Conspiracy Monday: Conspiracy Theorists are More Smarter Than Everybody

Here’s just a tiny sample of the facts you can glean from the hard-hitting, concise, investigative conspiracy research available on the Internets. Read and learn. If you don’t, you’ll never become more smarter than you are now. You will remain asleep in the Matrix sheep-fold until that guy in the cool trenchcoat comes along and takes you to his crack den on Baker Street and offers you a red pill. Or maybe a blue pill. I can’t recall because it’s a shitty movie.

* Depleted uranium is a biological weapon.
A YouTube user called Outspoken Arrogant (original punctuation intact):

I Don,t think people understand Depleted Uranium is a very very Effective Bio-Weapon n it is being used to depopulate areas corrupt govt want to take over ,Depleted Uranium is supposed to be Encased In a Cement Tomb for 10,000 years Depleted Uranium means It can,t be used for nuclear weapons but is a Deadly Cancer Agent!

* The world isn’t overpopulated. Population has only increased ninefold since 1750. All we have to do is shuffle people from densely populated areas to underpopulated areas.
Bobbylove321 at the Above Top Secret forum breaks it down for you, with such insightful comments as this: “There’s OVER 19 million empty homes in this country because the bank and mortgage companies decided that people couldn’t pay their rents and loans, so they don’t deserve to live in a house.

* The U.S. is full of “sociopathic headshrinkers who are also sadists, doing nazi like experiments on the mentally ill and helpless children of america…all proven by de-classified government documents.
This tidbit comes from someone who I’m sure will become world-renowned as one of the preeminent amateur historians in the U.S.


8 thoughts on “Conspiracy Monday: Conspiracy Theorists are More Smarter Than Everybody

  1. Gah.. You get the stupid, “move people to places where there are no people”, crap from “both” those that think the planet is overpopulated and the ones that think it isn’t. Both of them seem to fail to recognize that if we “did” move people away from large cities into rural areas, and thus spread everyone out, we would devastate the environment with parking lots and fracking houses, and not have any place left for… food production, for one. The only real difference seems to be in their imaginary “solutions” to places that “are” overpopulated. The “industry is evil” idiots think you can solve the problem by giving up modern everything, and returning to precisely the state that Africa is in. I.e., no modern food production, few *barely* modern cities, poverty, no jobs, and basically nothing to do but make babies, in the hope that 3-4, our of 10, survive, thus “creating overpopulation”. The other side seems to imagine that if we just spread them out more, so everyone has their own land, then… I don’t know, but same fracking problem, only worse, since now you don’t have tools, skills, means to grow food, a job, *or* the support of other people.Reality is, cities and industrialization seem to have two effects:1. Prior used land gets abandoned, allowing it to revert to wilderness (though this is more true in Japan than some other places).2. People in cities have less children, so if anything, if everyone was in a city, the world population would probably be “dropping”, not growing exponentially.But, you know… Facts are never useful to wackos.

  2. Wait, population has increased ONLY ninefold? That’s quite a large increase. If my bank account increased ninefold, I wouldn’t use “only” to describe it.

  3. I call the Zeitgeist/Venus Project concept of returning to agrarian ways of life the “Smurf model”. We’d all work for free and live in houses that are bound to decay as soon as they’re built. We would also have too many children because no one would be producing birth control anymore. What a vast *improvement*…If somebody told me “that soup has ninefold the calories of other soups”, I wouldn’t touch it.

  4. The world’s not overpopulated. There’s no problem with how much stuff we have; the problem is with distribution. Basically, all the political graft, warlords, and whatnot in Africa. Bunch of fucking leeches, the lot of them; if it weren’t for them and the incessant tribal warfare, Africa would be much better off today.Besides, if you fit everyone on the planet into a single mega-city with the population density of Manhattan, we’d be able to fit everyone into an area about the size of Austria, if memory serves.

  5. I remember a clip of Roseanne on the Talk Soup program. She was talking with someone, I forget what he was supposed to be, and he was talking about how in the future chickens will be bio-engineered to be nothing more than bags of meat and ovaries, pumping out eggs before being slaughtered for meat. Her response to all this was “So that means the Nazis won the war.” This has stuck with me to today. I have no idea what she was getting at. Just thought I’d share that.

  6. Yes, warlords suck and it would be dandy if we could relocate people. But good luck with that. Roseanne is now on the MKUltra, CIA sex slaves circuit. She'll be appearing at some event with Cathy O'Brien and other Monarch survivors. CrazyCon, maybe.

  7. OK, I just learned about this site. So you are somewhat into conspiracies but I found little mention of ECONOMICS.So I will give you something to chew on. I will tell you from the start that a professor from the University of Calgary called me a LOONY so you are warned up front.But have you ever heard any economists talk about how much consumers lose on the depreciation of cars or any durable consumer good every year? Imagine the losses on cars world wide every year. There have been 200,000,000+ cars in the US since 1995. So at $1500 lost per car per year that is $300,000,000,000 lost every year for just the US. Now when we buy cars the economists add that to GDP. But when does it ever get subtracted? Does it make sense to treat cars like bananas.Economic WargamesGlobaLIESOf course I have had another PhD economist say that I am correct and that the textbooks are wrong. But maybe he is just another paranoid.But it is certainly interesting that John Kenneth Galbraith wrote about the planned obsolescence of automobiles in 1959 and we have just had the 40th anniversary of the Moon landing but our economists nver seem to say anything about it.Of course it is also curious that double-entry accounting is 700 years old and yet with all of the cheap computers we have now no one thinks that accounting should be mandatory in the schools.Kiddie Accounting

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s