Conspiracy theories (meta)

@Shichi: You ignored me last time, so I'll repeat myself:

Give us a clear and specific account of what would falsify your theory.

Seriously, no specific conspiracies. It's right there in the OP.

Stop taking the bait, on both sides. Take it to Pm's, or something.

EDIT: Eh, fuggit, can't get the formatting right.

edited 19th Jul '11 1:51:39 PM by Wulf

@Shichi: It sounds reasonable to say that various leaders make under-the-table deals for mutual gain at the expense of others. It sounds much less reasonable the moment you utter the word "Illuminati." I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that in order to convince people, you'll need to word things better.

In other news, I applied for a passport today, and that required prints from my index fingers. Now the NWO can monitor me, teh noes.

I'm afraid that arguing conspiracy theories is a lot like arguing history. Because of the assumption that incriminating evidence can be destroyed, tampered with and doctored, you often have to interpret sources and events, not treat them as absolute evidence. So a mostly scientific theory is not going to do much good, as you have to see through lies and deception.

However... if you have a convincing argument that KAL-007 was not an assassination, show it to me. You have a convincing argument that Dr. David Kelly was not murdered, show it to me. If you can show that an elite cabal is not conspiring to create a one world government, convince me. If you have a decisive argument that zionists do not have a chokehold over US federal government , enlighten me.

What would prove alot of my allegations to you?

Ahh yes, I've heard that suggestion before. And again, I refuse to cease the use of the word illuminati, because this accurately defines the global super-elite and their exclusive networks.

edited 20th Jul '11 7:31:52 AM by Shichibukai

Prove to me that the cabal aren't space lizards. Or taht it's not all run by the salvation army. Also, if you haven't noticed, but countries get into argumments over the silliest things, and every first world nation is extremely jealous of their own national interests. That's the first hinderance on the path of some one world government, as seen in the UN and EU, people just are unable to get decisions done because everyone has partisan interests.

[ed.] The Illuminati was a secret club of revolutionaries in Bavaria, who wanted an enlightened republic in a totalitarian country. Their ideals are the sames that lead to the American and French revolution, and all subsequent republican and nationalist revolutions. They were a secret society, because Bavaria was under totalitarian rule.

The use of them as the name for a secret, subversive cabal comes from 19th century reactionaries.

edited 20th Jul '11 7:36:04 AM by JethroQWalrustitty

Well I read back on your post on David Kelly back on the first page. I'm going to say this, I have no idea how you get NWO order from that. Assassination for threatening to reveal classified information and for crossing the path of some powerful members of Government sure.*

Same with the Patton thing really. Assassination doesn't suddenly lead to NWO. It's just as likely to be: Selling secrets to the Soviets, Threatening to expose someone for their Mafia/corporate connections, embarrassing someone at a party, stepping on someone's toes.

edited 20th Jul '11 8:34:57 AM by Alichains

Cheney?

Tony Blair, more like...

@Shichi: Oh come on, that's a cop-out. You don't need to be scientifically rigorous to say what evidence would make you give up your theory.

In fact, let me prove it. The following would convince me that there is more likely than not a conspiracy called the New World Order that has some significant amount of power:

• If the NWO appears publicly, I would believe it exists. If it uses its power to accomplish something major that would not otherwise happen, I would in addition believe that it has that power.
• If two or more normally credible countries or other major organizations openly claim to be affiliated with the NWO, I would believe them.
  • The United States (and nearly all of NATO) is credible. Muammar Gaddafi and Hugo Chavez are not credible, as well as any other government or organization that relies heavily on propaganda, spin, or other forms of lying to the public.
• If two or more normally credible countries or other major organizations openly claim that there is an NWO, I would believe them.
• If credible documents are leaked from two or more normally credible countries or major organizations talking about the NWO as a real organization, I would believe it exists, and can do whatever they allege it can do in those documents.
  • If the governments do not deny the documents are true, that constitutes credibility. If there is some kind of verifiable proof those documents came from those governments, that also constitutes credibility. Nothing else does.
• If multiple verifiable pieces of evidence tie the NWO to an action or an event, I would believe the NWO exists and can do that action or cause that event, though not necessarily by itself.
  • Verifiable means that experts with that particular thing are presented with the evidence and agree that they are genuine and really do tie the NWO to said action or event.
• Any other piece of evidence is subject to reasonable judgement. I won't reject it out of hand but if it's not on this list I'm under no obligation to believe that it's genuine proof of anything.

Now, since I've opened up my theory to falsification, I think I've proven that you can. So, for the third time:

Give us a clear and specific account of what would falsify your theory.

Ehm, my country has learned that the US and NATO are not credible the hard way.

People keep mentioning the Illuminati, and I've heard of a funny novel of the same title, but who are those guys supposed to be? Wasn't it a sect in the eighneenth or seventeenth century that got dissolved or splintered or was otherwise rendered irrelevant? Or am I confusing with the Masons? Those at least are real, though more of a Brotherhood of Funny Hats than an Ancient Conspiracy. People get so attracted and can invest so much into a well-pitched "exclusive secret"...

This is extremely wrong and I think it would be very very advisable that you change that attitude. Truth is truth. Dealing with it won't really make you feel worse, and denying it when you suspect it, going ostrith, is very stressful and confusing. I say dig the shit out and let it dry in the open under the sun: soon the stench will fade and it will become inoffensive.

Zaaaa-nnnnn-kooooku na tenshi no teeeeze...

Conspiracies need not be illegal. Just ask Pinkie Pie

That's not a theory, that's proven fact, Don't Shoot the Message. Plus, it seems the Obama adminsitration has taken strong steps against this whole situation from the start, what with the rooting out of Mossad agent networks all over America.

You're the one suggesting unusual ideas: Burden Of Evidence is on you.

Aren't those simply known as the Great Bourgeoisie?

Please elaborate.

edited 20th Jul '11 11:15:21 AM by GoodGuyGreg

The known historical facts about the Illuminati is that they were a quasi-Masonic group which existed for a short period in late 18th century Bavaria and were suppressed by its government because of what were regarded as unacceptably liberal views. And that's where the conspiracy theories start.

There were a lot of those kinds of groups around during the Enlightenment, including the early Freemasons themselves. They tended to be hated like poison by the Catholic Church, because a lot of them were deist rather than Christian, and by the autocratic governments who saw them as politically subversive. Some of the conspiracy theories probably came from that.

Heh, I know of some countries under Absolute Monarchy and other forms of dicatorship that are almost certain to contain such groups, out of sheer necessity.

But secrecy has problems of its own, and sometimes it just doesn't help, especially in a Police State where everyone and their mother is a snitch. They don't even ask for money, they'll share the intel for free!

[[youtube:73q9SBgcOYE&feature=related]]

I was never convinced by the suggestion that reptilians rule the Earth, but if there is decisive proof I might be convinced that they do exist.

As for your argument about partisan interests... it is true that nations can fall out over the slightest things. Yet the illuminati have no national loyalty, except for that of the zionists to Israel (not all illuminati are zionists, the two are related but not the same). They bypass the social construct of nationality. The men behind the men, the power brokers in each country, collaborate to put pressure upon their respective governments.

For example, the Zionist faction funds pro-Israel propaganda and smears its opponents with accusations of anti-semitism and campaigns of intimidation and blackmail. That is alongside the strong pro-Zionist political lobby across the Western world. AIPAC, Anti-Defamation League, both strong lobby groups which have ties to Zionist illuminati.

There are several groups which have claimed, or have been claimed to be "the illuminati". The Bavarian illuminati is one amongst several groups. The modern illuminati is my term for the extremely powerful super-elite, which I doubt exists as one formal organisation but as a secretive inner circle of the Western world's most powerful people.

edited 21st Jul '11 6:09:04 PM by Shichibukai

I don't see what the Illuminati have to do with this.

He's postulating a superpowerful secret Zionist lobby apart from the actual merely powerful open Zionist lobby.

I agree. Simple Israeli nationalism serves as a more than sufficient explanation.

edited 21st Jul '11 8:08:52 PM by Gault

Aren't y'all straying from the topic a little?

Back on topic and to answer the op. I am botha believer and Sceptic. It really depends on the theory.

I noticed no one ever answered how we sort the nut jobs from those who have honestly found something odd but carefully covered up/hidden. Any takers?

Same way you sort out anything else, look at the specific evidence and weigh the likelihood of each side.

If the results are inconclusive, refrain from going either way.

Again, what Shchibukai calls "The Illuminati" others call "The Man" or "The Powers That Be". He means the sum of all the Eminence Grise guys who work behind the secenes all over the world. They aren't a single group, and while they are in agreement over some things (think "IFM doctrine"), they can be huge rivals over others, and need not be coordinated. Their power trascends their nation, they aren't tied to a salary or a land, and thus their loyalty to their country of origin is often very disputable, despite the propaganda they serve the masses. That's why Zionism and "Illuminati" are related, for him.

To which I have to say, "Communicating badly and acting smug is blah blah blah."

edited 22nd Jul '11 12:10:42 AM by Wulf

It also helps if people listen rather than mocking or dismissing out of hand.

@GGG: Eeeh, not quite.

While Shichi did just say he doesn't believe the Illuminati is a formal organization, he also clearly thinks that it acts in concert in a way people don't think The Man does.

I don't think "the Man assassinated General Patton" is even coherent, for example.