Monday, February 15, 2010

33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True, What Every Person Should Know...


by Jonathan Elinoff
New World Order Report

After reading the article released by Cracked.com, I decided to update and revise their work. The article gave me a chuckle because it lacked many famous and much larger conspiracy theories that became known. Their article had only listed seven. I can name 33 and I am about to release a revised list soon with 75. The article I read at cracked can be viewed here, but don't waste your time, all of that is in this article and more.

Most people can't resist getting the details on the latest conspiracy theories, no matter how far-fetched they may seem. At the same time, many people quickly denounce any conspiracy theory as untrue ... and sometimes as unpatriotic or just plain ridiculous. Lets not forget all of the thousands of conspiracies out of Wall Street like Bernie Madoff and many others to commit fraud and extortion, among many crimes of conspiracy. USA Today reports that over 75% of personal ads in the paper and on craigslist are married couples posing as single for a one night affair. When someone knocks on your door to sell you a set of knives or phone cards, anything for that matter, do they have a profit motive? What is conspiracy other than just a scary way of saying “alternative agenda”? When 2 friends go to a bar and begin to plan their wingman approach on 2 girls they see at the bar, how often are they planning on lying to those girls?“ I own a small business and am in town for a short while. Oh yeah, you look beautiful.”

Conspiracy theory is a term that originally was a neutral descriptor for any claim of civil, criminal or political conspiracy. However, it has come almost exclusively to refer to any fringe theory which explains a historical or current event as the result of a secret plot by conspirators of almost superhuman power and cunning. To conspire means "to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or to use such means to accomplish a lawful end".The term "conspiracy theory" is frequently used by scholars and in popular culture to identify secret military, banking, or political actions aimed at stealing power, money, or freedom, from "the people".

To many, conspiracy theories are just human nature. Not all people in this world are honest, hard working and forthcoming about their intentions. Certainly, we can all agree on this. So how did the term “conspiracy theory” get grouped in with fiction, fantasy and folklore? Maybe that’s a conspiracy, just kidding. Or am I?

Skeptics are important in achieving an objective view of reality, however, skeptism is not the same as reinforcing the official storyline. In fact, a conspiracy theory can be argued as an alternative to the official or “mainstream” story of events. Therefore, when skeptics attempt to ridicule a conspiracy theory by using the official story as a means of proving the conspiracy wrong, in effect, they are just reinforcing the original “mainstream” view of history, and actually not being skeptical. This is not skeptism, it is just a convenient way for the establishment view of things to be seen as the correct version, all the time, every time. In fact, it is common for "hit pieces" or "debunking articles" to pick extremely fringe and not very populated conspiracy theories. This in turn makes all conspiracies on a subject matter look crazy. Skeptic magazine and Popular Mechanics, among many others, did this with 9/11. They referred to less than 10% of the many different conspiracy theories about 9/11 and picked the less popular ones. In fact, they picked the fringe, highly improbable points that only a few people make. This was used as the "final investigation" for looking into the conspiracy theories. Convenient, huh?

In fact, if one were to look into conspiracy theories, they will largely find that thinking about a conspiracy is associated with lunacy and paranoia. Some websites suggest it as an illness. It is also not surprising to see so many people on the internet writing about conspiracy theories in a condescending tone, usually with the words "kool-aid," "crack pot," or "nut job" in their articulation. This must be obvious to anyone that emotionally writing about such serious matter insults the reader more than the conspiracy theorist because there is no need to resort to this kind of behavior. It is employed often with an "expert" who will say something along the lines of, "for these conspiracies to be true, you would need hundreds if not thousands of people to be involved. It's just not conceivable."

I find it extremely odd that the assumption is on thousands of participants in a conspiracy. I, for one, find it hard to believe any conspiracy involving more than a handful of people but the fact remains that there have been conspiracies in our world, proven and not made up, that involved many hundreds of people. It's not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.

One more thing to consider, have you noticed that if the conspiracy is involving powerful interests with the ability to bribe, threaten or manipulate major institutions (like the mafia, big corporations or government) then don't you find it odd when people use one of those as the "credible" counter-argument? What I mean is, if you are discussing a conspiracy about the mafia, and someone hands you a debunking article that was written by the mafia, it doesn't seem like it would take rocket science to look at that with serious criticism and credibility. This is the case with many conspiracies. In fact, I am handed debunking pieces all the time written in many cases by the conspirators in question. Doesn't this seem odd to anybody else but me?

While intelligent cynicism certainly can be healthy, though, some of the greatest discoveries of all time were initially received (often with great vitriol) as blasphemous conspiracy theories -- think of the revelation that the earth was not the center of the universe, or that the world was not flat but actually round.

What follows are some of these most shocking modern conspiracy theories that turned out true after thorough investigation by our society. Some through congressional hearings, others through investigative journalism. Many of these, however, were just admitted to by those involved. These are just 33 of them, and I still had a long list of others to add. There are a total of 33 in this article. Many of these are listed with original and credible news clips on the matter, as well as documentaries.

Read about each conspiracy in length, here

1. The Dreyfus Affair
2. The Mafia
3. MK-ULTRA
4. Operation Mockingbird
5. Manhattan Project
6. Asbestos
7. Watergate
8. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study
9. Operation Northwoods
10. 1990 Testimony of Nayirah
11. Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the 60s
12. The Iran-Contra Affair
13. The BCCI Scandal
14. CIA Drug Running in L.A.
15. Gulf of Tonkin Never Happened
16. The Business Plot
17. July 20, 1944 Conspiracy to Assassinate Hitler
18. Operation Ajax
19. Operation Snow White
20. Operation Gladio
21. The CIA Assassinates A Lot Of People (Church Committee)
22. The New World Order
23. Kennedy Assassination - the 2nd Investigation by Congress Few People Know About, United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)
24. 1919 World Series Conspiracy
25. Karen Silkwood
26. CIA Drug Running in Arkansas
27. Bohemian Grove
28. Operation Paperclip
29. The Round Table
30. The Illuminati
31. The Trilateral Commission
32. Big Brother of the Shadow Government
33. The Federal Reserve Bank

10 comments:

the_last_name_left said...

the fedres is "a conspiracy"?

right.....

Larry said...

Uhhh, yeah, the Fed was created by a group of bankers [NOT politicians] on Jekyll Island around 1913 after planning it for several years. They each boarded trains and even used aliases to get on the train and into the nice hotel they met at. The Fed is an independent agency, NOT a federal one. It’s a clear conspiracy---my god, even Richard Belzer, the actor, knows about that. Go down to my labels and look up Belzer and read my story on that when he was on Bill Maher.

the_last_name_left said...

But what do you mean by saying "the Fed is a conspiracy"?

It was passed in legislation - it is subject to the democratic laws of USA.

It IS NOT independent - it is a quasi-governmental body - mandated by the American government, subject to law, subject to democratic wishes of american people.

If there wasn't a FED there'd be something else - a wholly-owned state bank? A nationalised, government-run central bank?

Now you're arguing for state-ownership, an increase in the bounds of government, an increased role for the state - bigger government.

As opposed to the privately owned (but govt regulated) Fed of today.

Funny - you're arguing privately held business needs government regulation: private business is worse than government for running critical social apparatus.

I don't expect that from you Larry. You're sounding like a socialist or something?

Larry said...

"But what do you mean by saying "the Fed is a conspiracy"?"


Are you retarded? I just answered that above. Do you know what the word “conspiracy” even means? It means when two or more plan some sort of secret or evil plot. A group of bankers-----BANKERS, NOT politicians, not Congress, NOT the House of Representatives, NOT, Supreme Court justices-----not ANYONE in Washington------met on Jekyll Island and began the Fed. Just that ALONE is a major problem, even if there was NOTHING else to it than what I just typed, that is a huge, colossal problem, that an institution that is above the law---above the President and Congress, was not even started by anyone who was ELECTED into office. The Fed IS above the law---Alan Greenspan ADMITTED it to Jim Lehrer a few years ago on national TV.

Youre a fucking moron. Im not arguing the Fed is PRIVATE, Im arguing that it was not launched by ANY elected official and the ONLY reason it was even “passed in legislation” was because Woodrow Wilson signed the Fed Res Act because he was fucking controlled by the bankers! The BANKERS run this country-----not any politicians---that’s my point! That is a HUGE conspiracy. The bankers have politicians in their back pocket---everyone knows that. The bankers finance politicians----yes, they did even THEN [even more so now, but they did then too] and Wilson signed the Fed Act because he was bankrolled.

the_last_name_left said...

so you're saying the FedRes originated in a conspiracy?

I mean, the existence of the FedRes is hardly secret is it?

And it IS under the control of the government of the United States, it IS subject to the Law of the United States, its highest officials are appointed according to law, by the President.

Where's the conspiracy?

Why does it matter who conceived of the idea? IT isn't as if no-one had ever thought of the idea before. Central banks were hardly a novelty by 1900.

So ... some people thought of the idea - and then legislation was passed.

If americans want to change the Fed or its legal founding - OR ANYTHING - they have the opportunity to do so through the democratic system......and their Reps and Senators and President can totally change it.

Where's the conspiracy?

Larry said...

I said a conspiracy is planning a secret OR evil plot--meaning it doesnt always HAVE to be secret. They bring criminals up on conspiracy charges all the time---obviously they are not secret if people get imprisoned for it. Youre trying to make it sound as if, just because it's KNOWN, its NOT a conspiracy. the GOVERNMENT of the United States is REALLY the PEOPLE...its CITIZENS.....NOT the people in Washington. And youre flat out WRONG. The Fed is NOT in control of anyone in Washington. It is an INDEPENDENT agency. Do you want the fucking LINK to the clip where Alan Greenspan ADMITS the Fed is run by NO ONE except for THEM????

Why does it matter who conceived the idea? Because any entity that is going to control the monetary system in this country should have at LEAST been conceived by ELECTED OFFICIALS. I wouldnt expect you to understand this since you dont live in this country.

"If americans want to change the Fed or its legal founding - OR ANYTHING - they have the opportunity to do so through the democratic system......and their Reps and Senators and President can totally change it."

NOT IF THE FED IS ABOVE THE LAW! And currently, it IS ABOVE THE LAW!

Are you retarded?

Heres the link of Greenspan admitting it. He says "The Fed Res is an independent agency, meaning there is no other governmental agency that can overrule actions that we take"----watch it, dilhole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbYhnJ5ERGk&feature=related

Larry said...

Do NOT respond to me unless you have watched that clip.

the_last_name_left said...

The Fed is NOT in control of anyone in Washington. It is an INDEPENDENT agency. Do you want the fucking LINK to the clip where Alan Greenspan ADMITS the Fed is run by NO ONE except for THEM????

No - it's a quasi governmental authority.

it IS subject to the law of the USA......ir IS subject to the wishes of the American people, as expressed through their democratic expression - voting.

The basis of the Fed could be changed tomorrow - if there was the will to do it.

You can not claim that people have elected a President, congress and senate based on a consensus/mandate to change the Fed's status.

But they could EASILY do so.....if they chose. They haven't - so there's no real pressure to change the status of the Fed.

You can grumble about it, but, tough luck? the rest of america seemingly doesn't agree with you.

You can argue they should, but they don't.

If you a democrat, you will support that. IF you wish to go against the wishes of the public, and forcibly bring about change, then you are moving into territory described as tyranny/authoritarianism/elitism etc.

The FED is NOT wholly independent.

NOT IF THE FED IS ABOVE THE LAW! And currently, it IS ABOVE THE LAW!

No it is NOT.

Heres the link of Greenspan admitting it. He says "The Fed Res is an independent agency, meaning there is no other governmental agency that can overrule actions that we take"----watch it, dilhole.

Yes - it is "independent" of interference from other government agencies - but that does not mean it is outside the law or of the remit of president, senate and house.

The FED is subject to the law.....subject to the democratic will of the people of the USA. If the people vote for a legislature and executive whom sought to change the FEDRES then it is perfectly capable of happening.

Just because the people don't care to mandate such a change in no way makes the change impossible - nor does it mean the FED is outside of the law - nor does it mean the FED is totally independent. It isn't - it is a quasi governmental agency.

Larry said...

Everything you just said WOULD be correct if...IF politicians were truly in charge---or even we the people were in charge---but they and we are NOT in charge...the bankers are---and BANKERS started the Fed----gee, coincidence?

President Kennedy paid the price for trying to stop the Fed. He got his head blown off.

Even actor Richard Belzer exposed this Bill Maher back in October. He said this:

"In 1910, Senator Aldrich on his private train, brought a bunch of billionaire bankers, the Morgans, the….all these different people, the Warburgs, down to this place called Jekyll Island, off the coast of Georgia. And they figured out a way to create the Federal Reserve, because central banks were looked down upon by the people, and they caused a lot of problems.

By creating the Federal Reserve, they convinced the Congress and the people that the Federal Reserve is a government arm. It’s not. They borrow money from private banks. We’re owned by banks, and you can’t alter that. John Kennedy wanted to stop borrowing, wanted to stop using the Federal Reserve, use silver certificates to determine the value of the dollar and print money through the treasury….so they exploded his head."

He's exactly right. That's what happens when you try messing with the people who are REALLY in charge. Let me guess---you think lone wolf Oswald killed Kennedy??

Larry said...

I see you couldnt even debunk Richard Belzer. You cant, so dont try. Not responding was a good move.