We are all conspiracy theorists
EXCLUSIVELY HUMAN talent of abstract communication (for
which, at the second-level, is the ability to perceive and employ
artificial "time-lines" as a concomitant element of: "using random,
genetically independent symbolism in order to communicate some,
agenda-specific desire [of which is the first level.] ), then he
invariably will -- at some time in his/her life to find it necessary to
participate (to some degree) in some community-defined conduct of
You know, there is a third and most complex level of the conspiracy
definition. Can you anticipate what it is? I'll give you a hint,
Re An ongoing and very active conspiracy|
What strikes me as most revealing is HOW you use the word "conspiracy"
... it's almost like you're talking about some poor crippled person's
colostomy bag. Even so, this is exactly how the "general public" (aka
the-great-unwashed-masses) has been trained by their social, cultural and
economic elites to perceive and approach this vital cornerstone of
intellectual talent ... as if it were some morally depraved or otherwise
However, whether you want to admit it or not, WE ARE ALL (at some minor
level, according to somebody' else's point-of-view) CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.
That is, if at all a person has some capacity to even just mundanely
Technically, did you know that the writing down of a grocery list could potentially be considered evidence of a conspiracy?|
The only element missing that commonly prevents any "average" shopping list from being the collateral device of a conspiracy is whether or not some element communicated within that list will -- in some way -- be used to perpetrate a "crime" (crime being defined as some premeditated act of malice).
Just think of it this way. Technically, did you know that the writing
down of a grocery list could potentially be considered evidence of a
conspiracy? The only element missing that commonly prevents any
"average" shopping list from being the collateral device of a conspiracy
is whether or not some element communicated within that list will -- in
some way -- be used to perpetrate a "crime" (crime being defined as some
premeditated act of malice).
And you don't even have to know that you are part of a conspiracy!
While, for a conspiracy to exists requires TWO participants, for that
conspiracy to be even just marginally "successful," only ONE of those two
people needs to possess some more intimate knowledge about the ultimate
criminal conduct that is being conspired. Indeed, this is how the most
successful conspiracies are usually composed.
But again, I ramble. You see, for a conspiracy to automatically (at
least in these '"modern" times) be considered "unreal," or otherwise only
evidence of "handjob" fanaticizing, all the conspirator(s) need do is --
in a seemingly random fashion -- to produce some conduct that apparently,
inexplicably, or even obsessively violates a fundamental element of the
"Occam's Razor" law. Upon including some particular element or pattern
of functionally less-than-provable (yet well advertised) conduct of
excessive extravagance, The actual conspirators have more than just an
average "public opinion" chance of getting "let off the hook" ...
otherwise, why else would they ever violate ANY popularly perceived
fundamentally "inviolate" law of Occam's Razor?
Oh my, the begged question just seems to have answered itself ~
Additionally, the more expansive a conspiracy seems to be, the more
"information overload" that will be included within its production. The
"No Plane Hit the Pentagon" canard is a good example of this.
Not sure I see your point, at least not clearly. I don't know why it's revealing to you, that I use the word 'conspiracy' and react to it the same way most people do. But your overview of what a conspiracy is, the legal and social implications, is interesting and well-written and certainly seems correct, and of course, if 'conspiracy' is defined benignly enough, almost anyone's a believer in conspiracy theories. But I emphatically dis-believe that conspiracy buffs like James have reliable information about the conspiracies.
"Information overload" is a serious problem, especially when a stranger, like James, cites a long list of conspiracies -- everything from planned population culling to chemtrails, JFK to the CFR, chronic fatigue to terrorist attacks, Skull & Bones and Bilderbergs and Lou Dobbs, the Federal Reserve and the all-seeing eye on the dollar bill -- and tells me it's all a "monolithic conspiracy" that included Hitler, Communism, Radical Islam, the hippie drug movement, and the Equal Rights Amendment ... and more.
It debunks itself, if you ask me. James seems like an intelligent fellow, but I don't have the patience or interest it would take to wade through it. Call me closed-minded, but the "unified conspiracy theory," advocated by James and Debby, seems profoundly silly to me, and the time I can allocate to profound silliness is very, very limited.
Ockham's razor isn't law to me. It isn't inviolate, just a good idea. I use it to dismiss a lot of notions, from Catholicism to the Easter Bunny, from vacuuming the apartment daily to sizable chunks of the official story of 9/11. Ockham's a useful tool, but you could argue that there are scenarios where it's perhaps not applicable, especially if you want to present evidence for one particular conspiracy you believe you've got unraveled.
Can we do that? Can we show me what you've got, what you know, and limit the chat to just one of these conspiracies?
Because we respect peoples' privacy, we do not keep records of friends' and contributors' contact information. This means we can't forward private communications between readers and writers, but we always welcome dialogue for publication.
Our front page is free from nudity and profanity, but interior pages and external links may not be safe for work, and you may be shocked, offended, or in trouble with your boss. A link doesn't imply that we agree with every sentence and every sentiment on every site we link to. We use our noggins, and suggest you use yours.
Anything sent to Unknown News may be published. If you don't want it published, say so plainly. Of course, we publish all incoming hate mail.
Unknown News is more fun and more informative with your participation, so please don't be shy. Consider yourself invited to speak your mind.
When we publish incoming emails, we usually edit out the sender's last name, email address, or anything else that would tend to uniquely identify the author (if we slip up, please let us know). But if your email is unambiguously intended only to annoy, insult, or threaten us, we'll publish all the details, and leave it on-line forever.
We're especially interested in hearing and considering different perspectives. All we ask is that you conduct yourself sanely and civilly. For the most productive dialogue, it helps if you'll cite a specific article or concept we've gotten wrong.
You can contact Helen & Harry at <newsuneed at yahoo.com>. If that address ever fails, our back-up email address is <unknownnews at inbox.com>.
But please, don't email us unless you're really and truly, honestly, actually trying to send the publishers of News a communication you're not sending to anyone or everyone else.
Please don't send attachments or other cr*p we don't want.
If you're trying to reach us but getting no reply, it's probably because you've sent us cr*p we don't want, so we're filtering your emails into the trash, unopened and unread.
If you'd like to have your email address unblocked, simply send a sincere apology (from an un-blocked email address).
We sell our own progressive bumper stickers:|
stickers you won't find anywhere else.