Conspiracy theories (meta)

Obligatory Lesswrong links:

The 9/11 Meta-Truther Conspiracy Theory

Why are there conspiracy theorists despite how it can discredit them?

A little more exploration into that topic and people who like to be non-mainstream, including those who are so non-mainstream, they curve back into ultra-mainstream.

edited 16th Jul '11 7:39:00 PM by GoodGuyGreg

Social analysis does nothing to disprove conspiracy theorists, and more specifically, allegations of conspiracies. The middle article just attributes a subconscious psychological motive to such beliefs. Instead of using social science to assert that the "truther" subculture is just a coping mechanism for the powerless, how about refuting conspiracy theories in a sanitary manner?

edited 16th Jul '11 7:49:50 PM by Shichibukai

Oh, c'mon. Who in the fuck would want to assassinate Patton?

Some Theories are way out in the weeds but like the above poster noted some have some reasonable proof and the situation is more easily believed.

An example of one that is way out in the weeds is Chem trails from air craft. An example of one that is plausible. The CIA assassination pistol that could effectively kill you but make it look like a heart attack. There was a congressional hearing about this and they passed around the actual weapon that could do jus that. There was a particular invidual I can't recall his name who was supposedly killed with this weapon.

More examples are the CIA/FBI assassination or underground incremination of various groups that the U.S. Government saw as threats to their authority. We have COINTELPRO which was made public knowledge. This was originally dismissed as a crackpot theory.

Johnny: People in power who are doing things like brokering deals. Who would want to stage a military coup and support the Nazi Regime in WWII in the U.S. The business plot.

edited 16th Jul '11 8:16:38 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Well, our government was pretty openly in support of Hitler, as was Britain. He was a useful idiot. Guys like Sen. Borah were getting bribes in the mail from Germany to vote against a foreign war. And of course West Point officers were constantly getting drunk and talking about sending FDR home.

But I don't see a plausible reason to kill Patton. Moreover, for what I'm looking at right now, no one can even agree who benefited from it. Zionists? Anti-Communists? Eisenhower?

edited 16th Jul '11 8:22:14 PM by johnnyfog

"The CIA assassination pistol that could effectively kill you but make it look like a heart attack"

The least believable part of this is "pistol". A rifle could certainly do this; you essentially just get a tranquilizer gun and fill the vial with lethal chemicals.

Of course, there would still be the problem of the needle poking out of you, so I'm not sure how much it would help.

American Politicians borkering deals with the Soviets. Patton was a vocal and staunch anti-Soviet. He was also a very popular and powerful general. There is plenty of evidence that we were constantly trying or brokering deals with the Soviet union behind closed doors.

We did not openly support Hitler and neither did Britain. We helped with appeasement and isolationism hoping it would stop war yes. But that kind of back fired. There were some elements in our political circles (this includes generals but hardly all of them) who may have but a lot of those were backed by people like thos who were members of the business plot or were sympathizers like them. Interesting note the Bush and Walker Family were both involved with the business plot.

Sorry, that doesn't track. The Nazi sympathizers would have been anti-Stalin by definition. So Patton getting iced by his own camp doesn't help anyone.

edited 16th Jul '11 9:00:58 PM by johnnyfog

It does track because the Nazi sympathizers lost out before Patton became a problem. Especially once the Nazis were thoroughly villified in the U.S. as a hated enemy. They were exposed and watched very carefully. Some were even arrested. Not all of the government were Nazi sympathizers. There were also quite a few who sided with Stalin and held high positions of power as well and were quite in favor of working out deals with Stalin.

It should also be noted that while he respected their military ability Patton veemently hated the Nazi party. Once the Nazis were done patton was trying to pressure politicians and other generals to not stop the American war machine and to turn the military to pushing the Soviets back into Russia. He was also seen a potential Rogue officer and a serious political hurdal in the states. He would have had tremendous political pull for his part in the war had he lived and chosen to exercise it.

The American political scene of the era was quite interesting and convoluted. There was also plenty of shady dealings behind closed doors then as well.

I've always loved conspiracy theorists. Even if most of their theories are bat-shit insane, at the very least it deters would-be schemers because they know that someone out there is prepared to over-analyze their every speech and action.

Just remember not all of them are nutters. There are some who are right. Some also very poorly present their case. Then as you noted are my favorites who are the nutters. They have some fun stuff but it is way out in the weeds. One of my co-workers reads all sorts of interesting things like this and we have fun discussing it.

There is one radio show which talks about some of them what was it. Coast to Coast radio. Interesting and sometimes highly amusing stuff.

So Patton was anti-Nazi and anti-Stalin, which somehow made him an enemy of the state? ...Nope, not seeing it.

And I disagreed with this "convoluted" stuff. Most of our so-called conspiracies are transparent lies that would only pass by someone 100% indoctrinated.

Take the Lone Gunman fallacy. Nearly every decade, somebody important is picked off by a random nut, with no motive, who conveniently leaves behind a diary.

He was only anti-nazi when the Nazis were there to fight. You completely missed or ignored the part where the Nazis stopped being a concern because they had been defeated. He was openly and loudly against any deals with the Soviets. He was gaining popular support with troops abroad and some politicians back home.

Patton was also an admirer of the pre-and WWI era Germans and had hoped that after the Nazis were gone they would return to similar ideals.

Yes it is entirely feasible he was assissinated by the state. Just because you may side with someone in some form or other does not mean they won't have you killed for causing trouble in other ways. There were more people of the left persuasion in power some were even noted to have some sympathies for the Soviets and urged brokering of deals with them before Patton raised a stink about it.

yes it was very convoluted. You had a lot of isolationsists, pro Nazi/Anti Nazi, Pro Soviet/ Anti Soviet, Anti draft/ Pro Draft, and all the back door dealing with various business entities over production of war time materials. There was lots of political maneuvering and bickering with various groups forming and disolving as the war went on. This started well before the U.S> was even involved.

Lone gunmen who leave diaries/notes/manifestos are a bit suspicious at times and at times believable. that would be entirely situational.

edited 16th Jul '11 10:19:32 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Geez. You brought up Patton, not me. At least be clear about it instead of repeating "very convoluted, backdoor maneuvering etc etc""

Are you saying Patton was trying to undermine the Cold War by turning it Hot?

Patton wanted to drive the Soviets out of German by force of arms and possibly march into Russia. He was doing his damndest to convince others to agree. Some started agreeing. He was also very popular with the general enlisted soldiers. It was a genuine concern that he might take a sizable portion of the army and go rogue. The amount of grief he caused his Superiors is astonishing.

They wanted the war to end with a brokering of deals with the Russians. He seriously wanted to go after the Russians and was able to bend some ears in his favor. Not a whole lot but enough to raise concerns. They had almost considered removing him from the war before it was even over he was so difficult to control.

He also had a bad habit of stepping on the toes of powerful politicians and allied generals alike.

I next to never believe conspiracy theories. Most of the time they make no sense and those who believe cannot debate it or argue their point without resorting to calling everybody who disagrees with them blind sheeple.

The other reason I dislike it is that conspiracy theorists tend to have a kind of smugness about them, as if they are clearly much smarter than everyone else for figuring it out. Again this goes back the fact they just call everybody who disagrees with them blind sheeple. Although not all are bad, but from what I have seen, most of them are in it to enhance their own ego.

Conspiracies involving only groups that are pretty good at keeping things secret - government secret service, organized crime, the Church of Scientology - are a bit more believable. It's also much more believable when the supposed effect is limited to something like an assassination or sabotage of a boat or building etc.

The "9/11 inside job" theory arguably could fit those criteria, but doesn't survive Occam's razor.

But something wide-ranging like globalization or the moon landing, involving the media and banks ... nah, ridiculous.

Yeah. Basically, the more people that are supposed to have been involved the less credible, mostly because you'd have to have more people prepared to keep a secret and lie about the whole thing (consistently) when asked. Watergate involved quite a tight knit group, and that still fell apart because some were prepared to leak information to Woodward and Bernstein and others rolled when faced with prison sentences.

I'm happy this thread was started. Now I'm up on all the newest stuff.

Did you know Lady Gaga is an Illuminati shill?

edited 17th Jul '11 1:30:25 PM by johnnyfog

Captainbrass has summed up my own views pretty well.

@Shichibukai - Human intuition is infamous for being wrong. Like, a lot. People with no knowledge of logical fallacies as well as personal prejudices (read: almost everyone) come to stupid conclusions. Empirical evidence is the only way to prove things.

Theories are simply theories until they are proven. These conspiracy theories are simply fantasy because they 1) have never been proven and 2) in many cases, contradict known facts.

Since a Conspiracy is by definition simply something done out of view of the public with an intent to "do something", it makes no sense to say that there are no conspiracies.

By that same token, however, it is entirely unlikely that anything the Truther subculture says, the JFK Assassination junkies say, or anyone who has ever uttered the word "Illuminati" in a non-fictional context says is even close to being true. I can accept people who think that the government is covering stuff up, I believe that too, but when you start citing pure fiction as your sources, or worse making stuff up and completely pretending anything you don't agree with isn't there (something Truthers, JFK people, and Illuminati/NWO buffs are all fond of doing) the only thing that you're proving is that you are gullible and/or capable of a truly enviable degree of self-denial.

Mein god, no one has linked to XKCD yet?

I am truly surprised.

edited 17th Jul '11 5:31:59 PM by deathjavu

I think that by now the entire internet has seen that comic.

I also don't think it's ever actually convinced anyone of anything, which is a shame, because it's more or less right.

It convinced me, at least in the sense that I thought it made a good point.

Of course, I didn't believe conspiracy theories before that, so I don't know if that counts as convincing me after all.