62 votes

To be right, or to be effective?

This post is addressed to those who believe they have a divine right to discuss any and all conspiracy theories on the Daily Paul. After reading, I would appreciate it if you would answer the question at the bottom.

- - - -

So the government lies. This is well established. Is it news anymore? Do we have to go about documenting - in minute detail - every single lie and potential lie to the point that we're even making up lies ourselves?

Meanwhile, our rights are slowly drained away.

Telling people that the Boston Marathon bombing was a false flag with actors does one thing: It makes you look crazy.

What is it that people are after by pursuing that line of reasoning? Is the goal to be right, or to be effective?

Those screaming "FALSE FLAG!" are most certainly "right" - in their own minds. They "know" and have "proof" that it was all a hoax. To them it is so "obvious" that anyone who can't see it is an "idiot."

Is this an effective way to promote Liberty? For that, all you need is the Constitution, specifically, the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Which discussion is better for promoting liberty to non-initiates?

A) An argument over whether the 4th Amendment was violated in Boston by the door to door searches for the surviving Marathon Bomber,

or

B) An argument over whether the bombing was a staged Hollywood production with fake blood and actors who didn't have legs to begin with?



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

The game changer

x2 law,folks just think what would happen if the truth about 9/11 was known and accepted by the people of the USA! That one lie if ever exposed would lead to a real American revolution and the beginning of the end of the oligarchy that has ruled us for centuries. So I agree we must some how change the narrative and then hold those accountable and treat them accordingly!

InLibertyDan

Very well said.

That's what I'm finding as well with people I talk to is that the coupling of A & B is having the best results.

While many "non-initiates" may say they know that gov't lies, they still take at face value what the gov't/media put out, and until something specific really registers with them as a lie, they tend to still accept assaults on liberties.

So I'm finding in my discussions with people that A means little to most without some kind of wake up call...which is where B is helping.

I like that we can get BOTH A & B here.

Upvoted

Great post

Exactly!

Excellent explanation.

I Say Both

As much as some people here hate AJ I have to say that HE woke me up more than anyone. I found Ron Paul due to him, I knew to get out of Dallas before shtf due to him, and I saw through Obama due to him. At first the stuff AJ would rant about scared the heck out of me and I couldn't wrap my mind around such evil but the more I listened the more I saw the stuff he was raving about happening around me. I saw this martial law crap coming, I saw the domestic drone crap coming, I looked up and SAW for MYSELF the corruption all around me. I SAW them cheat Ron Paul out of the nomination. BLATANTLY and BOLDLY. I KNEW that as soon as Obama got a second term that there would be hell to pay and there is. When does conspiracy end and reality begin? If we can't talk about these things here, where can we go? Personally I was appalled that you kicked people off for questioning the reality of the bombing. It looked faked to me but I wasn't going to post that until I had time to sort it out. I hate to be AFRAID to say so though for fear of being run out of town. You asked, so there it is.

skippy

good point

I was appalled too and hope a balance is found.

They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds. -mexican proverb

TORN

There is no easy answer, it is a balance.

It was the search for truth that helped me find Ron Paul and the defense of that truth that brought me here. Our principles matter as much as our goals. So I think there is a balance.

Someone once said "truth is treason in an empire of lies". Our search for the truth keeps us honest, abandoning it for a goal no matter how noble will ultimately take us away from our principles. ...and what are we without principles ? The GOP.

Maybe the answer is as simple as limiting the " far out there post " to a single thread and enforcing the rules accordingly. I don't think you can steer people away from the search for truth, but you also have to find a balance or else the site will become saturated w Alex Jones style sillyness.

They tried to bury us, they didn't know we were seeds. -mexican proverb

I think that is a false dichotomy

I think asking people to look at the inconsistencies in the story is how they learn the truth, and having people learn the truth is ultimately the only thing that will be effective.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

IF:

"having people learn the truth is ultimately the only thing that will be effective"

then being right > being effective otherwise people would effectively be wrong.

Despite that the concepts of right/wrong are arbitrary there are clearly some things that are absolutely right and some things that are absolutely wrong and some things that are controversial.

One thing that got me looking

One thing that got me looking was the dichotomy between MSM and government pronouncements about the housing market, the libertarian housing blogs and who was right at the end. I have images in my mind of MSM headlines saying housing never losses versus the people who were awake saying Bernake lives in never-never land. People wake up when we have the correct information. Which makes it important that we fact-check ourselves.

Vickie

I think..

...my personal choice would be A. I have pondered the most effective way for one to best convey the message of Liberty, and I truly believe the consistent principle and moral argument is the best way to go. I, like many others, have learned a lot along the way, and with every new day, we refine, re evaluate, and come closer to perfecting our moral understanding of Liberty and how to best spread it. Our arguments grow stronger, and with the better understanding of these principles, the easier it gets to convey. Kind of like how Ron Paul speaks of them without blinking an eye, without a teleprompter. When you stand on principle, there is no flip flopping, no catering to the opinions of the majority, and no changing responses in order to cater to a specific type of group. It is what is, and that becomes self-evident in the moral principle itself when conveyed/understood correctly.

That being said, I DO recognize that some people respond to things differently, or how different approaches may get them to be "awakened", or to start questioning their govt., thus eventually ending at the true message of Liberty. I agree with the poster who stated such a sentiment, as I was actually one of those people. It WAS the "conspiracies", that i had delved into, that eventually lead me to Ron Paul, Peter Schiff, Austrian Economics, and thus, to the fundamental understanding of the moral principles of individual Liberty.

Like one poster suggested, maybe those real off the top, extreme, weird, dubious posts and topics, are what keeps us on our feet.

Maybe we are allowing our emotions to get the better of us. Maybe we kind of kept going with this irrationality based on those emotions, and we all feel kind of bad.

I believe the message of Liberty will prevail. It will be a bumpy road, and it may not go exactly as planned, but then again, we can't central plan this anyways. The spontaneous, non-violent energy, of individuals using their god given talents and reason, will sort the ridiculous and absurd out. The only thing we can do, is make our arguments and reasoning better, and allow for individuals to make up their own mind, by the god given talents they possess.

Just my 2.

Michael, I thank you for everything you have done, and the tireless work and time that you have put in, in order to advance the message of Liberty. You did it, and still do it, because you have a passion. You were meant to do it.

Don't you ever go away permanently! We'll hunt you down Mr. DP! :P You have gave encouragement to not only me in these last 5 years, (although I know my register member date only says 1 year and some change) but so many others as well... for I have seen it.

It's pressuring, I know. But don't let it get to you brother, please. Take a break for a little, meditate, and allow the negativity, headaches, and feelings of disheartenment leave you.

All of us grow with each other, and for that I am grateful. We are the Liberty Family, and I love it! Never end it!

Cheers, brothers and sisters! for we still have much to do in this promising future ahead of us!

AnimusOfLiberty

R[3VOL]UTION

Keep your eye on the prize! - Ending legal tender laws in order for the Federal Reserve System to self-destruct is of the upmost importance.
What in the World are They Spraying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf0khstYDLA
http://geoengineeringwatch.org

B leads to A and A leads to B

I think both because people are starting to question these events. And even if B is wrong it does make people think about what is really going on, looking at the evidence and thinking. It leads people to think about if the government was involved in some way.

Then comes the question of why? They say, but why would the government take part? Which leads to A.

Ok, that's one line of thinking. The other is put A first. Look at how the 4th amendment was violated and how all those people were violated. This is an even harder sell in the public from my personal discussion with people. They think it was justified because they were tossing bombs around. They didn't show the people being forced from their houses and guns pointed at them and stuff. Anyway, it takes a lot of work to get them to see it (just as it does for B).

Once there then they ask but Why? Why the force? This then leads on to B. Not necessarily the same B scenario you picture but all of the scenarios that include government involvement because they are clearly who benefited. That or they just rationalize it was a mistake and poorly handled. But still it is an opportunity to think one way or another and acknowledge possibilities.

So both.

And both happened on this site although all the details of B make for a whole lot more posts. And there was a HUGE amount of repetition. But, we still have time to push A. Now is the time in fact - after people's fear has come down and they can take in perspective.

Anagram

http://www.dailypaul.com/270001/time-for-my-nightly-jam-sess...

"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_enlistment

There is no duration defined in the Oath

oddly, I just pulled that up

in my other window.

Exposing the bullshit

for what it is, is no different than telling your friend that you had taken to a magic show that its all fake, and if he/she chooses to believe that its still real..I guess we can just go along with the illusion and hope that one day he/she realizes its fake.

I don't think so!

Good Read:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-05/ff_n...

SteveMT's picture

The question you are asking is the very crux of what divides us

These two options (A and B) are not mutually exclusive. A tactfully made argument pushing "A" could be also be very effective if done correctly. By asking the right questions in the right ways, someone wouldn't necessarily come across as crazy. However, the question you are asking is the very crux of what divides us here.

Political analogy for your question:

I believe that Ron Paul would say that it is always better to be right than effective. The effectiveness will eventually come with time as what you say slowly sinks into the people. They will eventually agree when they catch-up with the truth. Ron Paul was too far ahead of his time to be effective, but he was absolutely right. Putting this in terms of a conspiracy, this year will mark the 50th anniversary of the JFK assassination. It has taken that long, but few people remain on this planet that believe Oswald acted alone.

Alternatively, 50 years is a very long time to find the truth, so on the other side of this strategy there is Rand. I believe he would say that it is better to be effective than to always be right. A few feathers of the absolute Constitutionalists may get ruffled along the way, but the payback will be much faster for change to occur. Rand would say let's be practical and optimize the chances for reaching a quicker, better result.

Which way is the true path or is it a combination of both?

This site serves it purpose I think

There are many sites which are more.. subtle.

That means moderators. Do we want that?

I think this has a good mix. IMO opinion the main 'problem' is not 'conspiracy' vs 'non-conspiracy' or 'minarchist vs anarchist' or 'Rand vs Ron' or 'theist vs atheist' it's people starting these endless threads wanting to shove out people who disagree.

All are welcome here IMO that believe in liberty.

Except those socialist greenbackers:D

Great point and well stated.

Of course, trying to bring this up in a post brings the wrath of the conspiracy theorists.

I think last week we missed an opportunity to educate new visitors on the 4th Amendment and on an opportunity to defend due process as an UNALIENABLE right.

There will surely be more opportunity for this in the future.

Personally, I can't direct all of my groups of friends to this site when the conspiracy theorists are swarming. When debating the constitution I can always safely reference here.

You cannot disconnect false

You cannot disconnect false flags from the fight for liberty... to do so is to ignore history and truth. The people who peddle the 'staged-Hollywood' type theories and stuff are most likely dis-info and that is MEANT to make you look crazy, to discredit you. I can tell you for sure that dis-info campaigns are very real. The control of information is possibly the most important factor in controlling the minds of a population.

Now, having said that... would I start using this kind of information to deprogram someone who is totally asleep still? No! And most likely you will do more harm than good.

If It Does More Harm Than Good

Then how come Alex Jones has millions of viewers that go around waking more people up? He obviously hasn't caused more harm than good or MSM wouldn't be attacking him so much.

skippy

While most here would

not consider me a "conspiracy theorist," I wish to point out the fallacy in the statement "To be right, or to be effective?" in regard to conspiracy theory posts. The simple fact is, being "effective" is meaningless and purposeless without being "right." Just as "you can only hit the target if you aim at it," you can only make real progress toward your political goal if you are uncompromising on principle. If even one of the many conspiracy theories discussed on this site is true, we owe it to all truth-seekers to allow them to be discussed.

I have made no bones about my displeasure with Rand Paul, and have received plenty of down votes for it. The thing which causes me to cringe with trepidation every time he opens his mouth -- the knowledge that as a politician in power he would actively work to decrease the liberty of some peaceful people -- is the same thing which makes me cringe every time someone talks about censorship of content. And that is, TRUTH MATTERS, AND THE ONLY WAY TO ARRIVE AT TRUTH IS THROUGH OPEN DISCUSSION. I admit that, if I were dictator of the Daily Paul for a day, I would be tempted to censor xenophobic, anti-immigrant, warmongering neocon posts, as these offend me terribly. But then I realize that, permitting these posts is the price I pay for having my words available for others to read. In the same way, even though I am not a conspiracy theorist, there is always Karmic blowback for denying open discussion of any legitimate topic, including conspiracy theories.

To sum it up, in the name of truth, please find some way to continue to accommodate the many diverse and interesting viewpoints which have enlightened and entertained us these last 6 years.

Simply having this discussion, is a "conspiracy".

if either "a" or "b" are correct.

if both questions presuppose an illegal event has occurred. then it follows that we are "conspiring" to seek truth.

did I miss something?

I admit to enjoy reading some of the conspiracy threads

That being said, they shouldn't be on the front page or front and center at all.

Why not create a section of the forum called "Conspiracy Corner" and disable upvoting/downvoting? Problem solved. Theorists can still have their say, but will no longer dominate the DP.

It is distracting, and we as a movement need to get our act together.

Common ground needs to be found, we need to get relatively united (though I understand this has limitations) and a communication network should be rebuilt and reworked for the midterms.

The most important thing is to try to reduce the negativity. Most posts are attacking Rand Paul, Bitcoin, conspiracy theories, any attempts at local grassroots are gutted. It's getting ridiculous. Constructive criticism is good, relentless attacks are not.

It's hard to attract people to a movement which only dwells upon negatives.

They will still show up on the front page as most viewed

Because they are.

I'm sure there must be a work-around

There usually is.

What you seem to be implying

What you seem to be implying reminds me of GWB when he said that he had to abandon Free Market principles to save the Free Market. It was BS then and it is BS now. I do realise that Mr. Nystrom can do whatever he wants with his site, but it has grown the way it has due to the freedom of the site. If you eliminate that freedom over conspiracy theories, then what might be next. Maybe no more posts dealing with MSNBC. Maybe no more post showing inconsistencies with the official story. Maybe Anarchists would follow, and then maybe survivalists or preppers would follow, because someone doesn't like that stuff on the front page.

First they cam for the conspiracy theorists...

What you seem to be advocating is to tame the topics which get the most views, replies, and the most feedback (up/down votes), just because you would prefer something else be on the front page. I'm sorry, but that is not how things work in a free society, and as soon as Mr. Nystrom declares that the site is no longer a primarily free society, then that will spell the true end of the Daily Paul. Because when there is nothing of significance going on, the News and Conspiracy theories keep people coming back, which in turn keeps the site relevant.

Answer to your question A.

Answer to your question

A. 4th Amendment.

Reasons:

1. If it was false flag it has been done to take the 4th away.

2. We have undeniable proof the 4th amendment has been violated.

Not only does it make you look crazy

...but it marginalizes the whole liberty movement, especially when those ideas are posted here!

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

Agree Entirely

Take the mommy's basement-level fringe theories elsewhere. Actors. LOL. Go watch Ed Chiarini's channel, and if you can do so without laughing out loud at the utter stupidity, you might just be insane.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."-- Albert Einstein

not that I think the Boston

not that I think the Boston incident was false flag, but I will say, that the truth is almost impossible to find without some association to crazy theories like 'hollywood-staged' theories, aliens, reptilian people. etc... it's done on purpose to discredit. It's dis-info 101. This is why coming to conclusions on your own is so important. Most people do not, even the ones who think they are outside the box, so to speak, are still parroting what the alternative media tells them just like the people who parrot mainstream news and TV. The establishment deff puts the truth out there, through infiltration for example(radio hosts, blogs etc...), but if it is only received with other discrediting info, then this is actually an advantage.