Anatomy of a Conspiracy

All over the world, our new tech devices: iPhones and iPads, laptops, notebooks and netbooks, networked iPods and Blackberries, computers and networked TV’s, even our game consoles, serve to keep us apart – while feeling connected. Why would you need to go to a concert and stand near the back in a pool of vomit or up front in a moshpit, only to come out and see your car has been scratched or vandalized, when you can watch the same show – from a closer camera angle, while laying on your sofa and in 5.1 sound? The powers that created these devices now can get you to pay $8 or $10 for a movie, without supplying the theater! Disguised as a convenience, these new technologies are actually designed to keep us apart.

We listen to music on headphones on the bus and train, not connecting with our fellow passengers. We even watch our laptops while in the room with our spouses and children – seldom really communicating with them. The cabals of power have effectively silenced us by pretending to entertain us. This was the plan all along. A recent study showed that over the years, the efforts to both separate us from each other, including breaking up the family through the erosion of the bonds, the morals and the very fabric of society, combined with the day long training provided by TV, have effectively both isolated us and taught us only what the powers wanted us to know. But it doesn’t end there: in order to weaken us and our resolve and place us, the people, at the mercy of our government, the powers have sought to denigrate education and hard work along with outsourcing all manufacturing jobs while breaking up unions of remaining workers to eliminate the middle class while simultaneously creating a dependent under-class.

OK, before you go out and repeat this on Twitter or Facebook or Google+ or whatever you use to talk to your fellow humans, it’s not a real news story. It’s not a conspiracy theory. Like almost all conspiracy theories (CT), it’s looking back on events and putting an evil spin to them. It’s easy enough to do – as I’ve just shown.

The vagaries of language have led me to construct several scenarios which I use to explain situations to people. For instance, truth is variable. It’s not. It’s not variable. Truth actually has a beauty all its own which is shares with no other thing. That is, it exists without believers. When the Earth was the center of the universe and all round it swirled the moon and sun and stars, Truth was still there: The sun was the center of the solar system. It didn’t need anyone to believe it to be true. With that in mind, consider this: “XCorp made a 20% profit this year.” Sounds good, yes? “XCorp only made a 20% profit this year.” Hmm, not so good. “XCorp successfully made 20% profit this year.” Ah, sounds so much more positive. But what changed? Only one word. The truth did not. Presentation, however, did.

Another of my favorite constructs is this: Two people walk through a park. One is drinking a can of soda. Much to the chagrin of all eco lovers, he absent-mindedly tosses his can over a bush. It lands on a dead body. CSI finds both and concludes the can person is also the killer. In my scenario, I said two people, so the can-thrower has a chance. What if that person was alone, with no alibi? Ah, facts aren’t always the truth.

One more: There’s a widely circulated construct known as ‘unintended consequences’. This is an important construct. Because most conspiracy theories (CT) are actually UC – unintended consequences. Unforeseen. Unexpected. Un-planned. I can’t stress that enough.

Between these three constructs lie much of what the online world of CT believe. There, of course, is the fourth construct: that these first three exist to cover the tracks of the real CT’s! Indeed.

Part of what makes CT’s work – and seem believable – is the “lack of proof” concept. For CT’ers, all that is needed to establish a CT is a story. If they can come up with a scenario that, to refute, requires proof of the negative, in other words, proof that their story is false, they win. The CT becomes more than a theory and advances. The 9/11 attacks are rife with these. It was an inside job, say the CT’ers. The buildings were rigged to blow. In order to now prove it wasn’t true, the authorities have to find proof that something wasn’t there. Prove the negative. How do you prove there were no explosives in the building? I’m trying to stay away from specifics and explore and expose CT’s in general, so in-depth refutation of the 9/11 CT’s is outside the purview and scope of this discussion. What’s relevant here is the concept of negative proof.

I can prove someone was somewhere at some time. I have a picture. I have witnesses. I have his dead body on the ground at that place, at that time. That’s easy. Positive proof is called ‘evidence’. Negative proof, on the other hand, is next to impossible to get. Oh, you say, the same proof that shows someone was somewhere at some time proves he WASN’T somewhere else! Not actually. Think about it. All you have done is established positive proof about that person’s location at that time. You can argue – and in most cases will win – that means he wasn’t at the other place at the same time. However, you didn’t prove that. Since we accept that one person can’t be in two places simultaneously, you will win the argument.

Do not confuse that with proving the point.

I say “all cell phones exist to track users for government observation.” Modern phones, smartphones in particular, DO track all movement of their owners. (Unless, naturally, they are shut off.) It’s been well-publicized that Apple iPhones keep a document on board, for whatever innocent or nefarious reason that is populated with exactly that information. Is it retrieved by Apple for marketing? Was an Apple employee actually a CIA employee tasked with creating this file and its attendant programs for retrieval and forwarding to appropriate authorities? Further, perhaps Apple, with its remarkable track record and resurrection from the near-dead, is actually a government plan to place all these devices in the hands of people just for this purpose.

Ok, the last one involves lots of suspension of disbelief and sounds a little Bourne Conspiracy, but you get the picture.

How does Apple, once this ‘information’ is released and well-known, combat it? How do they prove the negative? How do they prove no employee was a CIA plant? How, especially given the facts of 1) the file does exist and 2) the lack of knowledge on the part of most people about how/why/where/what information goes from device to device, do they prove that this was a side-project of some programmer to make some other function possible? Or that it is indeed a marketing move by Apple itself? Once the seed is planted, it’s very hard to dig up and discard. And since this is true – Apple does make this file on your phone – what IS the real reason for its existence?

I don’t know. More than likely, and again we stray from the general to the specific here, it’s some marketing piece. Something for Apple to then push out some advertisement to you or worse, your history to some other corporate entity for them to do the same. Either way, CIA or corporate master, pretty scary stuff since it was done without your consent or knowledge.

My point here is to illustrate how this all works. From both sides. I’ve examined here how easy it is for CT’ers to establish their theories and promote them and further, how difficult it is to refute them. There is another side, however. Since this is all true – and it is – how easy is it for those in places of power to actually do these things?

It’s a sobering thought but I leave you with this quote from Sonny Barger (though many have had it attributed to them): “Three people can keep a secret, if two are dead.” Of course, if the CT is no secret and people simply choose to ignore it (like the statements in the presidential debates), then many people can know and it will remain ‘secret.’

Advertisements

~ by Mad Prophet on October 19, 2012.

One Response to “Anatomy of a Conspiracy”

  1. Interesting post.

    Would you say that the rise of (what commonly referred to as) the ‘conspiracy theory world view’ is in many ways a reaction to living in world which we are led to believe (via corporate media, entertainment, advertising etc) is almost completely NON conspiratorial in nature?

    For example, a new skin care product or kids’ cereal or computer game will have been relentlessly focused-grouped and marketed and meticulously designed using sophisticated psychological techniques to appeal to a certain demographic.

    We even talk about new products and services being ‘targeted’ at certain groups – often vulnerable groups (children, the elderly etc) and often in ways which are designed to exploit the target demographic’s weaknesses, such as young women’s insecurities about her appearance (insecurities which are themselves enhanced by media/ advertising as part of their strategy).

    This all represents the essence of a conspiracy – complete with closed door meetings around giant boardroom tables where ‘they’ discus how best to covertly and ruthlessly exploit YOU. The only thing missing is that none of this scheming (conspiring) is categorically denied. Therefore strictly speaking this scheming is not being done in total secret, therefore it doesn’t *quite* qualify as a conspiracy (depending on how precisely you define ‘conspiracy’ of course).

    This ‘conspiring’ is, however, totally downplayed. You really have to research how advertising or the media operate for yourself to get a proper grip on the techniques used, because they will never let on by themselves. For instance, there will never be a decent documentary made about how the media and advertising manipulate us which is then shown by the media. The advertisers would not allow such a program to be shown for a start!

    This conspiratorial mindset is how we ALL operate. If you start up a home baked cookie business you’d be a fool not to develop your own conspiratorial mindset where (potential) customers, as well as rival cookie manufactures, are all treated like chess pieces on your secret chess board. You’d also be a fool to publicise your secret long, mid and short term ‘conspiratorial’ strategies (AKA business plan). All businesses keep their strategies (and often their partnerships) a secret – which is to say all businesses operate in a very ‘conspiratorial’ manner. But even though we see all the ingredients of a conspiracy at work we’d sound silly calling it a conspiracy. Why? Because ‘scheming behind closed doors’ is what all businesses do and it’s not exactly a secret, and it’s not really denied by anyone (even if it is downplayed).

    In this sense perhaps a ‘conspiracy’ is only born when conspiratorial-like behaviour is categorically denied….?

    And so going back to the advertising / media examples, for the general masses who just watch TV all evening and don’t research how these industries operate, the effect is the same as if there REALLY WAS some giant conspiracy at work. A conspiracy to make them change their opinions, influence their thinking and their behaviour in profound ways – and without them even knowing. Keeping a secret and encouraging people to be ignorant might be very different – but the results are exactly the same: the truth is kept hidden (ie the ‘conspiracy’ is kept hidden).

    And if the absurd notion was spread about that the media and advertisers REALLY DID just have our best interests at heart and no ‘scheming’ was going on behind closed doors then we would suddenly start to see people on the net saying “Don’t believe them, it’s all a giant conspiracy…..”.

    And now their claims would be right.

    Once agains we see that by *denying* the existence of conspiratorial-like behaviour we actually help to create and define conspiratorial behaviour.

    This is pretty much the situation we see in the world of (geo)politics. We are all led to believe that power, greed, money, control (even to the point of psychopathy) are all valid motivations that we should be wary of in every area of society…… *except* in the area of politics and in what could be described as the ‘affairs of the elite’.

    I submit that it is this DENIAL (or downplaying) of the conspiratorial mindset and behaviour of those people who have sought, and are now wielding, the most violent and influential power in society which is the truly absurd stance to take. This is even more absurd when you consider that the more power and influence any group wields the less ‘conspiratorial’ they have to behave in order to successfully execute a ‘conspiracy’.

    To accuse your ‘government’ or ‘the elite’ of conspiring against you is rather like some cows in a field accusing their farmers of conspiring against them! LOL They *already have* all the power, so the need for giant conspiracies is almost non existent for them. Let’s not forget that political power is by definition the monopolistic legal and moral right to initiate force against everyone else in order to achieve your objectives. That kind of power seriously reduces the need for grand conspiracies. The so called ‘NWO’ is less of a conspiracy and more of an inevitable consequence of giving a few all the guns in the world and asking them to organise society for everyone. What on earth do people think is likely to happen!!??

    (Only if you believed that ordinary family living down the street from you were conspiring to take over the world would it truly count as a true ‘conspiracy theory’).

    To repeat my original question again: is it not this extreme ‘non conspiratorial’ stance which gives rise to the equally extreme ‘conspiratorial’ stance?

    And might the TRUTH actually be somewhere in the middle?

    As for 9/11….. ALL of the theories (official and alternative) are in essence conspiracy theories. And NONE of them actually refer to the physical evidence. And NONE of these theories can account for the physical evidence. And ALL of these theories are *contradicted* by the physical evidence. Therefore they are ALL invalid and completely worthless…. or worse, incredibly deceitful, manipulative and destructive.

    The official 9/11 theory vs alternative 9/11 theories are NOT in fact theories in opposition. They are in fact just a bunch of equally evidence-contradicted theories, and this puts them ALL on the same side. A theory is a theory is a theory….

    The true opposition is actually between all these speculative theories on the one hand ……. vs the ACTUAL EVIDENCE itself on the other.

    We must let the *evidence itself* tell us what happened on 9/11 and not just choose our favourite theory and then start ‘believing in it’.

    The truth about any crime scene is revealed by conducting a forensic investigation of the evidence and NOT by speculation, water board confessions, ‘truther’ websites, or any other kind of theorising, social pressure, previously held beliefs systems or blind faith.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: