Topic: Conspiracy Theories

[Nichi]

Since we speak of them here, I thought it would be interesting to share this snippet I stumbled upon today from the Scientific American.

The Conspiracy Theory Detector
How to tell the difference between true and false conspiracy theories

/...../we cannot just dismiss all such theories out of hand, because real conspiracies do sometimes happen. Instead we should look for signs that indicate a conspiracy theory is likely to be untrue. The more that it manifests the following characteristics, the less probable that the theory is grounded in reality:


Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.

The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.

Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.

The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-conspiracy-theory-director

[Michael]

The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

All these are very good.
I like this one in particular, because although a large group or section of society have the power to maintain control (eg Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea, mega-wealthy across the globe to rip off the poor and middle as in the GFC, etc), typically their actions are not secret - it is well known by those who care to look a little further than the obvious headlines.

To sustain some secret domination or manipulation on a large scale in the world, by a few evil Svengalis, vastly over endows those people with powers that are simply unrealistic. The world is way too complex and unpredictable for this. Just look at your own attempts to secretly manipulate some very small event, even for beneficial purposes - it never goes to plan.

[Ke-ke wan]

I always find it interesting, when I have little niggling doubts about soemthing and my intuition tells me something is not right, then I find a conspiracy theory about it.  Strange world.

[Ke-ke wan]

To sustain some secret domination or manipulation on a large scale in the world, by a few evil Svengalis, vastly over endows those people with powers that are simply unrealistic. The world is way too complex and unpredictable for this.

I am just going to pretend I believe this and have no further comment. 

[Ke-ke wan]

I am just going to pretend I believe this and have no further comment. 

Changed my mind.... further comment couldn't be witheld! 

A CONSPIRACY is when two or more people plan a crime, whether or not the crime was actually committed, or maybe to conceal a crime that was already committed, which is complicity after the fact. Conspiracies—partnerships in crime—are common: a corner drug deal is a conspiracy and one in four federal prosecutions include a conspiracy charge.

Many Americans know that the JFK, RFK, MLK and other assassinations were inside jobs.  Nixon’s Watergate and Reagan’s Iran-Contra are proven conspiracies with criminal convictions.  Blatant government murder of U.S. citizens occurred at Waco, Ruby Ridge and the Oklahoma City bombing.

WHEN a group like the CFR or Tri-Lateral Commission or the Bilderberg group, the G8 leaders, or any corporate board or other group, get together to plan a strategy, that's called "a planning meeting".  In football, it's a huddle.  If the subject matter is illegal -- or grossly unethical -- that's a conspiracy.

A lot of people claim to disbelieve conspiracy theories.  I think because they fear the implications and don't want to consider the possibility that our world, and the people who run it-- is so completely untruthful and corrupt.  Heck, it's a scary thought, nobody would be safe if this were true. 


So... many people chose to not believe conspiracy theories.  Or at least say they do not believe.   
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Maybe, what they really mean is they only believe in officially-sanctioned conspiracy theories, like Clinton dealing with China, or Al-Qaeda attacking America.

They believe in group bank robberies, street gangs, drug deals, and other planned crimes.  They believe Watergate happened.  They believe Julius Caesar was killed by his colleagues.  They believe that lovers sometimes cheat with friends, sometimes to the point of paranoia.  They believe cops have been caught stealing drugs and running drug rings.  They believe white collar crime exists.  They watch movies themed on conspiracy.  Many believe in a Liberal Media conspiracy, only they don't use the "C" word.

They just don't believe in certain trusted high-level public officials planning large crimes in concert.  They cannot believe, or don't want to believe in mass corruption ... that at a certain LEVEL of breadth and depth, conspiracy is unlikely or impossible.  This, despite a zillion proven cases of mass corruption.  On balanced perspective, this attitude, this willed blind spot, seems woefully naïve and contradictory.

Either people CAN and DO plan crimes or people CANNOT or DON'T.  One other important missing piece of information is the unimagined and unexamined level of connectedness of oligarchy in America and in the world.

This irrational attitude has a lot to do with the influence of books, articles, pundits, college professors, etc., some emerging conveniently after the JFK assassination, which ridiculed  and shamed the very idea of conspiracy as 'passe' or 'outmoded', goofy, paranoid --- pushing a (very valid) systemic analysis of power and politics, but also pushing a strong rebuke of a "conspiracy view of history".  This strange rebuke implies that complex systemic analysis is the fruit of superior intellectual theory, and therefore the mere consideration that people also conspire to do evil (don't they in the Bible?) is indicative of intellectual immaturity.

Another root of shame is a Marxist meme, in which implies that Marxist theorists point to conspiracy amongst the ruling class to maintain power, while proud pro-capitalist All-American people reject the notion of conspiracy in favor of a vision of honest competition.  Ironically, communism or even socialist attitudes (a social safety net) was tarred as an Evil Conspiracy by the power elite.

All this was propagated in such a manner as to make people feel more secure and intellectually superior if they discount and ridicule conspiracy viewpoints and questions.  At the same time, people emerged -- either freelance or on CIA payroll -- who advanced very goofy conspiracy theories, as well as relatively plausible conspiracy theories which later emerged as fakes. All this served to cement the concept -- and more importantly, the feeling -- in much of the public mind, that people who talk about any conspiracy are goofs or fakes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You think 9-11 is too big to cover up?  It IS.  (People are aware of it, and it's trickling out despite gag orders and other obfuscastion.  It's even showing up in the forest of alternate conspiracy theories promoted by the CIA-media for added confusion.)

A few people ARE speaking up --- and some are fielding death threats or gag orders --- and some got pre-emptive anthrax mailings --- and a few like Dr. David Kelly have died mysteriously after contradicting Iraq propaganda....

Okay, I am done now.   

[Michael]

The post at the head of this thread is about practical ways to help us distinguish real from unreal conspiracy theories.
There is no doubt that people connive to hide the truth, but some guidelines are necessary to assist us in sifting wheat from chaff when we hear a story of conspiracy.

911 is not a conspiracy theory, but a whole package of theories - there is plenty there for everyone. But it would have to fit within the group of theories that require considerable collusion by a large number of people. Such conspiracies are by far the hardest to keep secret. I expect if there is truth in it, then it's secrecy is basically impossible to maintain.

To sustain some secret domination or manipulation on a large scale in the world, by a few evil Svengalis, vastly over endows those people with powers that are simply unrealistic. The world is way too complex and unpredictable for this.

This is about a small number of people maintaining large scale manipulation, which is not the 911 scenario. It's main conspiracy theory that most would recognise, is the one where the world is being controlled by a small select group of extremely rich Europeans (the Club of Rome type of thing, although that is actually not a conspiracy - it is a group of concerned researches who became alarmed at the way the world was heading, whose predictions were thoroughly researched and only proven false in one main aspect - the food shortage - by the miracle of the Green Revolution. Many today still point back and say their predictions were only false in timing. But for some reason I don't understand, they were vilified as an evil group trying to take over the world.)

Probably the closest 911 comes to being under this category, is if you believe Bin Laden did plan to change the world by blowing up the twin towers. Before it happened, I suppose that would be a conspiracy, and it certainly did change the world - if it were planned by anyone else, you would have to say it was a complete failure, but if planned by BL, then it has been for them their most striking success - pretty much single-handedly destroying the US empire, due to the (anticipated I would then presume) excesses of US response. If it were planned by the CIA or Israel, then it would have to be the greatest blunder in human history.

If it was planned by the 'good guys' then it certainly fits my attribute of "The world is way too complex and unpredictable for this." But actually it doesn't fit the category I was addressing, because it is a single event. I was addressing where an ongoing manipulation of the world on a large scale is done by a small group. They certainly try - of that we know only too well - but the complexity of the world is beyond the powers of a small group to secretly maintain control. Even Jesus and Buddha couldn't pull that off. Everything goes pair-shaped eventually.

In the category I am addressing, the usual situation is where a large group maintain control for a long time - typically a whole layer of society. But then it's not a conspiracy really. The best example is of the how the extreme wealthy organisations, backed by the top layer of wealth individuals, in the US, continue to get the common populace distracted by emotive issues, including conspiracy theories, abortion, gay marriage, gun ownership, and the whole host of dangling trinkets that parade the commercial television channels, while they assiduously attend to sucking the wealth off of the low and middle layers of society, up to the top.

But actually this is not a conspiracy - it is well known and documented. They laugh their gut off, because they don't have to keep it secret. The public is too stupid to mount an effective response, mainly because they don't have the minds to focus on complex un-emotive issues for any length of time. I think France is the only country where the public still take to the streets regularly, to tell the leaders they are pissed off with the way these organisations are planning to change their country.

But there are plenty of other categories in that original post, just as there are plenty of conspiracies going on in the world. And whistle blowers continue to suffer, like Julian Assange. Transparency is not appreciated by those who have something to lose.

Nonetheless, I have to ask myself, does it matter? When the greatest conspiracy is being perpetrated daily upon the minds of all humanity, and not by humans? I always have held through life: look for the biggest, most critical issue facing me. Deal with the rest as a pastime, but never ever allow them to distract me from constantly seeking the core nub. Start at the top, then work my way down.

And the top conspiracy is that we have no control of our predicament. Many conspiracy theories are actually a response to this subconscious awareness of powerlessness. We think we control our thoughts, but in reality, our thoughts control us. Once we have succeeded in that battle - the battle against the Guardian - then we can look at the rest with different eyes.

The Guardian causes us to fight against it by proxy, and in that way maintains it's absolute domination. The Goose in the Bottle conspiracy.

[Michael]

That's all useful - keep the pot simmering. But don't forget the top post which we are addressing - it does not say any theory is right or wrong, but gives some guidelines on how to assess the truth.

To often we side with one view or another purely on emotional grounds, instead of seeking the truth. Conspiracy theories abound, and some are true, some partially true, and some wrong. We have to weigh the facts, and seek the truth.

Which allows me to refer to another of the guidelines:

The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

I come across this all the time - the most recent has been during our floods, there has been a cry from the political right to build more dams. It is an easy simplistic response - bloody greenies hate dams and more dams mean less floods. Thus, the stopping of dam building in recent years has directly caused the floods in Brisbane.

To hear the expert on the radio yesterday, explaining the truth about dams, was just too nuanced and un-emotive for the proletariat, who direct the politicians. I know without a doubt no one will listen to him, and more dams will be built. (His view btw, was that dams have a limited effect on floods, but that all the best spots for dams have already been taken up, and from now on, it would be far more cost efficient to simply not build on flood-plains.)

The mistake I see too often made, is that people jump to a conclusion without sufficient knowledge. I get this often, and I have to reply, that I can't make a call on the issue, because I haven't sufficiently examined it. But people look strangely at me when I say that - to basically imply that in-depth knowledge has nothing to do with it. People simply like to sprout a view in conversation, not conduct research. And they get the view to sprout from talk-back radio. "It's all about swagger" I hear them imply by their body language - "don't burden me with truth and facts".

It is alright to suspend judgement until more knowledge is acquired. And if you really want to have a concrete opinion, best to either research yourself, or listen to an expert in the field. Even then, you will find there are differences of opinion among experts, and that truth is a relative quality in matters of the world. That the fun of it.

[Michael]

The 911 has it's own thread, and talk topic on that is best contained to it's own place. It is best to leave this one to the more general topic of conspiracies.

[Ke-ke wan]

The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-conspiracy-theory-director[/font]

On the other side of this, anti-conspiracy theorists are sometimes just as stubborn about refusing to consider any sort of conspiracy theory, regardless of whether or not there is any truth to it. 

So, good reason for us to use our own discernment and intuition in this area as well as all others. 

[Michael]

Regardless of the thread we discuss this in,  could we please discuss this difference of opinion, respectfully without resorting to name calling

Good point - everyone should restrain themselves within basic mutual respect, else we just spin off into gaga land.

But more than that, although I speak of non-emotive quest for truth on any issue, it should not be forgotten that we are emotional beings. Emotions play a significant role in all we do and our attitudes. So respect is also due to the emotions we feel on any matter.

If we feel strongly about something, then that is very valid for us, and I expect everyone should be able to express that emotion here. So long as we don't disrespect the emotions and views of others.

I have many occasions where my emotions are in disagreement with my mind (as with the feral cats currently), and it then becomes a process to work through that, and bring intelligence and maturity to both the mind and the emotions.

Inflicting our emotional discharge on to others is not beneficial to ourselves or the community. And some tolerance is useful, as people work through their emotions, so long as they are working through them.

[Ke-ke wan]

Great post M, thank you!

[Ke-ke wan]

I don't know if anyone has seen this program, but it's interesting, on this subject.  I've seen it a couple of times, Jesse Ventura does  a good job of interviewing, if nothing else.

<span data-s9e-mediaembed="youtube" style="display:inline-block;width:100%;max-width:640px"><span style="display:block;overflow:hidden;position:relative;padding-bottom:56.25%"><iframe allowfullscreen="" loading="lazy" scrolling="no" style="background:url(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fOWWIDT910I/hqdefault.jpg) 50% 50% / cover;border:0;height:100%;left:0;position:absolute;width:100%" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/fOWWIDT910I"></iframe></span></span><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/fOWWIDT910I?fs=1&amp;amp;hl=en" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/fOWWIDT910I?fs=1&amp;amp;hl=en</a>

[Michael]

I can't take the music behind such shows, but on a few issues covered:

Solar flares. These have already begun. They are a recurring pattern, but were delayed for this phase for reasons unknown, now they have begun and we can expect them to last some years. There are two types of exposure they say the Earth will receive - one takes some time to reach us and the other a very short time. The typical effect is stated to be electronic communications disruptions.

However, there are a lot of theories about as to the consequence of this pattern - I think it typically cycles in about 11 years, but I forget the exact details. One theory is the bringing on of a new ice-age. Basically it's speculation and prediction - could be a big impact or not.

Underground bunkers: as far as I know, every government in the world has these. They are absolutely critical that in an emergency, the ruling body can continue to operate. Who they will be talking to on the surface is another matter, but it grew out of war scenarios. Always the governing people should have protection from wipe-out, as it would be disastrous for a nation to lose it's leadership in times of crisis.

Wealthy people building bunkers. If I had the money, I'd do the same, but not an underground bunker - I'd build a remote settlement in the mountains of Tasmania.

Crises coming. Surely we know by now that the current situation is headed for a bugger-up. No one wants to address the issues we face, so consequences are all that's left. I even saw a clip on the national news about the climate conditions across the globe this year. A climate scientist was saying, you didn't believe us when we warned, so now you get the consequences - this is it, unpredictable extremes of weather.

In my humble opinion, I would not want to be in a big city when the power structures fail.

When will it happen? Ah... there's the problem. A year, a decade, a hundred or three hundred years? One thing I know, it will happen on the day I die.