Conspiracy Quotes

[Mick]

This site has a nice list of quotes commonly used in conspiracy circles:

http://www.tentmaker.org/Quotes/cons...s_theories.htm

[Juror No. 8]

Wow, that Woodrow Wilson quote is very, very interesting. Here it is again:

Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States —in the fields of commerce and manufacturing—are afraid of somebody. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.

Apparently Wilson wrote that sometime in or just before 1913, right around the time he was elected president. That means he was probably very well-connected with the movers and shakers of American economic and political life of that time. That's important to take into account. He wasn't just some nobody saying it, he was someone of great influence who had the attention of some of the wealthiest, most powerful people in the United States.

So, what did Wilson mean when he said that? Was he lying or maybe trying to give his book a little dramatic flair? Possibly. After all, he was a politician, and politicians tend to be outstanding at fear-mongering and lying. What if, instead, we assume Wilson was telling the truth? What if we assume he was just being open and candid? There is some indication that he was a very simple and modest man, at least more so than other 20th Century presidents.

Assuming Wilson was telling the truth, that some of the biggest men in America were afraid of a mysterious, unnamed, highly powerful group of people somewhere - a group of people more powerful than themselves - who could they have been talking about? What group of people on earth could have made some of America's most powerful men afraid to even speak of their existence? If such a group of people existed, wouldn't we have heard about them by now? Wouldn't they have made themselves known to the rest of us by now? Did they just disappear after Wilson wrote that, or what? I wonder.

Is there any possible chance that the mysterious group Wilson referenced in 1913 was the same group that Franklin Delano Roosevelt referenced in his personal letter to Colonel House in 1933 when he said:

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger center has owned the Government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson...

That seems to fit. Any group of people powerful enough to own the U.S. government to such an extent while remaining hidden from the general public would probably also be powerful enough to make wealthy men of commerce and industry complain under their breath to politicians about their overbearing influence on society.

So, if this hidden group referenced by both Wilson and Roosevelt was around in 1913 and 1933, could it have also been around in 1961 when president John F. Kennedy curiously spoke of secret societies, secret oaths, and secret proceedings, not long before saying this:

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy...

What was Kennedy talking about here? Was he talking about Soviet communism, as is believed by some? If so, why did he frame his speech by referencing secret societies, secret oaths, and secret proceedings? That doesn't describe Soviet communism at all, nor could Soviet communism be accurately described as "monolithic". The only conspiracy Kennedy's speech could possibly fit is the same conspiracy that "owned the government" and made powerful men "afraid" referenced earlier by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

[Mick]

What's the context of the Wilson quote?

[Juror No. 8]

What's the context of the Wilson quote?

Why, what context do you think the quote needs?

[Mick]

There's the context of the quote in the speech or text, the context of language and phrase usage at the time, then the context of the events at the time of writing, then context of Wilson as a person, and then the broader context of related national and world events at the time

[Mick]

Why don't you look it up, and explain what the context is? What exactly is he talking about?

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...?document=2543

[Juror No. 8]

Why don't you look it up, and explain what the context is? What exactly is he talking about?

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...?document=2543

What is he talking about? Isn't it already clear enough? The quote speaks for itself. He basically said that very powerful men in the United States had been in his ear about an unidentified group of people who wielded enormous influence. This unnamed group wielded so much influence, apparently, that Woodrow Wilson came away with the impression that the men who had been in his ear actually feared them to a great extent.

Who were these men afraid of and why would they feel the need to be afraid? What possible answer can you come up with that makes sense?

[Mick]

What is he talking about? Isn't it already clear enough? The quote speaks for itself. He basically said that very powerful men in the United States had been in his ear about an unidentified group of people who wielded enormous influence. This unnamed group wielded so much influence, apparently, that Woodrow Wilson came away with the impression that the men who had been in his ear actually feared them to a great extent.

Who were these men afraid of and why would they feel the need to be afraid? What possible answer can you come up with that makes sense?

It's a quote OUT OF CONTEXT. Surely you understand that quotes can be taken out of context to seem like something they are not?

I'll probably write a "debunked: ..." post about this quote. But I'm really curious as to why you are so opposed to looking into the context of the quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Freedom

[Juror No. 8]

It's a quote OUT OF CONTEXT. Surely you understand that quotes can be taken out of context to seem like something they are not?

I'll probably write a "debunked: ..." post about this quote. But I'm really curious as to why you are so opposed to looking into the context of the quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Freedom

That's just it though. There is no possible context that will make that quote any less shocking or revealing. Even if you say the context of the quote was in regard to large corporate monopolies, what kind of corporate monopoly can you think of that makes powerful people in commerce and industry afraid to speak openly, especially to politicians?

The quote only makes any sense if you consider the possibility of a different sort of monopoly, a monopoly that is more akin to a criminal Mafia.

[SR1419]

The quote speaks for itself.

You are either naive or just obstinate..surely, you understand the concept of context. People being quoted of the context happen all the time. It leads to misinterpretation.

Take quotes they use to hype movies- the advert could say "...simply stunning"- implying it is a great movie...when perhaps the full quote in context said "it is simply stunning that a movie this bad was made"...

Now take the quote in question- read in context of his entire speech it is clear what he is referring too...

[Mick]

That's just it though. There is no possible context that will make that quote any less shocking or revealing. Even if you say the context of the quote was in regard to large corporate monopolies, what kind of corporate monopoly can you think of that makes powerful people in commerce and industry afraid to speak openly, especially to politicians?

The quote only makes any sense if you consider the possibility of a different sort of monopoly, a monopoly that is more akin to a criminal Mafia.

To you maybe. But you also think that income tax is directly equivalent to Mafia extortion.

Let's say you are a powerful Texas oilman. You want to speak out about the monopoly of Standard Oil, as you feel they are not giving you a fair deal, but you don't. Is this because Standard Oil will send thugs to your house in the night? No. It's because Standard Oil will stop doing business with you, so it's better to keep quiet.

It's about anti-trust legislation. That's very clear from a full reading of the context in the text, and the context of the times.

[Juror No. 8]

Now take the quote in question- read in context of his entire speech it is clear what he is referring too...

Are you sure you've read this "speech" yourself so you could understand what he was really referring to? I doubt it, because if you did, you'd know that quote didn't come from a speech, it came from a book written by Woodrow Wilson.

[Mick]

A book of his speeches.

Content from external source

The New Freedom comprises the campaign speeches and promises of Woodrow Wilson in the 1912 presidential campaign

From the Preface:

Content from external source

I have not written a book since the campaign.

I did not write this book at all. It is the result of the editorial literary skill of Mr. William Bayard Hale, who has put together here in their right sequences the more suggestive portions of my campaign speeches.

[Juror No. 8]

To you maybe. But you also think that income tax is directly equivalent to Mafia extortion.

Sure, and why not? I've never once read a good reason why the income tax isn't similar to Mafia extortion. They're certainly both enforced the same way, via thuggery.

Let's say you are a powerful Texas oilman. You want to speak out about the monopoly of Standard Oil, as you feel they are not giving you a fair deal, but you don't. Is this because Standard Oil will send thugs to your house in the night? No. It's because Standard Oil will stop doing business with you, so it's better to keep quiet.

This might make a little bit of sense, if not for the fact that Standard Oil was broken up into 34 smaller companies in 1911. The quote in question is from a book published in 1913.

Even if we assume Wilson was talking about Standard Oil or the broken up remnants of the Standard Oil empire, why would he be afraid to just come out and say it? Wilson wasn't doing business with these people, or, at least, you should hope he wasn't. It doesn't make any sense.

It's about anti-trust legislation. That's very clear from a full reading of the context in the text, and the context of the times.

Not it's not. I'm actually reading through a few portions of Wilson's book I found online. Wilson spent most of the early part of that book essentially referring to an "invisible empire" that basically controlled American society, including Washington politics.

[Juror No. 8]

Now take the quote in question- read in context of his entire speech it is clear what he is referring too...

You're right, it was a speech, but I don't think it's so clear what he was referring to.

If anything, it looks to me like he was referring to an unidentified combination of incredibly powerful interests who had the ability to make powerful men quake in their boots. The real question is, who exactly was he talking about and why should people in a supposedly democratic society be "afraid" of them?

[Mick]

It's not about Standard Oil, it's about corporations in general, and trusts in particular. The invisible empire is those trusts, like Standard Oil, which I used for an example, as it was the most topical.

While the book was published in 1913, the speeches come from the 1910 campaign. Parts of it show up in his inaugural address in January 1911.

[Mick]

Some more context from Wilson. Antitrust was a big part of his political platform.

Content from external source


Address to a Joint Session of Congress on Trusts and Monopolies
January 20, 1914
[...]
The great business men who organized and financed monopoly and those who administered it in actual everyday transactions have year after year, until now, either denied its existence or justified it as necessary for the effective maintenance and development of the vast business processes of the country in the modern circumstances of trade and manufacture and finance; but all the while opinion has made head against them. The average business man is convinced that the ways of liberty are also the ways of peace and the ways of success as well; and at last the masters of business on the great scale have begun to yield their preference and purpose, perhaps their judgment also, in honorable surrender.
[...]
We are all agreed that "private monopoly is indefensible and intolerable," and our program is founded upon that conviction. It will be a comprehensive but not a radical or unacceptable program and these are its items, the changes which opinion deliberately sanctions and for which business waits:
[...]

[Juror No. 8]

It's not about Standard Oil, it's about corporations in general, and trusts in particular. The invisible empire is those trusts, like Standard Oil, which I used for an example, as it was the most topical.

Could this "invisible empire" be the same group Roosevelt referred to in his letter to Colonel House in 1933, which he called a "financial element" that "owned the Government"? Could this "invisible empire" still be in existence today, controlling the media, education system, financial system, while still "owning" the government?

[Mick]

Sure. But it's a de facto invisible empire, not some actual illuminati type thing. Rich people tend to act in their own best interests. Hence corporations formed trusts, bankers attempt to influence banking legislation, oil companies oppose environmentalists.

Look at Wilson's "invisible empire" reference in context:

Content from external source

Business is in a situation in America which it was never in before; it is in a situation to which we have not adjusted our laws. Our laws are still meant for business done by individuals; they have not been satisfactorily adjusted to business done by great combinations, and we have got to adjust them. I do not say we may or may not; I say we must; there is no choice. If your laws do not fit your facts, the facts are not injured, the law is damaged; because the law, unless I have studied it amiss, is the expression of the facts in legal relationships. Laws have never altered the facts; laws have always necessarily expressed the facts; adjusted interests as they have arisen and have changed toward one another.


Politics in America is in a case which sadly requires attention. The system set up by our law and our usage doesn’t work,—or at least it can’t be depended on; it is made to work only by a most unreasonable expenditure of labor and pains. The government, which was designed for the people, has got into the hands of bosses and their employers, the special interests. An invisible empire has been set up above the forms of democracy.

He's calling for an update to the laws so that government is less beholden to big business. The "invisible empire" is just the "bosses and employers, the special interests", as opposed to the people and a government by the people, for the people.

It's a complaint that still holds true today. Government is still overly influenced by money. There's still essentially an "invisible empire" of the rich and powerful who exercise too much sway over elections and legislation.

[Juror No. 8]

Sure. But it's a de facto invisible empire, not some actual illuminati type thing.

How do you know it's not Illuminati-related in some way?

Rich people tend to act in their own best interests. Hence corporations formed trusts, bankers attempt to influence banking legislation, oil companies oppose environmentalists.

Would you also agree that it would be in rich people's best interest to buy and "own" the government, as Roosevelt described it? Could our government truly be owned by these rich people?

It's a complaint that still holds true today. Government is still overly influenced by money. There's still essentially an "invisible empire" of the rich and powerful who exercise too much sway over elections and legislation.

Sounds like a sort of oligarchy you are describing.

[Mick]

Would you also agree that it would be in rich people's best interest to buy and "own" the government, as Roosevelt described it? Could our government truly be owned by these rich people?

Who do they buy it from? How exactly would it work is they "owned" the government?

Some rich people will use their power and wealth to try to influence legislation that benefits them. That's simply common sense. It does not necessarily follow that everything that happens is part of some decades old plan. It's just thousands of different rich people reacting to whatever is the current situation in thousands of ways. From this, things emerge.

The problem is that if you assume (as you do) that there's this perfect control of all things, then you can simply assume that everything has a hidden meaning, and everything happens for a reasons, so everything looks like evidence for you.

Take Standard Oil. It was broken up because the rich and powerful people who controlled it we exerting too much influence.

But if those were the people who owned the government, then why would they allow it to be broken up?

The obvious conspiracy answer is that they wanted it broken up, as it was all part of some plan, so that Exxon-Mobile could make lots of money 90 years alter.

But if you assume everything is part of a plan, how is anything happening evidence for that plan? It's a circular argument.

[Juror No. 8]

Who do they buy it from? How exactly would it work is they "owned" the government?

They don't buy it from anybody, they simply buy their way into it through corrupt politicians and judges and then retain perpetual control by buying up the media and controlling the election process.

Some rich people will use their power and wealth to try to influence legislation that benefits them. That's simply common sense. It does not necessarily follow that everything that happens is part of some decades old plan.

It also does not necessarily follow that everything that happens isn't part of a decades old plan.

It's just thousands of different rich people reacting to whatever is the current situation in thousands of ways. From this, things emerge.

"Things"? What things? What makes you think that the thousands of rich people don't join together, collude, and conspire to rig the system in their favor in perpetuity?

The problem is that if you assume (as you do) that there's this perfect control of all things, then you can simply assume that everything has a hidden meaning, and everything happens for a reasons, so everything looks like evidence for you.

What's the problem with that?

Take Standard Oil. It was broken up because the rich and powerful people who controlled it we exerting too much influence.

Was it really, truly broken up, though? Or was Standard only broken up superficially? Did the Rockefeller family stop maintaining control of the various pieces? Did they stop wielding immense influence behind the scenes?

But if those were the people who owned the government, then why would they allow it to be broken up?

To allow the public to falsely believe they still had politicians in Washington looking out for them? To allow the public to falsely believe they still maintained democratic control of their government institutions? To allow the public to falsely believe that no monopoly would ever grow so large that it could eclipse the size, wealth, and influence of their own government?

I'm not convinced that the Standard Oil empire suffered any real hardship over being broken apart. If anything, it may have worked to Rockefeller's benefit.

The obvious conspiracy answer is that they wanted it broken up, as it was all part of some plan, so that Exxon-Mobile could make lots of money 90 years alter.

With or without being broken up, Standard Oil and its various pieces were going to make gobs of money either way, which the Rockefeller's would then use to buy up social control through their various NGOs, think tanks, banks, and foundations.

But if you assume everything is part of a plan, how is anything happening evidence for that plan? It's a circular argument.

No, not really. I just don't think you have any grasp of the reality you're living in and cognitive dissonance is preventing you from being honest with yourself about it.