they wanted to do something about this.  Further imagine that they chose to do so via abortion.  They could then organize pro-abortion speakers to give presentations at lodges in which they tell emotional stories that manipulate the men into thinking that abortion is virtuous.  They will then carry that forth into society, the work place, and of course their homes, and influence others.

This is the conspiracy.  These groups do exist, they are very powerful, they are very secretive, and they are very against the Catholic (+Orthodox) Church.  Something like Planned Parenthood is not a conspiracy - it is very open with the evil it is all about.  But again, something like the masons, are a conspiracy, because they are evil and so secretive that the vast majority of masons are but victims of their own conspiracy.

In the case of the Freemasons specifically, what evidence is there that they are so powerful in their efforts of cultural subversion, and they are intentionally - not just unintentionally through Enlightenment / "Rationalism" ideology - but intentionally and malicious doing such an action at the highest levels?

There's absolutely clear evidence that the CIA used non-consenting LSD testing on innocent American and Canadian civilians to try to master brainwashing techniques after learning of such ideas from the Nazis, for Cold War purposes. We have official government documents saying such a thing did in fact happen, as recognized by the CIA who tried to burn all the evidence with some thousands of  documents "somehow" surviving, and we have several testimonies of victims who are all consistent.

For the JFK assassination conspiracy, we have the fact that the shooting by Lee Harvey Oswald is improbably precise, the illogical magic bullet, the testimony of every single doctor - according to a documentary which I saw - who was there operating on JFK's body - stating, consistently and independently from each other, that the official pictures of the Warren Commission don't match at all what JFK's head looked like, we have various testimonies from people consistent with one another about how there were SS agents at the grassy knoll, even though officially there wasn't, the improbability of Lee Harvey Oswald being able to run to that theater in that short of a time from the height of the building where he was, and most significantly of all, we have official proof from our government in the latest declassifying of files that the Warren Commission did, in fact, lie - Lee Harvey Oswald, according to classified documents, traveled to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico with a Cuban Secret Agent / Operative, according to official declassified documents, even though the Warren Commission "concluded" based on these documents that he went as a lone man.

What evidence is there that the Freemasons have such plots, and are the ones who are effective at such plots?

Most evidence seems to be "credible sources" who provide no objective and impersonal evidence to back their claims, in the form of Church authority, "leaked documents" (like the Elders of the Protocols of Zion), or alleged "high-ranking leaders who have turned to Christ," who have every incentive to prey upon Protestant or Catholic piety for monetary gain.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 12:45:25 AM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline Gerard

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3744
  • Thanked: 1413 times
  • .. and his raiment became white and glittering
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #36 on: February 01, 2019, 12:42:56 AM »
I'll reframe it clearly -

That there exists hidden, or at least partially hidden, organizations or groups of people that are so omnipotent in - at least - Western society, that they are capable of an almost international level of moral / dogmatic cultural subversion, and this is done intentionally, maliciously, by specific cliques of people within those groups for unclear end goals.

That's what I mean by conspiracy, and what I don't buy due to there not being substantial or convincing evidence.
There's a lot more evidence of Satanic Ritual Abuse or "the Deep State" (the latter meaning that there exists a powerful and corrupt social network within our government which seeks selfish end goals) than the categories of Theistic Satanists, Freemasons, Illuminati, etc. falling under such a definition.

What's interesting is that you used the words "social network" which is a term that literally did not exist in any mainstream form less than 20 years ago.  But, social networks have been around for millennia. 

The Freemasons are a social network.   A closed, secretive yet known social network.  You can add Shriner, Knights of Pythias, etc.

The Club of Rome is a social network.  The ADL, The various ecumenical organizations and 'inter religious dialogue" organizations.  The GREC organization designed to acclimate the faithful of the SSPX to incorporation and eventual acceptance of Vatican II's policies is a social network. 

All you need is a shared goal or goals to be engaged in a conspiracy in the broadest sense of the word.  Noble goals may mean noble intentions and noble means used.  Unscrupulous goals almost definitely means unscrupulous intentions and means will be used. 

It wasn't too long ago that the Italian Mafia was considered a myth, but it was an organized group of people with power, bent on accruing more power and shaping the lives of those around them, picking winners and losers, setting up an elite class, being the beneficiaries of one group and using another group as chattel. 

If peasant thugs can rise to those levels. 

What happens when you take the highly educated and elite among generations of highly educated and elite?  Do they look for hookers, drug dealers, car thieves and protection rackets?  Or do they go for the levers of power on larger scales? Mass media, banking, politics, religion, pop culture, education?   Why shake people down for protection money when you can legally tax them? 

It was three Titans of Industry, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Morgan that essentially bought McKinley into office in order to advance their individual and mutual interests.  Was that a conspiracy or a social network of billionaires trying to accomplish a goal? 


 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #37 on: February 01, 2019, 12:52:16 AM »
The Freemasons are a social network.

Yes, but are they just a social network with contradictory and subjective Enlightenment ideology? Or are they a social network that secretly worships Lucifer at the highest levels and has agents maliciously and intentionally subverting all of our society's social institutions?

There's clear not-doubtful evidence of the former, not of the latter.

Quote
It was three Titans of Industry, Carnegie, Rockefeller and Morgan that essentially bought McKinley into office in order to advance their individual and mutual interests.  Was that a conspiracy or a social network of billionaires trying to accomplish a goal? 

It was, but even at the time, the mass public knew such a thing was clearly happening; the mass wasn't a class of uninformed "normies" who haven't taken the red pill to wake up from the Matrix.

A political cartoon from around that time period:

« Last Edit: February 01, 2019, 12:56:25 AM by TheReturnofLive »
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #38 on: February 01, 2019, 12:55:56 AM »

If peasant thugs can rise to those levels. 

What happens when you take the highly educated and elite among generations of highly educated and elite?  Do they look for hookers, drug dealers, car thieves and protection rackets?  Or do they go for the levers of power on larger scales? Mass media, banking, politics, religion, pop culture, education?   Why shake people down for protection money when you can legally tax them? 

Considering they are in positions of power, in comparison to peasant thugs, is there really a need to create organizations to achieve those goals to get more power, when they could just use networking to achieve such goals?
 

Offline Sempronius

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 616
  • Thanked: 337 times
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #39 on: February 01, 2019, 06:27:55 AM »
Just to reiterate returnoflive’s question - does these organizations worship satan with explicit acts?

I dont think so. Sure, freemasons may be powerful but thats from social causes.

 

Offline nmoerbeek

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1754
  • Thanked: 934 times
    • Alleluia Audio Books
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #40 on: February 01, 2019, 08:50:02 AM »
I'll reframe it clearly -

That there exists hidden, or at least partially hidden, organizations or groups of people that are so omnipotent in - at least - Western society, that they are capable of an almost international level of moral / dogmatic cultural subversion, and this is done intentionally, maliciously, by specific cliques of people within those groups for unclear end goals.

That's what I mean by conspiracy, and what I don't buy due to there not being substantial or convincing evidence.
There's a lot more evidence of Satanic Ritual Abuse or "the Deep State" (the latter meaning that there exists a powerful and corrupt social network within our government which seeks selfish end goals) than the categories of Theistic Satanists, Freemasons, Illuminati, etc. falling under such a definition.

I believe that there are alignments of interest that happen among powerful factions.  These factions use their resources which include followers to achieve some goal. These alignments of power happen normally, because they must to do major things.  This causes the appearance of some sort of secret cabal that runs the world. However these alliances are fragile and constantly switch back and forth.

This is normal business, and if one looks at salvation history it makes clear why God chose the exact opposite way of spreading the Gospel and preserving his Church : choosing, tradesmen, shepherds, children, the unlearned, and unconnected (or making them eschew these things before giving them marks of favor). 





"Let me, however, beg of Your Beatitude...
not to think so much of what I have written, as of my good and kind intentions. Please look for the truths of which I speak rather than for beauty of expression. Where I do not come up to your expectations, pardon me, and put my shortcomings down, please, to lack of time and stress of business." St. Bonaventure, From the Preface of Holiness of Life.

Apostolate:
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Contributor:
http://unamsanctamcatholicam.blogspot.com/
Lay Association:
http://www.militiatempli.net/
 

Offline TheReturnofLive

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 493
  • Thanked: 127 times
  • Saint Thomas the Apostle, pray for me, a sinner!
  • Religion: I have no idea.
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #41 on: February 01, 2019, 12:41:17 PM »
I'll reframe it clearly -

That there exists hidden, or at least partially hidden, organizations or groups of people that are so omnipotent in - at least - Western society, that they are capable of an almost international level of moral / dogmatic cultural subversion, and this is done intentionally, maliciously, by specific cliques of people within those groups for unclear end goals.

That's what I mean by conspiracy, and what I don't buy due to there not being substantial or convincing evidence.
There's a lot more evidence of Satanic Ritual Abuse or "the Deep State" (the latter meaning that there exists a powerful and corrupt social network within our government which seeks selfish end goals) than the categories of Theistic Satanists, Freemasons, Illuminati, etc. falling under such a definition.

I believe that there are alignments of interest that happen among powerful factions.  These factions use their resources which include followers to achieve some goal. These alignments of power happen normally, because they must to do major things.  This causes the appearance of some sort of secret cabal that runs the world. However these alliances are fragile and constantly switch back and forth.

This is normal business, and if one looks at salvation history it makes clear why God chose the exact opposite way of spreading the Gospel and preserving his Church : choosing, tradesmen, shepherds, children, the unlearned, and unconnected (or making them eschew these things before giving them marks of favor).

This is pretty much my thought.
 

Offline Davis Blank - EG

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 516
  • Thanked: 666 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #42 on: February 01, 2019, 05:04:36 PM »
Most evidence seems to be "credible sources" who provide no objective and impersonal evidence to back their claims, in the form of Church authority, "leaked documents" (like the Elders of the Protocols of Zion), or alleged "high-ranking leaders who have turned to Christ," who have every incentive to prey upon Protestant or Catholic piety for monetary gain.

This reads like "I see the evidence exists, I just don't find it credible."  That's fine.  Do you believe that if everyone talked with you about JFK or the CIA that they'd agree with your consoiracy theories as being conspiracy fact?  No, most would not, because they will find you and your soirces to be incredible, even if you cite the US government admitting it itself.

There are reasons why people pay defense lawyers huge sums.  A good lawyer can plant the seeds of doubt and obfuscate what otherwise would readily be believed.  Note I am not saying this is good or bad, it just is. 

Even Jesus Himself fails to convince the vast majority of even His existence.  Go talk to a thoughtful atheist / agnostic and you'll see that evidence all boils down to credibility.  Evidence does not stand alone like some independent monolith - its all credibikity at the foundation.  Someone discovered it, someone handled, recorded it, preserved it, passed it along.  If any chain in the evidence has doubtful credibility then magically the "evidence!!!" becomes "conspiracy theory!!!"  I note that credibility is not objective but subjective.  This is why court trials that are seemingly obvious can drag on for ages and end with hung juries.

What role do you think Freemasony had in the French Revolution?  Its major agitators were masons.  What does it mean for freemasonry to promote Enlightenment ideals without it necessarily being against the Church?  If a mega social network has elites within it agitating for some collective goal, somewhere along the way the two become one.  Are the Democrats in a conspiracy to turn everyone into a transexual, or are they just a group promoting (traditional) liberalism that has been co-opted by elite perverts?

If you want to turn this inside the Church consider the Jesuits.  Are they in a conspiracy to wreck the Church?  Or merely just a bunch of confused souls?  I am not even sure it makes sense to consider these as separate.  They, in broad, work to undermine the Church.  It matters not if the superior is in a smoke filled room plotting his next move (which he isn't) or if simply through their strongly held common beliefs they find themselves against Church teachings and then go forth to undermine the Church.
 

Offline TradGranny

  • Mary Garden
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 502 times
  • Religion: Traditional Catholic
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #43 on: February 01, 2019, 05:34:00 PM »
Just to reiterate returnoflive’s question - does these organizations worship satan with explicit acts?

I dont think so. Sure, freemasons may be powerful but thats from social causes.

Anyone who supports infanticide is woshipping satan, as is anyone who supports sodomy.
To have courage for whatever comes in life - everything lies in that.
Saint Teresa of Avila
 

Offline TradGranny

  • Mary Garden
  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 771
  • Thanked: 502 times
  • Religion: Traditional Catholic
Re: The Legitimacy of Conspiracy Theories
« Reply #44 on: February 01, 2019, 05:38:37 PM »

Considering they are in positions of power, in comparison to peasant thugs, is there really a need to create organizations to achieve those goals to get more power, when they could just use networking to achieve such goals?
[/quote]

The networking question has already been answered by Jesus:
We fight not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers, etc.

Some of the tips of the iceberg which you have researched and know to be factual are labeled with the CIA term "conspiracy theory," just as you apply that label to areas which you have yet to research.
To have courage for whatever comes in life - everything lies in that.
Saint Teresa of Avila
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson