18 votes

Financially Speaking, Does it Benefit a Campaign to Alienate “Conspiracy Theorists”?

From http://libertychat.com

Some people want “conspiracy theorists” out of the Liberty movement. Forget for one second whether or not that is the right thing to do, and just look at it from a financial standpoint. Find me a Liberty-oriented website that’s ranking better than InfoWars.com? You want to write off that loyal following? Fine, but stand strong with your beliefs. Make a note at the top of your donation form, “if you’re a conspiracy theorist, please leave our website”. Oh, and for the record, InfoWars.com ranks better than MittRomney.com & GOP.com. So the argument that you’ll pick up more donors from Republicans, by losing “conspiracy theorists”, is in question.

Nobody is saying you have to put on a “truther” shirt at your political rally, but you also don’t have to act like Jack Hunter, and alienate a financially vital wing to the Liberty movement. There is a middle road here, and I think people like Tom Woods are on it. Tom Woods has the skill to reach out to Republicans and Conservatives, never wearing a “truther” shirt, and yet still maintains popularity within the “conspiracy theorist” movement. Why? Because he delivers a message “conspiracy theorists” can get behind, and when in the vicinity of someone who happens to believe in a conspiracy theory, he doesn’t run away.

You don’t have to scream “9/11 was an inside job”, or praise Alex Jones, to have the “conspiracy theorist” movement on your side. You just have to speak the truth, in your particular area of expertise, and they’ll respect you for that. It also helps to be polite to them.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

.

.

I saw this quote on conspiracy theorists...

"Conspiracy theorist? Not at all, I'm a Public Intelligence Analyst" :)

"Fairy tales are more than true; not because they tell us that dragons exist, but because they tell us that dragons can be beaten."
— G.K. Chesterton

Isn't there a huge percentage...

...of people that learned about Ron Paul from Infowars? Why would anyone even consider that a bad thing? People all have reasons for supporting Paul and most of them are the same. So regardless of people believing in conspiracy theories or not, being of a different race or religion or not, being from a different political backround, a different gender, race, generation, or any other difference matter? If we keep barking at each other for those differences, we will not accomplish what we could. Focus on the common areas.

Ron Paul is a conspiracy

Ron Paul is a conspiracy theorist and has said many times that a conspiracy only takes 2 people planning anything....and that conspiracies are happening for good and bad all the time, everywhere you look. Nothing wrong with recognizing that people plet outcomes, some good, some nefarious. It is naive to believe that there isn't human motive in many tragedies that happen around the world.

Take the CIA for example. When you have a rouge organization with an endless blank check who's sole purpose is to conspire secretive missions, and do in fact stir up trouble around the world, it is hard to believe that most any major event or political catastrophe wasn't conspired.

So, people who believe in conspiracies should not be ostracized; rather they ought to be commended for their healthy skepticism. I hope that on this site that we would all recognize and celebrate the 'question authority and the status quo' mentality that pervades our movement.

Yes it does

Yes it does

At least 8 in 10 Americans hold strong conspiracy beliefs

"A Gallup poll from March of this year shows that over 8 in 10 Americans (81%) believe that other people were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. Only 13% of the public believes that just one man (Lee Harvey Oswald) acted alone."

Why would any party want to write off over 80% of the voting public?

And that is just the Kennedy conspiracy.

Putting that in context makes this thread a bit silly.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1813/most-americans-believe-oswal...

If you don't believe in any conspiracy theories, you are WAY in the minority.

To be or not to be negative

The negative connotative terms of "truther" and "conspiracy theorists", "conspiracy theory" has taken a toll as designed.

Those who are of the mind to, "purify the liberty movement" have a limited understanding of government and of liberty.

"Financially Speaking"? "Does it Benefit a Campaign to Alienate"? How many people fall into these labels as above? Give credit where credit is due, words aren't often spoken with at least a sense of knowing when and when not to speak.

SteveMT's picture

NO is the answer.

This is worth remembering. Ron Paul does not exclude, he includes.

If there are some in the Liberty Movement that would like to remove the conspiracy theorists, they should never forget that the RNC would like nothing more than to remove all of us from the republican party. They believe that we are all a bunch of nut-job conspiracy theories when it comes to our support for Ron Paul, someone who they despise.

Now, I'll get back to my movie, Loose Change: Final Cut.

Financially Speaking?

No. Conspiracy Theorists have access to their parents credit cards since they all live in their basements... Therefore we should not alienate them.

70-80%

of people believe in one conspiracy theory or another. 70-80% do not live in their parents basements. Unless you are shut in, you probably interact with conspiracy theorists everyday. Oh no, what will you ever do now? RP was considered a conspiracy theorist back in the day. Does he live in his parents basement? Does he use his parents money? some people seem smarter when they don't talk....

70-80% ?

Did you find that magical statistic on infowars.com?
The definition of "conspiracy theories" is incredibly vague your statistic (if it were not made up) would be meaningless.

Ron Paul was considered a "conspiracy theorist" back in the day...?
Could you be more specific as too when Ron Paul was considered a conspiracy theorist? cite an article or something to prove you didn't make this up too?

Some people seem smart until you realize their entire argument is made up.

(Truthers) Funny you should have brought this up

I'm the one who posted "Don't Mock The Lady." I'd done so as a rebuttal to a previous post because I'd been saddened by comments directed towards a woman in the video clip. Of all that I could find to criticize in the pathetic situation it portrayed, I could never bring myself to mock an ignorant woman missing teeth. My post only inspired harsher mocking. I was later on line with a friend and wrote, "Some at the DP say we shouldn't talk about "911 conspiracies" or "chemtrails" or anything like that, as it gives Ron Paul and the liberty movement a bad name. Truly, I think the callousness shown would turn off more potential supporters than questioning the collapse of the third tower." Indeed, I find A LINK between some who question the events of 911 and those who support Ron Paul. The one friend I have who's also been a long-time RP supporter also questions the investigation of 911. Also the one person I know, for sure, I won over to RP. I think the link is expressed as those wanting to know THE TRUTH. Concerning the fed, nat'l debt, disregard for the Constitution, and wars, Ron Paul was like the boy who, unafraid, told the truth about the emperor having no clothes.

When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.
~ John Muir

Speak no evil. Finance is for after dinner.

"The lack of money is the root of all evil."
- More Maxims of Mark, Johnson, 1927

"Some men worship rank, some worship heroes, some worship power, some worship God, & over these ideals they dispute & cannot unite -- but they all worship money."
- Mark Twain's Notebook

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

This was the opinion of the C4L management.

But the official Campaign is over and their pronouncements are rather worthless tender in today's political economy.

Let freedom ring!

Free includes debt-free!

This is a 1st amendment issue

and I will NEVER try to silence anyone... Especially if they are a explaining how jet fuel burns at ~500 degrees F and the melting point of steel is ~3,000 degrees F...

Jet fuel burning and steel melting.

First - just because an item will ignite at 500 degrees does not mean it will only produce that much heat. Try dumping some water on an oil fire and watch how the heat goes up. The fire control systems in the buildings most likely did just that. The number needed here is just how much heat could a jet fuel fire produce and what would be need to make it produce that.

Second - The steel did not have melt to collapse it only had to soften. And in support of that the building that fell first was the second one hit. The beams at the second crash point were bearing much more weight. Those beams would be the most stressed and likely to sheer first. A good study would be to ascertain the temperature that would weaken the steel to cause the connections (rivets, bolts, or what was used sheer off and start the collapse.

The third building? There's another whole other problem.
.

It is the speed at which the buildings collapsed is the key

1. All the three buildings collapsed at free fall speed. This means there is no resistance from the bottom supporting structures.

2. The fire was oxygen starved so it did not achieve its full temperature. People were standing in those floors where the planes hit. At these temperatures the steel doesn't weaken much.

3. There is not much fire in many of the floors below the impact zone, still they offered zero resistance to the falling pieces from above (almost powder)

4. All the upper floors became small pieces (most of it powder) are ejected sideways and cannot offer enough force to crush the remaining floors in such a short time.

5. No steel structure ever collapsed due to office fire prior to or post 911 because it is impossible. Only controlled demolition can do that.

5. If office fires can bring sky scrapers completely and orderly like we witnessed on 911, the demolition companies will go out of business.

But...

Steel is an excellent conductor of heat, therefore dissipating through the entire steel structure. I have taken college level courses in material science, structural analysis, and heat transfer. I am by no means an expert, but one doesn't have to be to understand extremely basic principles.

Ron Paul's approach is best

Don't acknowledge the conspiracy aspect; which also means don't return donations. Speak to those things that the general public can understand like a complete investigation.

The time is right around the

The time is right around the corner where anyone who mistrusts the MSM (50%+ of the population) will be labeled as a conspiracy theorist. Personally, I can't wait to see that day.

What's a conspiracy theorist?

.

Two proper nouns. Changing order leaves them still proper.

When two nouns go a walking, which one does the talking?

Is it different to discuss "theorist conspiracy?" Proper nouns stand alone just as well. Then we know who is doing the talking.

Drive Safe: In Praise of Flat Adverbs - Merriam-Webster "Ask the Editor," such as Drive Safe!

The order of "conspiracy theory" ™ makes propaganda. recognizable. ... Profitable.

Disclaimer: Mark Twain (1835-1910-To be continued) is unlicensed. His river pilot's license went delinquent in 1862. Caution advised. Daily Paul

yeah

What about in recent years when people said FEMA camps were just a figment of the imaginations of 'those crazy conspiracy people'

Aaaaaaaaaah.

"Oh, and for the record, InfoWars.com ranks better than MittRomney.com & GOP.com. So the argument that you’ll pick up more donors from Republicans, by losing “conspiracy theorists”, is in question."

No, it's not in question. Ron Paul has more support on YouTube than even Barrack Obama, but, he couldn't even get two million votes in the Republican primary. Granted, half of his online supporters were too lazy, too stubborn, too ignorant, or too high (; to register Republican and vote for him. But, even then he would still only have about four million supporters. McCain got 59 million votes to Obama's 69 million in 2008.

Just because a website gets a lot of hits doesn't mean those people are able or willing to donate their money to politicians. For one thing, the majority of the InfoWarriors REFUSE to support anybody unless that person fits in 95% or more with their ideology (conspiracies included) and unless that person does not endorse or vocally support other people who match up 95% or more with the InfoWarriors ideology (conspiracy theories included).

If this movement is going to move into the mainstream political arena, we're going to have to have a separation of conspiracy theories and movement platform. That doesn't mean conspiracy theorists shouldn't be welcomed with open arms, they just need to be made to understand that the Liberty Movement is not just Alex Jones' movement or Adam Kokesh's "Lovelution," but, a COALITION of liberty-minded people of which they are only one of many segments.

Wow...

a rare rational post from Dixie-Paleocon (other than your naievete about Republican vote counting)!

If only you were actually part of this liberty coalition, instead of being firmly on the Willard/GOP establishment train.

I don't play, I commission the league.

you know RP was

Once considered a conspiracy theorist nut job type also. once we realized he was right we joined him. Like it or not alex jones is right about a lot of things too. He seems like an over actor but look at his results. Look for yourself how many people are tuning in and more everyday. Truth will win over politican in the end.....

There's a HUGE difference between...

Ron Paul's predictions, which have all been vindicated and reasonable, and Alex Jones' "there's going to be a false flag for real this time, honest" act he pulls every week.

Ron speaks from the heart, and speaks from experience dealing with the crooks in Washington. I get the feeling that Alex Jones is more concerned with hawking merchandise.

I don't play, I commission the league.

I agree conalmc

I don't watch Alex much and when I do he does seem to be overly dramatic but unless I'm missing something nearly everything he says checks out.

What I like about the alternative media is most all of personalities and websites regularly say "don't take my word for it, DO THE RESEARCH for yourself" They almost always post source documentation too.

As far as Alex making money off the truth movement, taking advantage of a situation is not always wrong. In fact, it's often prudent to take advantage of a situtation while you have the chance. As long as you are not harming someone or committing fraud, get while the getting is good.

In hockey when a skater is put in the penalty box the other team rightly "takes advantage" of the mismatch...or at least they try to. That's not wrong...that's smart.