Why overarching conspiracy theories are generally crap

Not all conspiracies are crap. Some maybe influenced by lobbyist for an agenda, but very few. I enjoy conspiracies for entertainment, but I don't take them all too seriously.

a reply to: ZeuZZ

Conspiracy researchers often attempt to take the various threads and link them together to show that there is a single grand plotline. Similar to Protoplasmic's suspicion of a multigenerational agenda to achieve a one world empire ("All Roads to Lead to Rome"). However, in a way, it's worse. It's a series of conspiracies, conflicting agendas, and petty jealousies, all building upon, feeding upon, and excreting into an unending web of drek that people wade through every day and call it Life.

a reply to: Xtraeme

Howdy old friend

A lot of conspiracy theorists haven't been in a staff meeting with more than five people present have they? A group of people will always disagree on some things and profoundly so on others. Yet, to some, it's conceivable that 1000s of diverse people across time and cultures can stick to some nefarious plan.

It seems that humanity in all its complexity is replaced with some fictional narrative and clichéd characters.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Well fancy seeing you in these parts. =) *man hug* Long time K! If people are interested in real modern conspiracies. My god they should look in to bitcoin. The amount of crazy, conspiratorial plans people come up with to get people's virtual dough is astonishing. I have never seen anything like it to be honest (and ohh do I know my conspiracies!). At some point I'll have to write something up and share it, because the sheer amount of planning involved with some of these schemes is ATS nirvana.

For the uninitiated, here is a fun sampler. Don't get Zhou Tonged.

a reply to: Xtraeme

If anyone can untangle the shadiness of bitcoin politics, greed and criminality it's surely you. The number of interested parties and agendas playing in that pool is startling and daunting.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Not sure anyone can figure this one out K.

After a couple talks I've had with WSJ and Reuters reporters; informants employed at a company that won't be named; and moguls after the same thing as myself. It is still a big black impenetrable box. The story is like something out a Neal Stephenson novel. Why oh why didn't I just stick with UFOs? =) Data fusion stuff is so much more straightforward.

A lot of conspiracy theorists haven't been in a staff meeting with more than five people present have they? A group of people will always disagree on some things and profoundly so on others. Yet, to some, it's conceivable that 1000s of diverse people across time and cultures can stick to some nefarious plan.

You got that right. The first time I heard McKenna's talk, poopooing grand-conspiracy theories. I remember thinking he borrowed the idea from sociologist Zygmunt Bauman.

No one is control. Some people have more power, but that doesn't last forever. I gotta admit though I like McKenna's positive spin on it.

Anyhow you'll have to tell me what you've been up to. Next time make your break shorter. =) ATS wasn't worth visiting without you around.

a reply to: ZeuZZ

Smartest thing I've ever heard on the subject, and if you read up on what bigwigs say about the Internet, they pretty much say the exact same thing.

This is why there is a push to regulate the Internet and shut down Bitcoins, and the like. Imagine if Jesse Ventura was a government-approved conspiracy theorist and this website was government-approved, that is basically what life was like in the early 90's and 80's.

But A.T.S. and Jesse Ventura mean something independent of any power plays because they are rogue elements, if you will, they are independent, self-motivated leaders in the Information Age of decentralization.

I feel like that is a real picture of Ventura on the right, not one that was approved by various multi-media and government agencies, but by him.

I have a voice on this site and it is because I have access to information and a neutral platform on which to speak, as well as a mind to process that information. Any one of those - access to information, a neutral platform - were not present before the Internet.

With the Internet, the content of what someone says rises to the top based on how true and accurate and beneficial it is. Who that person is could remain anonymous and even irrelevant the whole time. This means that you get the best stuff at the top, not the most popular person, and more than likely, everyone contributed a piece or two.