Somewhere else on this Forum, Andy challenged me to entertain him with a list of those 'conspiracy theories' I don't believe in. What a chore!...as of the standard ones I'm aware of I do not believe in [give any credence to] more than I do believe in...and it is a 'set-up' for just to mention the more loony ones - even if I say I don't believe in them, would serve to, to some extent, discredit me for even knowing about their existence, for some here. I have two books claiming to be somewhat complete synopses of standard conspiracy theories and I'd say I scoff at about 85-90% of them. This notion that those who believe [can discern] a conspiracy [or as in 911, alternate conspiracy] in one event therefore ipso facto see it everywhere (and, implied, are unbalanced) is what is known in psychology as reaction-formation on the part of those who believe that true of others - a protective mechanism to not have to 'deal' with the information presented, IMO. However, if anyone wants to present a list, I'd gladly say yea or nay to those on the list...... red herrings are starting to make a stink around here.

Perhaps the biggest conspiracy is the false notion promoted, for reasons I'd be glad to go into, by certain elites and overlords of received wisdom that conspiracy is a rare event and can't happen when many are involved. In fact, conspiracy from cheating on lovers and wives, on 'up' to the BIG ones are as common as the drizzle on the wet little isle known as the United Kingdom.

Here's one that's false

"The special relationship" between Great Britain and the United States. Popular belief has it that Great Britain is our closest and dearest partner.

Ok then - let's start with the Reichstag Fire.

According to Terry that was the British, it was done to force peace loving Adolf into a ruinous war.

Which is an unusual position even for the most determined conspiracist
The Reichstag Fire is an interesting example for many reasons which highlight the dangers of using intuition rather than evidenced based research when trying to establish causation.
It seems however that Peter has other more pressing things to do than to discuss this with us - crucial top level copying and pasting of preferred narratives perhaps and reporting back to his master old 'toilet gob'

May I start the No Aliens movement?

Andy,

Here is some top level copying for you. I promise however not to report back to "Toilet Gob"

Adolph Hitler exploited the outrage of the German citizens to arrogate to himself dictatorial powers, which he promised would be used to rid Germany of Communists. The next day, Chancellor Hitler demanded from the German cabinet an emergency decree which would enable him to deal decisively with the domestic crisis.

The Emergency Decree stated: 'Restrictions on personal liberty, on the right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press; on the rights of assembly and a ssociation; and violations of the privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits otherwise prescribed.

But here's a better conspiracy and one that's been ongoing for centuries.

Why are the British people still referred to as "subjects"after all these many many years? Why after all these centuries is Great Britain still without a written constitution? Are you still operating under the Venetian "doge" system?

The Doge (Venetian language, also Doxe, derived from Latin Dux military leader, duke; cf. English Duke, Italian Duce) was the chief magistrate and leader of the Most Serene Republic of Venice for over a thousand years. Doges of Venice were elected for life by the city-state's aristocracy. Commonly the person selected as Doge was the shrewdest elder in the city. The Venetian combination of elaborate monarchic pomp and a republican constitution with intricate checks and balances makes La serenissima a textbook example of a crowned republic.

The doge's prerogatives were not defined with precision, and though the position was entrusted to members of the inner circle of powerful Venetian families, after several doges had associated a son with themselves in the ducal office, this tendency towards a hereditary monarchy was checked by a law which were decreed that no doge had the right to associate any member of his family with himself in his office, or to name his successor. After 1172 the election of the doge was finally entrusted to a committee of forty, who were chosen by four men selected from the Great Council, which was itself nominated annually by twelve persons. After a deadlocked tie at the election of 1229, the number of electors was increased from forty to forty-one.

This posting was tampered with so I removed it.

What is going on?

Jack