Print Page | Close Window

Which Conspiracy?

Printed From: WorldHistoria Forum
Forum Name: The Minefield
Forum Description: Controversial topics.
Printed Date: 27 Sep 2020 at 22:34
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 -

Topic: Which Conspiracy?
Posted By: Guest
Subject: Which Conspiracy?
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 17:10

Speaking in human terms, there have been conspiracies since the year dot, or even a few years earlier.

A conspiracy takes place when two or more people plot to do an act or acts to the detriment of another or others.

We can thank William Shakespeare for a lasting quote attributed to Julius Ceasar by Shakespeare, upon his unexpected murder by a friend. “Et tu Brutus”

The Gunpowder Plot and the Boston Tea Party are two conspiracies which resulted in major political upheaval in the respective countries. But of course there have been man, many more.

Some alleged conspiracies which have gained a certain amount of notoriety include the Illuminati.

Quote The Order of the" rel="nofollow -  was an" rel="nofollow -  secret society founded by university professor" rel="nofollow -  on 1 May 1776, in" rel="nofollow - It arose from the ranks of Masonic Lodges. Another conspiracy faction, hosted by the Roman Catholic Church, is the Priory of Sion, which, allegedly, carries out CIA like operations on behalf of the church. Both of these gained notoriety in the Dan Brown book The DaVinci Code.

A US based group, allegedly involved the formation of a New World Order, and is the Council on Foreign Relations which has been the subject of debates over sovereignty as well as the subject of numerous conspiracy theories. This is primarily due to the number of high-ranking government officials (along with world business leaders and prominent media figures) in its membership and the large number of aspects of American foreign policy that its members have been involved with. Echoing the most common accusation, the paleoconservative John Birch Society claims that the CFR is "Guilty of conspiring with others to build a one world government. Other figures like the conservative author and faith-based political theorist W. Cleon Skousen opposed the CFR vociferously.(From Wikipedia).

But the group gaining the most publicity in modern times, despite their secretive meetings, are the Bilderberg Group.

Quote About two thirds of the participants come from Europe and the rest from North America; one third from politics and government and the rest from other fields. Historically, attendee lists have been weighted toward bankers, politicians, directors of large businesses and board members from large publicly traded corporations, including" rel="nofollow - - Xerox" rel="nofollow - - Royal Dutch Shell" rel="nofollow - - Daimler . Heads of state, including former" rel="nofollow - - Juan Carlos I of Spain  and former" rel="nofollow - - Beatrix of the Netherlands , have attended meetings, a source connected to the group told" rel="nofollow -  

Partly because of its working methods to ensure strict privacy, the Bilderberg Group has been criticised for its lack of transparency and accountability. The undisclosed nature of the proceedings have given rise to several conspiracy theories. This outlook has been popular on both extremes of the" rel="nofollow - - world government  and" rel="nofollow -  

The Bilderbergs, according to popular belief, are either part of or planning a worldwide New World Order. This would mean a centralised international government effectively ruling the entire world.

The fact that so many of the Bilderbergs hold positions of extreme financial, military and/or political power gives the so-called conspiracy an edge of realism.

Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 20 Mar 2017 at 22:18
Must know David Icke, reptilian shape sifters?" rel="nofollow -

Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)

Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 22 Mar 2017 at 23:06
Sorry, I don't go in for Science Fiction of that nature, aliens, Yes-Monsters, NO.

Is there anyone else who would like to post some factual information on past  conspiracies, and their outcome?

Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 24 Mar 2017 at 23:55
Most conspiracies are given some form of credence by con-artists seeking to profit from ideas. Public perception of current affairs is often skewed according to various factors. I remember an Iranian immigrant who was in my engineering class at College in the 80's. He was convinced, completely and absolutely, that the CIA was responsible for every bad thing that happened in the world. I told him that couldn't be the case. There's only so many CIA agents, only so much money to fund their activities, and there's plenty of other agencies at work, never mind the unexpected twists of fate. He simply couldn't understand why I was saying that.

That sort of thing isn't unusual. A forklift driver I spoke to a couple of years ago, as british as you can get, had exactly the same beliefs. He could not accept that 9/11 was the work of a slightly amateurish terrorist team. No, he insisted it was CIA black ops, without any inkling of commonsense or understanding of the politics, science, and forensics of the event. Another british warehouseman the same day insisted that the Falkland War was about getting bases in Chile. Pardon me? Well, a serviceman had told him that and it was from the horses mouth as far as he was concerned, never mind the complete implausibility of that particular leg-pull and all the evidence that it was a military expedition to oust Argentine occupation of a British dependency.

There was a guy I used to work with who was really into conspiracy theory. He dismissed the media as propaganda and claimed that only the internet could be relied upon for free information, which to me is a bizarre and unsustainable view given how much rubbish and fantasy is bandied about. For instance he claimed that a video file can always be returned to the original recorded version. I tried to point out that a video file does not save any discarded or edited data and thus unless you had the original file or deleted/modified parts of it, it was not possible to do that. He found it impossible to believe me because his suspicions were more cogent to him than technical realities.

The reality isn't enough. Some people want to believe they know more than what the media tell us or perhaps more importantly, that they know more than you or I. Now I have to accept that even the western free press isn't entirely honest and objective all of the time, but then, neither are their sources. In some cases, information is withheld to prevent undesirable circumstances, or indeed discoveries that the authorities don't want scrutinised. That's normal security procedure for any country but it doesn't help convince people that the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is being related.

In the search of this kind of 'knowledge advantage' these people will believe anything if it provides an alternative explanation that puts their favourite bugbear into question. The upshot is that if you believe a certain agency is a bad thing, you tend to believe bad things about it. The islamic activists already know this - it's why they press the propaganda button at every opportunity. Hitler had asserted that the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it was true. It must be said he ought to know. However that strategy can backfire. The West never did find evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 05 Aug 2018 at 11:07
I wonder what happened to, in particular, the poison gas in Iraq.  I mean, I assume it must have been incinerated by Saddam Hussein, but there must have been an extensive effort to get rid of stuff, and there must have been documentation.  But, I guess I don't have a need to know, just a curiosity.

Part of the reason why the West thought Saddam Hussein had WMDs (besides the fact he used to have them), was because the Hussein regime was acting towards the Iranians like they had them, in order to deter Iran.  So, to one group Saddam Hussein was saying he didn't have anything (the UN), and out of the other side of his mouth, he was saying that he _did_ have WMDs (to Iran).  You might say he was doing a balancing act, and feel off (and so did US).

There is an element that if someone believes in a conspiracy, and you disagree, then all of sudden, you are suspect too.  Or you are an ignorant dupe.  I generally don't believe in conspiracy theories, because of the grand stupidity of the human race (my self included).  That does not mean that there are not conspiracies, but I do believe that three men can keep a secret if two men are dead.  Or as Virgil put it, "rumor flies."  (rumor is a lesser goddess, and not a favorable one, but she and her message 'fly' (spread like wildfire)).  Of course, it is not _exactly_ a secret if the story is on page 12, nor is it exactly a secret if the subject of the news attention can just delay analysis until the news cycle takes it out of the public's attention.  Of course, a tacit understanding is not a conspiracy, but it is a sure sign and symptom of propaganda.  The term, "propaganda" is not necessarily negative, although it is often construed so by people, ironically, knee deep in propaganda.  The term, "propaganda" is originally a Catholic term, mean that which propagates the faith.  Of course, now propaganda is what "the other guy" does.

Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2018 at 12:33

Just because you're paranoid it doesn't mean that someone isn't after you.

Had your house and car debugged lately?

Had an expert check your electronic devices to ensure that your email etc aren't being intercepted?

Do you think that those satellite cameras are only concentrated on the enemy?

For all that you know, you could be the subject of a thick file in someone's office.

The fact is, we just don't know, unless of course we're part of a conspiracy ourselves.

Are you? 

Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 06 Aug 2018 at 23:00

I don't know. Are you?


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2018 at 09:00
I wouldn't be a member of any party that would have me (that at least is what my friend Robin says.)

There are two particular theories of existence.
To be is to perceive (Esse est percipere),  So for Hegel being at the top of the hierarchy of knowledge means in a sense you are more real.  But the problem is, when you get more complex, things on lower 'levels' do not stay transparent.  In looking at the forest, one can loose sight of the trees.  This is where the German philosopher Martin Heidegger talks about unconcealment and concealment, by revealing something one takes one's attention away from something else.

To be is to be perceived (esse est percipi).  This is bishop Berkeley, who in answer to the question, 'when everybody leaves the room, how do you know it still exists?'  (It still exists because God is watching.).  So that implies that if you are being watched, you have more existence!  You should be happy that the government is spying on you, it means you are important!  The fact of the matter, is that most of us are pretty boring, but admitting that and admitting that the government really doesn't care is not acceptable.  I mean, which is worse, a government that is largely indifferent to us, or a government that is largely malefic?  Some people would prefer the later to the former.

Of course, it is possible to go "to be is to perceive and be perceived" (esse est percipere et percipi.).

Now you may think this is all gobbleygook, but just imagine what THEY, the supercomputers, think of all this.  I mean, if they're monitoring us, they must be looking over our should RIGHT NOW.  Personally, I don't think that most of us are monitored to anything vaguely resembling depth, but if we were, that would mean that we are in the flow of the conversation of what immediately needs attention, and that would give us some personal importance either to be nourished or discouraged.  But, in either case, I don't think the Masons or anyone else will come knocking on our door.  But yes, it could happen and it has happened and it will happen again, not necessarily to you, but to somebody.

Let me give you a concrete example, I went to college at Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington.  One day Neil Manturoff, from Palo Alto California, was called out of the lunch room by some concerned men, it didn't take Neil long to come back, what did the men want?  Neil knew some Russian, and they wanted to know if he could translate 'technical' Russian.  He said no, they let him go back to his friends.

That night we heard about Chernobyl on the news.  The authorities were monitoring radio traffic out of Ukraine, and they didn't have enough experts to go around.  Down the road from Walla Walla, there was the TriCities, and there at Richmond was the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, one of the three foremost government sites for development of nuclear weapons, and nuclear energy.  And the Nuclear experts an hour away, came begging to a Freshmen (and presumably others at a Liberal arts school), hat in hand, asking a kid of he could please translate the radio broadcast of firefighters and helicopter pilots who were fighting the radioactive meltdown of a sodium reactor at Chernobyl.  These pilots and firefighters were killing themselves fighting against a fire at full-blown nuclear meltdown, and nobody at the American government knew how serious it was.  Their nuclear experts didn't know Russian, and their Russian experts didn't know nuclear physics, and they didn't have enough of either to get them all in the same room in the places they needed to go.

I think if Neil gave it the old college try, he could have written his own ticket.  I don't believe that if there was an overarching conspiracy, that they would go to a college Freshman in order to deal with something so obviously top secret.  I think stupidity, ignorance, arrogance and indifference go most of the way in explain how people are.  We tend to muddle through.  Any moron could tell the Soviets that a sodium cooled nuclear reactor was asking for trouble.  But, you know, maybe that same hubris explains why there are dead zones in the former Soviet Union.  People can be very clever, very smart on one level, and on another level, drop their pants and yell, 'kick me!'

Have you ever seen the movie, 'the Good Shepherd,' with Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie?  It deals with the Bay of Pig fiasco, and how it may have happened.  It is very human, good movie.

Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2018 at 14:38
Originally posted by caldrail caldrail wrote:

I don't know. Are you?

Not consciously anyway.

But, do you want to talk about the Bilderbergs, the Knights of Malta or some other often spoken about conspiracists?

Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 07 Aug 2018 at 23:03
No, because it's largely smelly bovine faecal matter. Whether these secret organisations exist is one thing, but notice how people readily believe that they do, or that people encode secret knowledge in structures (why would anyone do that? It's ridiculous) or bury treasure in remote locations (again, why would anyone bury their wealth where they can't spend it?).
There is a part of human behaviour that accepts social superiors - our pecking orders, part of everyday life and one you can experience just popping down to the shops. Conspiracy theorries, aside from evidence of paranoia, are extensions of these instincts in that we assume these higher powers exist - in other words, a manifestation of religion but with deities replaced by secret organisations that have powers beyond governments. After all, can you imagine the leader of a nation recently voted in in by his population receiving a visit from a bunch of suits telling him to do as he's told or bad things will happen? There you have it. Proof the USA exists. But joking aside, the belief in bad powers such as demons or devils is intrinsically no different to the malignant organisations of conspiracy theory.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2018 at 07:29
That is not true, cow pies usually don't smell, at least not as much as carnivore droppings.  There are all kinds of conspiracies, there is just no (imho) overarching conspiracy.

When the city council does not allow a planned street to go through on unoccupied land to a major thoroughfare, and it just 'so happens' that a city council member lives on that street (and probably does not want busy traffic, that is pretty close to a conspiracy, or at least a "You scratch my back, and I will (in the future) scratch yours.  It is corruption, but it is the way the system works, whether it should or not.

Or how else are you going to explain America's adherence to tradition 'English' measurements?  It protects the US car companies.  I would consider that a conspiracy, but it is not like anyone does not know about it.

Buried treasure is often called a hoard, they are more common during times of unrest, both because there is more motive to hide things from the barbarians, also in times of unrest, they are less likely to be recovered, since the hoarder might just be traveling through an area and have to quickly hide it (but not able to get back to recover it).  Or the hoarder might have an early demise.  Hoards are not usually found in the remains of houses or other ancient buildings, but out in the relative open.  Although some archaeologists would consider anything and everything surviving to be 'archaeological.'  Of course, we are here talking about something like ancient or medieval times, modern hoards are a lot less common, (I believe).  But, the movie, "the Good, the Bad and the Ugly," is essentially a rivalry that ends as the discovery of buried treasure, a hoard.  Caldrail, you're not saying that Sergio Leone's movies aren't realistic, are you?  Wink

The movie I suggested has something like the Skull and Bones society as part of the story.

Posted By: caldrail
Date Posted: 08 Aug 2018 at 23:21
A buried hoard is one thing. The point of it is that the owners intend to retrieve their stashed loot at some point though as archaeology shows, they don't always manage to. But the concept of burying treasure to keep it safe can be stretched to breaking point. In fact, the genre of buried pirate treasure comes not from established behaviour, but a scheme by William Kid to do a deal with the British before they hung him, claiming he had buried a stash of treasure and if they agreed to let him free, he would show them where it was. The British hung him.
Thee was an incident decades ago where an American believed he had found a genuine treasure map. He calculated the island to be one belonging to North Vietnam, who denied him permission to go there and advised strongly he should not attempt it. Nonetheless, with a British associate, he did, and was interred by the North Vietnamese government. The Briton got released quickly via Foreign Office diplomacy, the American stayed in jail for some time. No treasure was found, either by the treasure seekers or the North Vietnamese. Or for that  matter, has any treasure emerged from Oak Island, enmeshed in conspiracy regarding the supposed final resting place of Templar wealth desite the complete lack of evidence for it.
The world according to Clint Eastwood? How dare you mock my guru. I base my life on the teachings of Manco, Colonel Mortimer, and assorted western villains. I just wish there was a splash of Spanish guitar every time I find myself challenged.


Posted By: franciscosan
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2018 at 07:55
Believe they think the Copper Scroll (Dead Sea Scrolls) to be a 'treasure' map, of course, they don't know the reference points anymore.

Jean Baudrillard considered Sergio Leone to be the first postmodern director.  Of course, Leone ripped off Kurosawa's 'Yojimbo' in making 'Fistful of Dollars' _and_ in a court case had to give Kurosawa the rights to 'Fistful' for all of Asia.

Just because you don't find anything, doesn't mean it is not there, especially with the cloaking technology the CIA has....  And if it is that well hidden, then it must truly be something special.

"Why are you carrying that stick?"
"To keep away the tigers."
"There are no tigers around here."
"See, it is working."

Posted By: Guest
Date Posted: 11 Aug 2018 at 12:40
I think one would have to be niave to think that there were no conspiracies taking place.

Posted By: Vanuatu
Date Posted: 12 Aug 2018 at 00:29
Quote These pilots and firefighters were killing themselves fighting against a fire at full-blown nuclear meltdown, and nobody at the American government knew how serious it was.  Their nuclear experts didn't know Russian, and their Russian experts didn't know nuclear physics, and they didn't have enough of either to get them all in the same room in the places they needed to go.

hi fransicosan,
Russians are good at keeping secrets! Many successful conspiracies in the US among Soviet agents living as US citizens some times as long as 4 decades operating without detection in high level jobs.
Secrets can be kept so many examples, politics, hollywood, church or scientists-Manhattan Project!
The cultural and learning centers of the world were places to keep these secrets that became more accessible over time.
Criminal conspiracy is subjective, some people love Guy Fawkes and some people end up in Russia for telling secrets. And no thanks to government scrutiny glad that YOU appreciate it but I would gladly go off the grid!Wink

Still round the corner there may wait, a new road or a secret gate. (J. R. R. Tolkien)

Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 -
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. -