11/12/2008 04:46:46 PM EST
Truthers vs. Debunkers
posted by JudahKhan
There appears to be a war raging inside America, a civil insurrection between two factions of intelligentsia asserting their bellicose propaganda on the circuit laden battlefields of the internet. Both sides completely vested and foreclosed in their understanding, both fighting an ideological jihad for which they, even under the threat of death, would not be willing to lay down arms.
They are Truthers and Debunkers.
"Truthers" also known to many colloquially as "conspiracy theorists.", have generally based their goals, of creating unfettered access to information and complete governmental transparency, on a pre-conditioned notion that most, if not all, government’s of man are corrupt in nature as they are only shadow facades of a smaller, yet more powerful unexposed elite cabal that seeks to keep the masses ignorant of, distracted from & enslaved by the machinations of their deeds.
These suspicions are usually centered around dubious wealthy individuals or political leaders ,such as George Bush, The Rockefellers and most famously, the Rothchilds, or they center around agencies that have connections to the aforementioned individuals, i.e. The World Bank, The IMF, The Federal Reserve and the U.N (the last 3 are often cited by Truthers as interchangeable monikers) or finally around a secret organization, that includes aspects and connections to all of the above, such as the Bilderbergers, The Grays The Owls Nest(Bohemian Grove), Freemasons or The infamous "Illuminati".
The truther's ultimate plan is to expose these sects, their secrets and hidden agendas while simultaneously "waking up" the masses from whom these agenda's were hid.
Debunkers on the other hand, play the role of Scully to the truther's Mulder, as they attempt to confound & expose the flaws of the truther’s assertions. This is usually done by undermining the sources of the truther’s information as suspicious, unqualified or lacking in sound mental facilities, all while strictly relying to the "official" version of the governmental inquiry as their factual foundation. They are prone to citing patriotism for their beliefs, argue official contrary information is "manipulated" or politically motivated and dismiss historical comparisons and connections as ir
relevant hyperbole.
The most vibrant debate be
tween these two cadres surrounds the events of 9/11 as no other event has shaped the American political and social theater as drastically as this event. Hotly contested issues such as The Iraq War, Homeland Security, The War on Terror, The Patriot Act, FISA laws, and REAL ID have all stemmed from what happen on that day. While most recently the deployment of American troops on Oct 1 within the boarders of the United States and it’s apparent violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, has also been a source of heated debate.
Is there a need and function for more mainstream exposure of these two extremes groups and their views? Should there be public and/or televised debates and platforms on issues such as, FEMA camps, FEMA coffins, The North American Union or even governmental take over of YOUTUBE? Or are they both missing the point?
Personally, I believe everyone is or at least should be a little of both a truther and a debunker, but when it comes down it , the person with the most factual information and best argument will always have the last laugh.
Who would you say you are and what do you think?
