What is more incorrect? Believing everything is a conspiracy or believing conspiracies never happen?

Unfortunately, we have to accept that there is a lot of nasty, greedy people in the world who will do whatever it takes to achieve their own aims. They occupy positions of power in government and in the mainstream media in the UK. They manipulate the people to such an extent that many no longer believe their own senses anymore, but instead rely on what they're told 'officially'.

As soon as a news event is broadcast, i tend to look at whether or not it serves an agenda. If i can't see anything that an event could be used for politically, then i consider the event a true one. If i see a political agenda that the event could serve, i automatically become suspicious and investigate it further.

Logically, it is more wrong to believe everything is a conspiracy.

There are a limited, but undefined number of conspiracies. There are a near infinite number of things in "everything". Therefore, if one thought "everything" was a conspiracy, the number of discrete incorrect beliefs approximates infinity. However, if one thought nothing was a conspiracy, the number of discrete incorrect beliefs is limited to the number of actual conspiracies.

This is, by definition, less than "everything", as "everything" encompasses the set of conspiracy and non-conspiracy.

My issue is, what's a conspiracy? Given the posts here, it looks like the definition includes "I didn't know this...it's a conspiracy!" when in fact it's more something you've never run across that's actually known and fairly well documented. I'd call that "an opportunity to learn something new" rather than "a conspiracy" but that's just me.

The reason I though the question was an absurdity is that there are always conspiracies of some sort everywhere at all times in varying degrees of nefariousness. From note passing and illicit contracts to international espionage and treaty violation, the mere existence of laws practically requires them.

As they say, rules are made to be broken. The only truly incorrect position is to deny the existence of any wrongdoing at any given time.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Please see the closely related thread at:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Also known as "Half the Republicans you know are Crazy".

reply to post by Bedlam


Why not "this is a suspected conspiracy"?

Is that more accurate?

reply to post by greencmp


Spam.

Why are you spamming this thread? You bored?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

I mean if some large number of elected official claims they want to end national sovereignty and usher in world governance, is it Ok to believe in a coming world government?

That's where I'd say personal judgement comes in for fact from nonsense. Heck, I believe UFO's exist. I can't be 100% certain beyond the literal 'Unidentified' part of it, but enough totally unrelated sources for what I think is credible to believe, seem to match for the overall phenomenon. Others think that's nonsense for precisely the same reason as they'd describe it. So...uncertain until ET stops phoning home and phones a live Cable TV news broadcast to say "Hi Earthlings!".

Who knows..these days? stranger things have happened.

(Open minded...but still open to being wrong, since it sure isn't a proven thing.)

Conspiracy theory was a phrase coined by the CIA post JFK assassination to discredit those who questioned the official story.

So: Do secret plans exist, or is the belief in secret plans foolish?

Are there plans that occur outside the public eye or are all plans concerning all humans public?

Are all plans public AND vetted by the press, or are some plans private?

Are some plans fake, covers, for other plans?

Remove the CIA mind game term and replace it with "plans" and see how you react to the questions posed by the OP.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


At this stage I am more inclined to believe there are a heck of a lot more conspiracies than most people think and you are a naive fool if you do not do a mental check on 'Who gains power' and 'Follow the Money' when confronted with new information.

This Article written by the Director-General of the World Trade Organization shows there has been a 'conspiracy' for close to a hundred years.
Pascal Lamy: Whither Globalization?

....climate change negotiations are not just about the global environment but global economics as well — the way that technology, costs and growth are to be distributed and shared....

Can we balance the need for a sustainable planet with the need to provide billions with decent living standards? Can we do that without questioning radically the Western way of life?....

so far, we have largely failed to articulate a clear and compelling vision of why a new global order matters — and where the world should be headed. Half a century ago, those who designed the post-war system — the United Nations, the Bretton Woods system, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) — were deeply influenced by the shared lessons of history.

All had lived through the chaos of the 1930s — when turning inwards led to economic depression, nationalism and war. All, including the defeated powers, agreed that the road to peace lay with building a new international order — and an approach to international relations that questioned the Westphalian, sacrosanct principle of sovereignty ....

It shows the efforts to weaken/bankrupt the USA and to destroy the US Constitution were deliberate.

This well researched article on the grab for control of the food supply details a seventy year 'Conspiracy'

....With World War II, America saw its agricultural system intentionally subjected to political policies that radically transformed it. What was once a decentralized system that provided a means to self sufficiency and independence for tens of millions of farmers was purposefully centralized into a capital-intensive fossil-fuel dependent system that restructured local economies, permitting their wealth to be extracted by what are now transnational cartels dedicated to the so-called free market and globalized trade at all costs.

This transformation was the result of organized plans developed by a group of highly powerful -- though unelected -- financial and industrial executives who wanted to drastically change agricultural practices in the US to better serve their collective corporate financial agenda. This group, called the Committee for Economic Development, was officially established in 1942 as a sister organization to the Council on Foreign Relations. CED has influenced US domestic policies in much the same way that the CFR has influenced the nation's foreign policies....

Composed of chief executive officers and chairmen from the federal reserve, the banking industry, private equity firms, insurance companies, railroads, information technology firms, publishing companies, pharmaceutical companies, the oil and automotive industries, meat packing companies, retailers and assisted by university economists -- representatives from every sector of the economy with the key exception of farmers themselves -- CED determined that the problem with American agriculture was that there were too many farmers. But the CED had a "solution": millions of farmers would just have to be eliminated.

In a number of reports written over a few decades, CED recommended that farming "resources" -- that is, farmers -- be reduced. In its 1945 report "Agriculture in an Expanding Economy," CED complained that "the excess of human resources engaged in agriculture is probably the most important single factor in the "farm problem'" and describes how agricultural production can be better organized to fit to business needs.[2] A report published in 1962 entitled "An Adaptive Program for Agriculture"[3] is even more blunt in its objectives, leading Time Magazine to remark that CED had a plan for fixing the identified problem: "The essential fact to be faced, argues CED, is that with present high levels farm productivity, more labor is involved in agriculture production that the market demands -- in short, there are too may farmers. To solve that problem, CED offers a program with three main prongs."[4]

Some of the report's authors would go on to work in government to implement CED's policy recommendations. Over the next five years, the political and economic establishment ensured the reduction of "excess human resources engaged in agriculture" by two million, or by 1/3 of their previous number....

The human cost of CED's plans were exacting and enormous.

CED's plans resulted in widespread social upheaval throughout rural America, ripping apart the fabric of its society destroying its local economies. They also resulted in a massive migration to larger cities. The loss of a farm also means the loss of identity, and many farmers' lives ended in suicide [6], not unlike farmers in India today who have been tricked into debt and desperation and can see no other way out.[7]

CED members were influential in business, government, and agricultural colleges, and their outlook shaped both governmental policies and what farmers were taught....

This shows the destruction of American society, individualism and independence was deliberate. It shows industrialists/bankers wanted cheap plentiful labor for their factories and the US government delivered.

Just those two articles provide the background information on a lot of 'Conspiracies' that actually do exist.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Have you gone to this site before
usahitman.com...

Gullible people believe everything is real, from our birth we're told Santa is real. From our parents which is
obviously not true, sorry to expose that fact to those who still believe
Then we go to school and are indoctrinated into a system that only upon leaving do you realise that a lot of what you learned is outdated or incorrect.
There are conspiracies everywhere, it is how we are controlled and manipulated, but having said that to believe everything is a conspiracy is a one way ticket to a padded cell.
Most people who are nice and comfy in the system watching X Factor and Laughing out loud on facebook dont believe in conspiracies, but they'll be the ones who will suffer most when their world comes crashing down.
As I said earlier conspiracies exist, but if you think to much into it and dont live your life will send you off your head.

Is this a serious discussion about whether there are conspiracies? I didn't think that was the case.

I thought the premise was to make fun of both believers of virginal utopianism and hysterical catastrophists alike.

Wrabbit2000
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

I mean if some large number of elected official claims they want to end national sovereignty and usher in world governance, is it Ok to believe in a coming world government?

That's where I'd say personal judgement comes in for fact from nonsense. Heck, I believe UFO's exist. I can't be 100% certain beyond the literal 'Unidentified' part of it, but enough totally unrelated sources for what I think is credible to believe, seem to match for the overall phenomenon. Others think that's nonsense for precisely the same reason as they'd describe it. So...uncertain until ET stops phoning home and phones a live Cable TV news broadcast to say "Hi Earthlings!".

Who knows..these days? stranger things have happened.

(Open minded...but still open to being wrong, since it sure isn't a proven thing.)

So if elected officials claim verbally or in print about global governance and end to borders is that nonsense or fact?

If the governed makes such major decisions like policies of national sovereignty and a one world currency without the consent of the governed is that not illegal? ( Example: Logan act and the Bilderberg club).

We can then conclude that there is a conspiracy by elected officials to illegally decide policy for a global government and a global currency without the consent or scrutiny of the governed.

Trillium
reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

 

Have you gone to this site before
usahitman.com...

no I haven't.

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman

Well, certainly not based solely on our discussion here of course, but...

We can then conclude that there is a conspiracy by elected officials to illegally decide policy for a global government and a global currency without the consent or scrutiny of the governed.

Yeah. I'd say that's become fairly clear here in recent months if not years. It's clarified more here recently, may be the better way of putting it. The fact the 'global village' concept is being pursued with Gusto doesn't seem a major question though.

At this rate, in fact, Hillary could be running for Governor of the American State not President of an independent nation in terms of how politicians see it, anyway. Americans won't quite agree...but those Politicians have some wacky ideas, don't they?

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Why does it have to be either or? Why can't we determine what is and what isn't, based on our own experiences, our own intuition, our own intelligence? Why does it always have to come down to A or B...

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


Lets just say some Conspiracies are Real , but not Everything is a Conspiracy ....................########## ...

Signed , The Sometimes Fence Sitter...........

greencmp
Voluntarily excised by request from OP.

edit on 7-10-2013 by greencmp because: (no reason given)

Access Denied .

reply to post by John_Rodger_Cornman


There are many examples of conspiracies throughout all of human history. It would be naive of us to believe that there are no conspirators in government today. Many human beings have always love, and will always love, power.

Of course, you should temper your hunt for conspiracies with reason. It would just drive you insane if you start seeing a conspiracy in everything.

I think if you'd say 'conspiracies are everywhere' rather than 'everything is a conspiracy' (not sure what that means) then I'd say there's nothing wrong with thinking that. I'm sure in every large company or organisation, and virtually every government in the world there will be someone covering something up. I work in the care industry, it's depressingly frequent even in an industry where a caring nature is meant to be highly regarded, but it makes no difference once you start climbing the ladder.