NationStates Jolt Archive

So many say that conspiracy theory or prediction of government manipulation is "tinfoil hat" or ridiculous. It is as if people think human beings are no longer capable of evil or corruption. That somehow none of the leaders of the world's major governments are greedy, power-hungry, and manipulative. Anything that is said about the Government that sounds dark, or sinister is immediately dismissed as conspiracy theory. As if the actions of the US Government for example with the CIA MKULTRA experiments, controversy surrounding weapons uses in Vietnam, and other activities somehow would not sound like conspiracy theories if told before proven.

The Holocaust with the concentration camps, death squads, gas chambers, and furnaces is beyond what even some conspiracy theorists could come up with today. Germany turning from democracy to the Third Reich and sparking World War II would be almost considered a conspiracy theory if thought of beforehand. If the Holocaust had not happened and someone predicted that a nation would do something like the Holocaust many would cry "conspiracy theory, leaders of an European nation would not do that..".

Stalin's camps.

The Imperialist Era with the British Empire's atrocities on the continent of Africa and nations like India shows that educated capitalists are not beyond atrocities. That supposedly educated, "enlightened" leaders are not beyond condoning mass control by force if necessary.

There are so many examples even today (The Rwandan Genocide) of cases where educated people in a government perpetuated terrible almost unthinkable actions on populations. Not a few of the corrupt politicians, and dictators that have committed atrocities on the continent of Africa were educated in Western universities.

So why when anyone says anything dark or sinister about activities in Western governments such as my own United States it is "conspiracy theory." Stating that some leaders would like a police state or total domination is labeled as conspiracy theory.

I for one think far too many things are dismissed offhand as conspiracy theory. They are "theories" for they have not been absolutely proven, but it does not mean they are totally illegitimate.

Most of the time, though, it is just a conspiracy theory (http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/tinfoil_hat_cat.jpg).

And the prominence of MKULTRA is phenomenally overrated, and the methods applied to it were phenomenally idiotic.

Ahhh... But you see, the difference between these conspiracies and modern day conspiracy theories is that the government didn't get away with it. Even the stuff they get away with eventually comes out.

It's extraordinarily difficult to keep things secret anymore. It gets more difficult every year. That's probably why secrets are being phased out and replaced with media spin. *nod*

Conspiracy theories are an utter waste of time. Conspiracy theories do not matter in either of the following two ways.

1) The conspiracy theory is false and few people believe it… the theory therefore has no effect on our daily lives.
2) The conspiracy theory is true, but few people believe it… the theory therefore has no effect on our daily lives.

When a theory stops becoming a conspiracy theory, it becomes interesting in either of the following two ways.

1) The theory is false, but many people believe it… the theory therefore has a significant effect on our daily lives.
2) The conspiracy theory is true and many people believe it… the theory therefore has a significant effect on our daily lives.

See they are an utter waste of time….

it depends on the theory eh?

that the oil companies conspired to get us into a war in iraq (to pull a theory out of my ass) is a possibility, that it was our reptiloid overlords, not so much.

Conspiracy theroies, however, only tend to be conspiracy theories within the nations they claim to be exposing. When scandal about other countries is mentioned, everyone is ready to believe it...

For example, if it was said in the USA that the CIA was rapidng it's prisoners with chemical lamps to get them to talk about Evil Terrorists, then most people in the US would say it was a stupid conspiracy. However, most people outside the US would be less certain, or just shrug and go "well, duh..."

And flip side, if it was said inside Afghanistan that the Taliban government were in secret league with a terrorist to blow up the city centre of New York City by flying jets loaded with fuel into landmarks, they'd say it was a stupid conspiracy theroy, whilst people outside would shrug and go "well, duh..."

No one wants to believe their own leaders would be so twisted/stupid/paranoid, or blatently lie to their own people, even though deep down they know there is probabaly some truth to it (except patently stupid claims involving aliens, flying saucers and the like)

Things are only really dismissed as conspiracy theories when they're ridiculous conspiracy theories. Ashmoria's example works.

Things are only really dismissed as conspiracy theories when they're ridiculous conspiracy theories. Ashmoria's example works.

Or when there's considerable evidence against said theory. That's just usually and quite conveniently forgotten.

So why when anyone says anything dark or sinister about activities in Western governments such as my own United States it is "conspiracy theory." Stating that some leaders would like a police state or total domination is labeled as conspiracy theory.

You know, my first instinct was to disagree with you, but you make a good point. And maybe that's precisely the problem, that somewhere between 1974 and September 11th Americans lost the ability to question what their own government is doing. Which is in itself a conspiracy theory, look at me!!! Although maybe it's true, and my rejection is a product of government control!!! But that sounds like a conspiracy theory!!!

Oh, god, I think I'm tripping balls.

PS Seriously though good point.

Or when there's considerable evidence against said theory. That's just usually and quite conveniently forgotten.

See: Loose Change

Seriously, Maddox has one of the best refutations on that. The gist of it is, if the government could kill 3000 people, why didn't they kill the kid behind Loose Change?

See: Loose Change

Seriously, Maddox has one of the best refutations on that. The gist of it is, if the government could kill 3000 people, why didn't they kill the kid behind Loose Change?

Because the kid behind loose change was working for the government all along. The 9/11 government conspiracy...is a government conspiracy.

Because the kid behind loose change was working for the government all along. The 9/11 government conspiracy...is a government conspiracy.

I don't know what to think of 9/11, there are some weird things surrounding it though I am not in the "it was the US Government" boat. I think it was strange.

CIA Agents supposedly really did visit Osama bin Laden in a hospital at one point, and Bush really did fly his family out of the United States apparently. Just odd little things.

I don't know what to think of 9/11, there are some weird things surrounding it though I am not in the "it was the US Government" boat. I think it was strange.

CIA Agents supposedly really did visit Osama bin Laden in a hospital at one point, and Bush really did fly his family out of the United States apparently. Just odd little things.

It's not that odd, diplomacy is diplomacy.

I don't know what to think of 9/11, there are some weird things surrounding it though I am not in the "it was the US Government" boat. I think it was strange.

CIA Agents supposedly really did visit Osama bin Laden in a hospital at one point, and Bush really did fly his family out of the United States apparently. Just odd little things.

I attribute the occurrences of 9/11 on pure incompetence. To actually think that 9/11 was planned, by Bush no less, is purely idiotic. The man choked on a pretzel, for god-sakes. If you can't properly eat a pretzel, you more than likely can't plan something like 9/11, and keep the required thousands upon thousands of those involved quiet for six years.

That's the real problem: Why hasn't anyone come out and said different? Something this big would require so many people, and it would be so incredibly impossible to keep a tight lid on such a thing, that someone, somewhere, who was involved would let slip something about it. Yet it doesn't and hasn't happened. Go figure.

So, I'm going for incompetence. So much simpler.

Ahhh... But you see, the difference between these conspiracies and modern day conspiracy theories is that the government didn't get away with it. Even the stuff they get away with eventually comes out.

It's extraordinarily difficult to keep things secret anymore. It gets more difficult every year. That's probably why secrets are being phased out and replaced with media spin. *nod*


this person's got something here.

in the 70s things such as COINTELPRO broke into the public domain (where all such stuff belongs), but then it was spun away (by some) as a mistake or something. what most don't realize is that even before there was something called COINTELPRO, COINTELPRO-type illegalitis/that-fascistic-behavior existed. it also existed after something called COINTELPRO ceased to exist - witness spying on CISPES (Committee In Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) even after it was determined to not be an agency of a foreign government and the one "lead" of acts of violence was bs created by a political opponent.

also,
in the 70s,
with the getting into the public domain (where it belongs) other such stuff of the Church & Pike committees and people such as former cia Phil Agee and John Stockwell speaking out about the overthrowing of other peoples' democracies and subverting their elections....
the gov't instead created the National Endowment for Democracy to do subverting of elections out in the open. it's still immoral. imagine if some other gov't gave money to a political party or other type of political group in the US to have influence on elections....other parties would be furious.



yup.
it's all out in the open now.

It's not that odd, diplomacy is diplomacy.

i'm not a 9/11 - the gov't did it theorist,

but those binLadins should not have been flown out.

THEY weren't of the Saudi gov't.
They are not Saudi "royal" family.
So it was not diplomacy at all.



(i always put "royal" in quotes, because there is still among some circles the idea that "royal" is a good or special word. it really means trash. nothing personal to anybody, it's just that oligarchs are wrong in their positions of 'authority'.)

this person's got something here.

in the 70s things such as COINTELPRO broke into the public domain (where all such stuff belongs), but then it was spun away (by some) as a mistake or something. what most don't realize is that even before there was something called COINTELPRO, COINTELPRO-type illegalitis/that-fascistic-behavior existed. it also existed after something called COINTELPRO ceased to exist - witness spying on CISPES (Committee In Solidarity with the People of El Salvador) even after it was determined to not be an agency of a foreign government and the one "lead" of acts of violence was bs created by a political opponent.

As well as the Klan and neo-Nazi groups, I might remind you. But, even at that, it's not justified, rather, it was an issue that was the personal prerogative of a single (sorta)man: J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover had been around so long that he know so much about so many different people, he was able to blackmail politicians into looking the other way when he ran the FBI as his own personal statelet. For example, Hoover had a list of every single girl that Jack Kennedy hooked up with in college, and threatened to leak it if Bobby interfered in his administration of the FBI.

but those binLadins should not have been flown out.

Why not? It's likely that they were in imminent danger because of the resulting social climate created by the attacks, merely because of their names. Here's an article that describes the reasons why these actions were taken. (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/30/archive/main313048.shtml)

It's extraordinarily difficult to keep things secret anymore. It gets more difficult every year. ..some theorists will say that the advances in technology make it easier -every year- to function in Big brother ways..

I wanted to go to in general into why conspiracy theory is not invalid...but...
According to this article on CBS

"Osama bin Laden is one of more than 50 children of a Yemeni-born migrant who made a vast fortune building roads and palaces in Saudi Arabia and his extended family spans the globe. Many have been educated in the United States and the family has donated millions of dollars to several American universities. "

Most of bin Laden's relatives were attending high school and college. The young members of the bin Laden family were driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret place in Texas and then to Washington, The Times reported Sunday.

The eldest of the students was attending Harvard according to the article, one of bin Laden's family, a better education than most of us get at least in name.

Osama bin Laden was met by the CIA and once worked with them.


It is not hard looking at all of this to perhaps say that Osama bin Laden was a plot in some global scheme. At least by face value many would be suspicious if all the connections were put together in a news report and presented as the possibility that Osama bin Laden was somehow a pawn in some high level op.

I do not necessarily believe that, and it is for another thread but still it all "looked" bad.

Current moral outrages are labeled "conspiracy theories" and shrugged off as a product of the "tin foil hat, black helicopter crowd" because accepting even the possibility that the government is actively trying to fuck over the people would send most people's safe, neatly constructed little worlds crashing down like a house of cards. People either ignore or doublethink away such possibilities as a form of psychological self-defense, because the truth will not set you free.

I wanted to go to in general into why conspiracy theory is not invalid...but...
According to this article on CBS

"Osama bin Laden is one of more than 50 children of a Yemeni-born migrant who made a vast fortune building roads and palaces in Saudi Arabia and his extended family spans the globe. Many have been educated in the United States and the family has donated millions of dollars to several American universities. "

Most of bin Laden's relatives were attending high school and college. The young members of the bin Laden family were driven or flown under FBI supervision to a secret place in Texas and then to Washington, The Times reported Sunday.

The eldest of the students was attending Harvard according to the article, one of bin Laden's family, a better education than most of us get at least in name.

Osama bin Laden was met by the CIA and once worked with them.


It is not hard looking at all of this to perhaps say that Osama bin Laden was a plot in some global scheme. At least by face value many would be suspicious if all the connections were put together in a news report and presented as the possibility that Osama bin Laden was somehow a pawn in some high level op.

I do not necessarily believe that, and it is for another thread but still it all "looked" bad.

yes but the acceptability of the conspiracy theory rests on who you think is pulling bin laden's strings. there may be several possibilities that you could very reasonably put forth. there are quite a few that would make you look stupid if you endorsed them.

its all in the details.

Current moral outrages are labeled "conspiracy theories" and shrugged off as a product of the "tin foil hat, black helicopter crowd" because accepting even the possibility that the government is actively trying to fuck over the people would send most people's safe, neatly constructed little worlds crashing down like a house of cards. People either ignore or doublethink away such possibilities as a form of psychological self-defense, because the truth will not set you free.

Very well said. Though the truth will at least prepare you rather than setting you up for disappointment.

When the history was occurring though there was actually evidence for it. The current crop of bogus bullshit conspiracies have no evidence.

some theorists will say that the advances in technology make it easier -every year- to function in Big brother ways..

Technology's always one step ahead, though...that's the ultimate weakness of government. It's just too damn slow to keep up with everybody else, with the result being that they are always one step behind.

So many say that conspiracy theory or prediction of government manipulation is "tinfoil hat" or ridiculous. It is as if people think human beings are no longer capable of evil or corruption. That somehow none of the leaders of the world's major governments are greedy, power-hungry, and manipulative.

I would say that it's as if the people who accept current conspiracy theories think that somehow none of the major world leaders are extraordinarily stupid and incompetent. :p

that's human society for you. many people seem to feel they have a vested intrest in what other people think and are constantly manipulating what each other do.

to paraphrase sam clemons, believe half of what you hear on the street and none of what you get from the media.

=^^=
.../\...

It's extraordinarily difficult to keep things secret anymore. It gets more difficult every year. That's probably why secrets are being phased out and replaced with media spin. *nod*

"We have never been at war with EastAsia, we have always been at war with Oceana"

"We have never been at war with EastAsia, we have always been at war with Oceana"

INTERVIEWER
Do you think that the government is
winning the battle against
terrorists?

HELPMANN
On yes. Our morale is much higher
than theirs, we're fielding all their
strokes, running a lot of them out,
and pretty consistently knocking them
for six. I'd say they're nearly out
of the game.

INTERVIEWER
But the bombing campaign is now in
its thirteenth year ...

HELPMANN
Beginner's luck.

"We have never been at war with EastAsia, we have always been at war with Oceana"

1940: - The US, Soviet Union, UK and China ally against Germany, Japan and Italy to fight for freedom, democracy and all that... An alliance against tyranny and dictatorship.

1950: - The US, UK, Germany, Japan and Italy ally against the Soviet Union and China to fight for freedom, democracy and all that... An alliance against tyranny and dictatorship.

"The japanese have always been our friends against the threat of China"

1940: - The US, Soviet Union, UK and China ally against Germany, Japan and Italy to fight for freedom, democracy and all that... An alliance against tyranny and dictatorship.

1950: - The US, UK, Germany, Japan and Italy ally against the Soviet Union and China to fight for freedom, democracy and all that... An alliance against tyranny and dictatorship.

"The japanese have always been our friends against the threat of China"

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed
one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times." – George W. Bush

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed
one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times." – George W. Bush

Yay! :D

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed
one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times." – George W. Bush

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent the way Bush treats its allies, how will he treat other nations :eek:

Why are some conspiracy theories outrageous when past history is even worse?

Because that's what they want us to believe.

"For a century and a half now, America and Japan have formed
one of the great and enduring alliances of modern times." – George W. Bush

sounds vaguely familiar...

Midway through the book, the alliance breaks apart and Oceania, newly allied with Eurasia, begins a campaign against Eastasian forces. This happens during "Hate Week" (a week of extreme focus on the evilness of Oceania's enemies, the purpose of which is to stir up patriotic fervour in support of the Party), Oceania and Eastasia are enemies once again. The public is quite abnormally blind to the change, and when a public orator, mid-sentence, changes the name of the enemy from Eurasia to Eastasia (still speaking as if nothing had changed), the people are shocked as they notice all the flags and banners are wrong (they blame Goldstein and the Brotherhood) and tear them down. This is the origin of the idiom, "we've always been at war with Eastasia." Later on, the Party claims to have captured India. As with all other news, its authenticity is questionable.

If Hiroshima and Nagasaki represent the way Bush treats its allies, how will he treat other nations :eek:

Ah, but you see, the war as a whole was a cunning plot by both the USA and Japan for the USA to have a valid reason to inject enormous amounts of economic aid into Japan and build it up into an economic superpower whilst the USA gained its own status as the dominant power in the Pacific.

Mutually beneficial to all involved. *nods*

1940: - The US, Soviet Union, UK and China ally against Germany, Japan and Italy to fight for freedom, democracy and all that... An alliance against tyranny and dictatorship.

1950: - The US, UK, Germany, Japan and Italy ally against the Soviet Union and China to fight for freedom, democracy and all that... An alliance against tyranny and dictatorship.

"The japanese have always been our friends against the threat of China"

The difference being that the German, Japanese and Italian governments experienced a substantial degree of change right around 1944-5.

The difference being that the German, Japanese and Italian governments experienced a substantial degree of change right around 1944-5.

As China initially looked towards the Soviet Union for developmental support and protection from the US during the cold war , China was seen as an adversary power under the influence of Moscow. However, as Chinese and Russian relations deteriorated following the destalinization project of Khrushchev, China became increasingly involved with the more neutral communist nations and the western block. The conflict between China and Russia led China to become a supporter of NATO and a united Western Europe during the 1970s and 1980s in order to contain the Soviet threat; China was consequently even dubbed the 16th NATO member by some. However, with the decline of the Soviet threat in the late eighties, the convergence of security interests subsided; China and the US began drifting apart, reverting to security competitors mainly over Taiwan. Whereas at the beginning of the presidency of George Bush China, being the last communist power, was seen as a looming threat to US hegemony, needing to be contained. In sum, China has gone from an adversary, to a friend, eventually becoming a security competitor to the US.

Not to mention how many US government bonds China owns.

As China initially looked towards the Soviet Union for developmental support and protection from the US during the cold war , China was seen as an adversary power under the influence of Moscow. However, as Chinese and Russian relations deteriorated following the destalinization project of Khrushchev, China became increasingly involved with the more neutral communist nations and the western block. The conflict between China and Russia led China to become a supporter of NATO and a united Western Europe during the 1970s and 1980s in order to contain the Soviet threat; China was consequently even dubbed the 16th NATO member by some. However, with the decline of the Soviet threat in the late eighties, the convergence of security interests subsided; China and the US began drifting apart, reverting to security competitors mainly over Taiwan. Whereas at the beginning of the presidency of George Bush China, being the last communist power, was seen as a looming threat to US hegemony, needing to be contained. In sum, China has gone from an adversary, to a friend, eventually becoming a security competitor to the US.

True enough, though I think the degree of trust between China and the West in the 70's is a bit over-rated here, bearing in mind the relations China had with Albania, Burma, and it's policy towards Nepal and Taiwan.

Also I don't think it distracts from the underlying truth about the way these changing relationships between the main countries mentioned have been portrayed in the western media, the point being that despite the changing state on the ground, it is always portrayed as us "always" having been friends with, or enemies opposed to, the other powers.