| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
 |
|
|
OK, let's try a different, more AE, approach. What are the factors that have led you to understand all this and me not?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
In real life, actions are taken almost invariably for their immediate result. Occasionally, actors may consider secondary effects. Tertiary effects are never sufficient motivation. This is the biggest problem with conspiratorial thinking (though there are others).
In real life, people get killed because someone wanted them dead. You find the killer simply by asking, "Who wanted them dead?" It's very rarely anymore complicated than that.
Same with 9/11 and other such conspiracies. Just ask, "Who wanted to knock those buildings down, without regard for consequences?" Mystery solved.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
This is correct. It is an application of the AE rule: the truth is always boring. During the Cold War it is conceivable (though only just) that the British might murder someone in order to pin it on the Russians, but it would be very closely constrained. A knifing in a Berlin backstreet, say. For this dangerously luminous farrago to be played out now -- when even Scottie is hard pressed to come up with something concrete -- is inconceivable. Except to people who crave excitement. Let us hope that does not include ... Boris Johnson.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | OK, let's try a different, more AE, approach. What are the factors that have led you to understand all this and me not? |
Firstly, I'm fortunate enough to be of the generation that's watched a lot of YouTube. That's quite a simple explanation, but important.
Also it's not really in your interest to be a "conspiracy theorist". You're already publicly revising history and science, so it would damage your cause. If you're trying to argue Anglo-Saxon with an academic the revelation that you're also a JFK nut would end the conversation before it even began. So you've chosen to define yourself, either consciously or subconsciously, as being in the centre ground between the conspiracy nuts and the unthinking academics. This is a very good strategy. Though not so necessary these days, as everyone seems to be a conspiracy theorist now anyway.
Plus, you do understand this already. You just don't apply it to modern politics. In fact, this is one of the things that gives me the edge other many of the other conspiracy theorists - I've came here and stole all your ideas. So, as most conspiracy theorists see the obvious frauds and inconsistencies, but can't provide a rational explanation for how such seemingly epic lies can come about, they have to resort to ridiculous concepts such as the Illuminati or the Deep State. However, I'm fortunate enough to have a natural mechanism to explain things. In fact, I'm probably the first person to state this in writing online, but conspiracies - far from being impossible, are actually often inevitable. They're just the consequence of lies or errors becoming economic or lucrative.
So, if it becomes lucrative to fake a da Vinci someone may fake a da Vinci. If it becomes very lucrative a whole cottage industry may spring up. If museums and galleries invest in these paintings they'll perpetuate these frauds. Not through organised deceit per se, but through careful ignoral. But I don't have to tell you this ..I learnt this from you lot on here.
It's like how I mentioned the Catholic Church before. If you lived in the 17th century and you told a Catholic that you believed James II secretly had more allegiance to the Catholic Church than the English state they'd call you a conspiracy theorist (or the equivalent). However, from our point of view looking back it's easy to see there was some truth in this. There were two competing viewpoints - the Protestant nationalist vision and the Catholic, allegiance-to-the-Pope, pan-European vision.
It's the same now. You have people invested in the idea of the nation state (or their particular state), but also people with a more internationalist mindset. Just like James II a lot of the people towards the top end of society have a bias towards the latter. Not because they're paid up members of the Illuminati. Simply because they believe in this vision, and they have a lot invested in it personally and economically. You could say Putin is excommunicated in a sense for turning his back on this vision. So now they have to rally a crusade against the infidel.
(There's also the organised crime element to consider too, which overlaps - in all societies there's always a blurred line between the black market and the legal market, between businessmen and criminals (& politicians). In some states it's worse than others. This is important, but it's a whole'nother debate.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Firstly, I'm fortunate enough to be of the generation that's watched a lot of YouTube. That's quite a simple explanation, but important. |
I agree. I watch vast amounts of YouTube.
| Also it's not really in your interest to be a "conspiracy theorist". You're already publicly revising history and science, so it would damage your cause. |
Well, I do advance conspiracy theories in my books and it certainly does damage my cause. However, there is a crucial difference between you and me, Scottie. I produce my own conspiracy theories, you get yours from YouTube.
more later
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| If you're trying to argue Anglo-Saxon with an academic the revelation that you're also a JFK nut would end the conversation before it even began. |
True. It is lucky then that I don’t believe in a single conspiracy theory. Not that I've ever argued anything with an academic. They see me coming from a long way off for quite different reasons.
| So you've chosen to define yourself, either consciously or subconsciously, |
It must have been subconscious. I’ve got no recollection.
| as being in the centre ground between the conspiracy nuts and the unthinking academics. |
You seem to have forgotten the old AE adage, “If you wish a plague on both their houses, you’re probably standing in Plague Central."
This is a very good strategy. Though not so necessary these days, as everyone seems to be a conspiracy theorist now anyway.
|
Yes, I’m the last man standing. It’s no fun burying plague victims. Especially when they resist so much.
more later
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| Plus, you do understand this already. You just don't apply it to modern politics. |
This is a constant theme of mine. All the posters here, with the exception of Chad, are quite unable to apply AE principles to politics, however good they may be in other areas.
| In fact, this is one of the things that gives me the edge other many of the other conspiracy theorists - I've came here and stole all your ideas. |
Glad to be of service.
| So, as most conspiracy theorists see the obvious frauds and inconsistencies, but can't provide a rational explanation for how such seemingly epic lies can come about, they have to resort to ridiculous concepts such as the Illuminati or the Deep State. However, I'm fortunate enough to have a natural mechanism to explain things. In fact, I'm probably the first person to state this in writing online, but conspiracies - far from being impossible, are actually often inevitable. They're just the consequence of lies or errors becoming economic or lucrative. |
Well, Scottie, I concede you’re the prince of conspiracy theories amongst us but I have yet to see these vaunted powers when it comes to your contributions as a conspiracy theory theorist. Is this our fault, would you say?
more later
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Hatty
Site Admin
In: Berkshire
|
|
|
|
| there is a crucial difference between you and me, Scottie. I produce my own conspiracy theories, you get yours from YouTube. |
Is it possible to know the primary source of a YouTube presentation?
Incidentally the Russian press agrees with what Scottie's said, that the whole thing is a British plot to make Russia look bad, Putin look like a dictator, etc etc. Who is tipping whom off?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
| So, if it becomes lucrative to fake a da Vinci someone may fake a da Vinci. If it becomes very lucrative a whole cottage industry may spring up. If museums and galleries invest in these paintings they'll perpetuate these frauds. Not through organised deceit per se, but through careful ignoral. But I don't have to tell you this ..I learnt this from you lot on here. |
This is interesting. The point about conspiracy theories is that the theorists are wholly free from mendacity (misguided possibly but not wicked) but the conspirators must be steeped in it. Scottie is pointing to the self-generating nature of the business. The 'conspiracy' must be self-generating because the secret must be kept secret for ever, even long after all the principals are dead. And, as we know, conspiracy theories are pretty much immortal.
However the da Vinci example Scottie gives is neither a conspiracy nor a conspiracy theory. Forgers are lone wolves and gallery-purchasers make individual decisions. The whole point of ‘careful ignoral’ is that nobody knows they are suffering from it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
It's like how I mentioned the Catholic Church before. If you lived in the 17th century and you told a Catholic that you believed James II secretly had more allegiance to the Catholic Church than the English state they'd call you a conspiracy theorist (or the equivalent).
|
I don’t think so. They’d probably call you a ‘Catholic’ since every Catholic (including James II) is obliged to hold his allegiance to the Church higher than to the state. There was (and is) no secret about that but it is perfectly possible, in practice, to juggle both balls successfully. Unless Kennedy was killed because...
| However, from our point of view looking back it's easy to see there was some truth in this. There were two competing viewpoints - the Protestant nationalist vision and the Catholic, allegiance-to-the-Pope, pan-European vision. |
You are getting your history in a twist here. The Pope was on the side of Protestantism on this occasion. James’ allegiance was not primarily to the Church but to Louis XIV's (and he hoped his own) vision of an absolutist monarchy. The Pope was not (on this occasion) interested in pan-European anything but rather to ensure there was a Europe at all and not a Gallico-Jacobite empire of absolutist monarchs.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | You are getting your history in a twist here. |
I no doubt am, and I'm happy to accept this. Your knowledge of history is much better than mine. However, I was just trying to illustrate a very simple concept.
You have political entities like states and nations.
You also have political entities that transcend and cross the boundaries of states and nations - the Catholic Church seemed like a good example.
Sometimes these two things come into conflict. And just as states and nations may lie and spy with political motive, so too can supranational organisations. I'm tempted to use the example of Jesuits, but my lacklustre history knowledge will no doubt lead me a cropper here as well :)
| However the da Vinci example Scottie gives is neither a conspiracy nor a conspiracy theory. |
I'm not stating that this example is a conspiracy, just that it's like a conspiracy. One of the criticisms often labelled at conspiracy theories is that "so many people would have to be involved".
This example illustrates why this simply isn't necessary.
One man fakes a da Vinci - thousands may unknowingly perpetuate this untruth.
A few people conspire to commit a fraud or crime - likewise thousands may unknowingly run with it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
The real point is this though.
You have two states making claims.
The UK claims that a Russian spy has poisoned one of its spies in the UK. / Russia claims this is untrue. I think the term "fairy tale" was used at one point.
Likewise, there are people sat in the UK, watching the western media, which is presenting the UK claim as true - the alternative is a "conspiracy theory". / However, there are people sat in Russia, watching Russian media, which is presenting the Russia claim as true - the alternative is likewise considered a conspiracy theory.
How do you decide who is right? And what do you base this on?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
N R Scott
In: Middlesbrough
|
|
|
|
The heart of the issue is the term "conspiracy theory" itself.
It should simply be a term donating a theory concerning anything where people are conspiring in some sense. However, it's generally used as pejorative term to label certain conspiracy theories as socially unacceptable.
The wooliness of the term leads to wooliness in the thinking. Even when people are genuinely attempting to have a debate.
To get past this the role the media plays in shaping our perception of what is and isn't a conspiracy theory needs addressing.
It breaks down very simply as this. If a theory is on the Six O'Clock News or Newsnight, etc then it's deemed news. If it isn't on the news, but only appears on TV on shows such as Conspiracy Files then it's deemed a conspiracy theory. The media defines what is and is not a conspiracy theory in your mind. Again, it's subjective, and a Russian watching Russian TV will no doubt have a different view of what does or doesn't fall into the category.
If something is on Panorama, then no matter how ridiculous, it must be accepted as news. Even things such as Bin Laden's Bat Cave in the Tora Bora mountains is blithely accepted as plausible.
Likewise, no matter how reasonable a theory, if it appears not on the news, but on Conspiracy Files, etc then it's a conspiracy theory. Pre-judged forever as such.
If this Russian murder was presented on the news as just another unexplained random murder. Then three months later it appeared on TV as Conspiracy Files: Are the Russians Murdering People With Poison Gas?. It would be dismissed out of hand as crazy theorising.
That doesn't mean it isn't true, but again I can only know if I'm shown some actual evidence. A million headlines will not make me believe something if I see logical flaws with it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
You keep on making the same, old error. A 'conspiracy' is a crime. A 'conspiracy theory' is a sociological phenomenon. Until you get that distinction clear in your mind, you will make no progress. The difference between Newsnight and The Conspiracy Files is that the first is concerned with establishing what happened -- it may do that well, or it may do it badly -- whereas the second is concerned with proposing that a conspiracy has occurred -- it may do that well, or it may do it badly.
| If this Russian murder was presented on the news as just another unexplained random murder. Then three months later it appeared on TV as Conspiracy Files: Are the Russians Murdering People With Poison Gas?. It would be dismissed out of hand as crazy theorising. |
Yes, but that's not what happened, is it? Why not present a real example if, as you say, it is so rife? Answer: there isn't one, so you won't be able to. Just as no conspiracy theory has yet turned out to be true. That's the bottom line, Scotty. Forget vague jeremiads against people known to be able to keep secrets -- organised crime or the masons or the Church or the Russians or MI5 -- just come up with actual examples of what you are complaining about. Then we can kick it around. Short of that we'll have only you to kick around.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
| How do you decide who is right? |
The immediate effect of killing a man is that he is dead. What must immediately follow from that death is a secondary effect. What political use might be made of that death given that post-death conditions permit are tertiary effects.
To argue that a man was killed for a tertiary effect one first demonstrates that he wasn't killed just because he was wanted dead.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
