35 votes

Do "conspiracy theorists" hurt the Liberty Movement?

Simple question: Do "conspiracy theorist" hurt our cause?

Do things like 9/11 Truth annoy you as a liberty activist because you think it turns away people from the core message of private property, non-interventionism, respect for individual civil liberties, and free market capitalism?

As a "Truther" yourself, do you have a problem with people who suggest that you are hurting the movement?

Do you have an opinion either way?

I plan to discuss this on my radio show this Wednesday, December 26, 2012 at 5pm central/6pm eastern. To listen live or download podcasts, visit www.cbrons.com

Comment viewing options

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

I guess the opposite of a 'Truther' would be a 'liar'?

"Do not call conspiracy
everything that these people call
do not fear what they fear,
and do not dread it.
The Lord Almighty is the one you are
to regard as holy,
he is the one you are to fear,
he is the one you are to dread,
and he will be a sanctuary...

Bind up the testimony
and seal up the law among my
I will wait for the Lord,
who is hiding his face from the house
of Jacob.
I will put my trust in Him."

Isaiah 8:13

Obedience to God is resistance to tyrants.

There is nothing wrong with

There is nothing wrong with asking questions or presenting alternate theories to an "official" story, but I will say that it certainly does hurt the movement (or at the very least the credibility of this site). I will admit that I was absolutely turned off of the DP for a few days immediately after the Sandy Hook tragedy due to all of the conspiracy stuff.

It is kind of a double edged sword. I would hate to suggest to tone things down because some meaningful discussion does arise from many of these topics, but from an outsider looking in, I am sure that it is a major turn off.


Only conspiracy practitioners do hurt liberty!

The behavior that I have a

The behavior that I have a low opinion of is people latching on to some conclusion just because some other conclusion has been shown to have holes in it. Proponents of a conclusion, whether it's popular or not, often have to ignore some portion of evidence. Why not lean towards a theory, or away from some theory, while reserving some measure of conclusion? It's this jumping from extreme to extreme, while defending the current extreme position as if it's the God's honest truth, that doesn't make sense. Is it so hard to live another day without knowing the full answer for sure? Does converting other people to your conclusion make it more likely?

Sometimes this behavior gets justified as being "open minded," but there's nothing open-minded about bouncing from one conclusion to another as soon as another one seems more attractive. Open-minded would be spending a lot of time admitting that you aren't sure about various things.

So my point is that sometimes the conspiracy people are just as irrational and dogmatic as people who like toe defend whatever position the TV tells them to have. Some of us would like to think that the liberty movement is based on logical reasoning and facts, but if you take a look at the front page here, that doesn't appear to be the case, and it's embarrassing and disheartening to see a site that we think represents beautiful ideas to be filled with these kinds of things.

"Facts form my opinions. I do

"Facts form my opinions. I do not first have an opinion and then either use or ignore certain facts to justify my already formed opinion like all the media out there"

Find the fats and remember as Sherlock Holmes said, "If you ignore the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

any movement that cares about truth . . .

won't get very far by denying the search for truth--

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Exactly. It'd be shooting itself in the foot.

One of the biggest things that attracted me here was the active searching for truth.

If people in a liberty movement stifle the exploration and understanding of where and how they have been and are being duped, it is doubtful the movement will retain, or even attain, that which it seeks.

Is Dr. Paul's final report to congress on the NDAA a conspiracy?

I bet if we switched Ron Paul's name from his final conference report on the NDAA and substituted it with Gerald Celente or A-Jones etc, many would call it conspiracy nut talk.


Look at it this way

The earth is flat. It must be, because the king, the church and my elders told me so. To think otherwise is heresy.

The government can protect you better than you can protect yourself. It must be true, because the president, the TV, and my unemployed neighbor in a bigger house that drives a BMW told me so. To think otherwise is a conspiracy theory.

Liberty: Too big to fail

I don't think so


The term Conspiracy Theory is a tool to subvert free speech..

Questions like this are all about silencing people, but we can all get along no matter how awake we are. Some of the Ron Paul people eat GMO foods, because they believe the "conspiracy" that GMO foods are safe. Those folks are still welcome to me. All I mean to say is diverse ideas welcome.

Deep down everyone is Libertarian.
Live and Let Live, form of government.

Way to stroke your own egos

Way to stroke your own egos while you hurt the movement guys. Again, there are countless things you can talk about to enlighten people where you can point to hard evidence. Instead you talk about stuff that makes people shut down. We want to open their eyes, not make them roll their eyes. So if you still want to go down that road, it's just selfish.

That's just reality guys. It doesn't matter if you are right or wrong about something. It matters what you can prove. When all your "proof" is hacked together youtube nonsense, you aren't doing any of us any favors. You forget that here, you are preaching to the choir, but it's not the choir that needs convincing.

But no one can tell you guys anything so the rest of us will just have to keep overcoming this extra hurdle you all seem so hell bent on making us jump over. I don't get it, I just don't get it. Hopefully it's just ignorance and not something more nefarious like purposeful disinformation. Now that's a conspiracy theory for you.

Now go ahead and vote this down and keep right on slowing the movement down for your own personal gratification.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

I think it takes less than a "conspiracy theory" to get eyes...

Rolling. Just mention Ron Paul and some folks their eyes. Anyway this site is really good at showing or rather exposing the news and undressing it for what it really is, propaganda.

Deep down everyone is Libertarian.
Live and Let Live, form of government.

this is how i describe it...

this is how i describe it... it is like the free market... we need to recruit people of all shapes and sizes... let Rand and Ron get some people and let the conspiracy theorist recruit their people. Plus all you gatta do is look at history and know that many of those conspiracy theories are wrong... but they were not wrong about that government doing messed up stuff like test spraying in St louis etc etc

Are we hurting the movement?

I guess all of us crazy conspiracy theorists have hurt the movement with conspiracy theories like the federal reserve, NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, UN gun control, assassinating American citizens, GOP convention antics, repatriating gold, Agenda 21, vaccines, birth certificates, 9/11, election fraud, war on drugs, bin laden death, how inflation is calculated, bailouts, legality of IRS, and government controlled media.

There, I just set off key word notifications on every CIA, NSA, DHS, FBI, and DoD analyst's computer. You're welcome you treasonous government hacks. Enjoy your 4th amendment violating wet dream, Merry Christmas.

Liberty: Too big to fail

well said...

noone, not even Ron Paul (at least on the msm) ever makes the point that the creation of the fed was indeed a conspiracy, by the richest most influential Americans at the time. the Project for a New American century was an outline for a conspiracy to overthrow all remaining independent, sovereign "rogue" nations in the world. The neocons are gone, but the same basic plans go on.

I think that the important thing to remember is that most of the major conspiracies, like Agenda 21, PNAC, etc- arent a secret at all! There's little reason to speculate. There are whistleblowers everywhere, they just get muzzled or otherwise blackballed by the MSM.

Visit https://soundcloud.com/politics-of-freedom for all recent Ron Paul interviews, speeches, debates, forums, panels, press conferences, news coverage, and Texas Straight Talk updates!

"Terrorism is the war of the poor, while war is the terrorism of

Liberty: Too big to fail

Love that, Nick.

Pandas eat bugs.

Conspiracy theory?

Were just thinking outside of the box.
Whats wrong with thinking?
Screw thoughs other guys

For Freedom!
The World is my country, all mankind is my brethren, to do good is my religion.


nothing wrong with thinking about them - but the problem comes from people claiming them as fact and trying to use this movement as a vehicle to announce them.

It isn't wrong to question things - but to announce them as fact when there aren't really facts to back them up makes us look stupid IMO.

I think a lot of people are missing the question

A lot of people are defending the right and benefits of so called 'conspiracy theories' - and I don't think that is the point.

It is 'Are they bad for the movement' - not 'are they bad'

To be more precise, I'd ask 'are they bad for the Daily Paul?'

And even that depends on the purpose of the Daily Paul. If we consider the Daily Paul a 'first stop' for noobs, then I would argue that it is bad. If the Daily Paul is a 'hard core' libertarian website, then I'd say not as bad for the movement.

The Daily Paul, however, is endowed with two famous 'Pauls' - Ron by design and Rand by circumstance. I know the website name now stands for Peace Gold and Love... but... the name is still there.

So, in 2016 we might be in a bit of a conundrum if Rand runs. If he does, I would expect the Daily Paul to become a first stop for noobs. Will the site openly support/oppose Rand? I kind-of expect to see Jesse Benton and Jack Hunter in a future Rand run... and I know they are not welcomed by many around here... that might influence the site's direction. I know Jack has displayed annoyance at the 'conspiracy theorists' in the past (which suggests that he thinks they are bad for the movement).

EDIT: I should clarify... when I say 'if the site is a first stop for noobs' - I should rephrase that to something like 'if the site is a first stop for those considering a liberty candidate' (i.e. Rand, Justin Amash, etc.)

Some have griped for years that it'll hurt the movement. BUT...

Hasn't the movement actually grown?

You've only been here for 1 1/2 yrs, so you may not know that this debate over whether ~conspiracy theories/theorists~ will hurt the movement has gone on for years.

But realize that more and more issues that were deemed ~fringe~ or ~kooky~ not so long ago are not considered so kooky or fringe now.

While you may not like some opinions on certain topics that irritate you, you yourself have indulged in some rather lively discussion on those topics.

I don't care for the insult slinging and name calliing (from either side), but I have learned quite a bit, as a lot of info is put forth in that bantering.

I'd much rather see exposing/education (that apparently seems to be working as more are becoming informed and aware), even if that means some heated and emotional discussions, than to see this place wither out of fear that someone might be put off because something they didn't like was being discussed on a thread here.

Think about this. What does it say if people in the liberty movement cannot explore issues that pertain to liberty in a liberty-oriented site?

I can agree some

Because we have grown is no indication of how much could have grown (or shrunk).

Again, I am looking at this in the context of winning elections. I know people don't like the idea of shirking away from some subjects - it has a slimy feel to it - I know that...

I mean... if we had the national spotlight on us leading up to an election, I would rather a sound argument against the Federal Reserve be highlighted than how "aliens are influencing the elections" (which i made up - so as to not single out any particular theory).

I can also imagine an article listing out some of the topics that where highly popular here being used against a future candidate (particularly Rand Paul since the site carries his surname)... And again, yes, I feel the 'screw the msm!' sentiment... but it would be politically wise to forestall such attacks.

So, it is in this light that I think 'conspiracy theories' are bad for the movement.

My awakenings happened in the exact opposite order...

...of what you and some others here would prefer.

I do appreciate the civil reply. But please know that I would likely never have paid attention to things like the Federal Reserve and foreign policy, for example, had I not had earth shattering ~aha~ moments in the other controversial/conspiracy areas first...the ones that make a few of you squirm.

This is not one size fits all.

Truth cannot hurt

The only thing that can hurt the Liberty movement is deception and lies. If the Truthers have facts that need to be considered, then we should consider them. Maybe they are right. If they are wrong, we can poke holes in their theories and deflate them, thus proving the viability of free debate. Maybe history will vindicate them and we will be glad for their persistence. Sort of like that nutjob John T Flynn who gadflied about in the 1940's, while the War was going on, saying that Pearl Harbor was hardly a 'sneak attack' and that the Roosevelt was lying. We now know he was absolutely right.

If, however, we mark some subjects off-limits, then we are conciously saying that we are willing to live with possible deception and lies in order to put forward an 'acceptable' public face. But life and history doesn't wait for 'safe' opinions...at some point the truth will come out, and it will be to our shame that we refused to look at it, consider it, and come to some conclusions about it.

The Liberty movement REQUIRES robust debate. Hell, I'll even debate about aliens if I have to, just to give truth a chance (I will debate 'con.' Just sayin').

Nobody Conspires

No one in the history of humanity has ever gotten together with another human being and made an effort to deceive others for personal gain. It just doesn't happen. If people are going to lie in order to gain something, they do so by themselves. Never working with others -- never conspiring.

So if you're theorizing that such a crazy act, conspiracy, has been committed, then you are clearly a loon. It just hasn't happened in history.

(end sarcasm)

I think you can go too far when putting forth theories, especially since in most of these cases we clearly don't have all the information. Most of us however are just calling for a real investigation. We don't know the facts, but we do know that the official stories are complete bullshit. There's just no freethinking human being on this planet who has put any effort into researching 9-11 and come out believing everything the government has to say about it.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

Yes. People who believe in ridiculous things like

Ali Baba Laden and his 19 Hijackers, who flew magic carpets into steel mountains to make them fall down, make us look silly.

9/11 deniers and sheeple not wanted in the Liberty Movement. Anyone that stupid is a liability.

Release the Sandy Hook video.

No.7's picture

Sheeple vote

and there's a hell of a lot more of them than us. Talk about the fed, the Constitution, foreign policy, and the one party demopublicans. Don't scream "911 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!" while wearing a Ron Paul shirt. That crap has nothing to do with Dr. Paul and the conspiracy theorist in me is starting to think you guys are government patsies trying to make us look crazy and radical. However that's just the paranoid thoughts running through my brain, not what I actually believe.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

It makes you a "sheeple" to

It makes you a "sheeple" to ask questions?

Educate yourself. The official story is imbecilic and clearly bogus, and frankly anyone stupid enough to believe it is much more of a liability than even the craziest conspiracy theorists.

Freedom in our lifetime! - fiol.us

I think Sue and you agree

I think Sue and you agree with each other. You might want to reread what she said.

I think she was being facetious and mocking the belief that 19 guys who wielded box cutters to hijack planes (her magic carpets) and rammed them into two mammoth buildings and other buildings are the impetus for the US police state. Because she mocked that belief, I think, is why she followed up saying 9/11 deniers, as in people who deny the government-media-congress complex's story, a description contrasting 9/11 truthers.

From my observation, there are only two people descriptions following 9/11. One is truthers, the other, deniers. Truthers are people who want the truth and don't accept the aforementioned complex's explanation of 9/11 and deniers are people who deny everything except that complex's explanation. Then, because she said sheeple after deniers, I think she alluded to most Americans because most of them are without a modicum of knowledge on how the world works, so they're incapable of talking about 9/11 with anything other than what the Man In The Box said. The Man In The Box is television. And the people who believe it rather than think about what the man in the box said and whether it fits with other things are sheeple.

But maybe I misunderstood her.

Oh, yeah, nice comment above. I caught your sarcasm in your first sentence. Well said.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Different Question

After reading the comments here, maybe a different question is in order.

Is the DP a good place to explore the more radical, and newest theory’s?

Just open the box and see