Usage of the term "Conspiracy Theory"

Thats pure hyperbole. There are plenty of "corporations" who fall outside that characterization- ie; Patagonia- they may not rule the World but they also do not fit your categorization.

Patagonia commits 1% of their total sales or 10% of their profit, whichever is more, to environmental groups.
Content from External Source
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patagonia_(clothing)

Moreover, shareholders are not without opinions and their activism can effect change as well:

http://www.domini.com/shareholder-advocacy/index.htm

Corporations are reflections of society. The idea of Corporate Social Responsibility is gaining momentum and not simply a facade:

Even though the debate is not new, the growing trend in favor of corporate social responsibility over merely adherence to fiduciary duties is gaining speed. For example, David Bach and David Bruce Allen in their 2010 What Every CEO Needs to Know About Nonmarket Strategy offer that non-market strategy recognizes that corporations are social and political entities, not just economic agents.
Content from External Source
http://almostdailybrett.wordpress.c...nsibility-vs-corporate-social-responsibility/

http://www.sustainableindustries.com/

The exceptions don't discount the rule and I don't buy at all that corporations are a reflection of society. I'm all for a more human face, and whatever social responsibility that can come about, but it is in no way more than a blip in overall corporate culture.
The massive blind and bloated beast of consumerism was not a natural evolution of the species. It was a mutation engineered by the corporate elite to further their own ends at the expense and disregard of the general public.
 
The exceptions don't discount the rule and I don't buy at all that corporations are a reflection of society. I'm all for a more human face, and whatever social responsibility that can come about, but it is in no way more than a blip in overall corporate culture.
The massive blind and bloated beast of consumerism was not a natural evolution of the species. It was a mutation engineered by the corporate elite to further their own ends at the expense and disregard of the general public.

Corporations do reflect the society in which they operate. Just look at all the regulations- environmental, labor etc now as opposed to 100yrs ago- Those are a direct result of the society around them dictating the environment in which they operate...they do not operate in a vaccum.

"consumerism" is as old as the as the first person who had extra meat or wheat or fire to trade for a bauble from distant lands. Its "bloated" now because the system created a great deal of expendable income for the masses with which to consume. Individual humans have as much responsibility for its bloat as corporations. Just blaming corporations for all the evils in the World seems a cop out
 
I base it on the ability of the elite to wall off themselves off from experience of the poor. In earlier times, even though there was great disparity, many of the ills of the peasants were also experienced by the elite as well. Now, you can find people in the same dire straights as the meanest medival mudhut in a turnip field, but the 1% today enjoy advantages that are stratospherically beyond the Sun King and any of his ilk.
So it's based on advances technology? The elite have always enjoyed the best food had access to the best educations and employed the best technology. If it's based on advances in technology does that put the modern elite miles ahead of people like Andrew Carnegie or Cornelius Vanderbilt? If it is based on the benefits of medicine, technology and education. Doesn't that make your average North American or European part of the elite? They are miles ahead of your average Yanomami or Kayan. There need to be some kind of metric involved.
 
Basically a tendency to ascribe a powerful conspiring force ("the elite") as the deliberate prime mover in most major world events, as opposed to the belief that most world events are complex and emergent, and often essentially random and unpredictable.

For example, a conspiracy theorist might think that the Russian Revolution of 1905 was deliberately engineered by a few bankers in New York, rather than the broader set of causes with long historical roots.
That is an unnecessary polemic. Objective pursuit of truth should allow for nuances and for truth to pop up at varying points in a spectrum. Beware the fallacy of mutual exclusion.
 
Or, Mick, do you have a bias for debunkery and disconnecting dots? If so, that is fine but perhaps that is best stated in a disclaimer. Thanks for the work you do on your site.
 
Just look at all the regulations- environmental, labor etc now as opposed to 100yrs ago- Those are a direct result of the society around them dictating the environment in which they operate...they do not operate in a vaccum.

Are you kidding me? I don't know what planet you live on but right now on Planet Earth there is more corporate exploitation of human beings and corporate degradation of the environment than at any point in human history.
 
But what do you think about the term "conspiracy theory"?

I think it's a loaded term that is sometimes appropriate and often abused; how you use the term and what ideas and people you apply the term to will generally tell more about you than it will about the people or ideas. So take care because it cuts both ways.

Embrace it, or choose a different phrase?

Neither, I try not to deliberately stereotype, pigeonhole, and stigmatize ...unless of course someone fits the bill to the T as the quintessential embodiment of a walking manifestation of some cliche or other and I just can't help myself:D


How do you differentiate your world view from the sheeple and the useful idiots like myself?

I find that those kind of distinctions are usually indicative of a rigid cult like mindset that ultimately categorizes individuals in either one of two groups - the initiated or the profane - it's blatant nonsense because the neither the world or people are quite that simple.
 
Corporations do reflect the society in which they operate. Just look at all the regulations- environmental, labor etc now as opposed to 100yrs ago- Those are a direct result of the society around them dictating the environment in which they operate...they do not operate in a vaccum.

This doesn't follow. Those regulations were put into effect to temper corporations who fought them every step of the way.

"consumerism" is as old as the as the first person who had extra meat or wheat or fire to trade for a bauble from distant lands.

You are mistaking consuming with consumerism. They are not the same thing.

Its "bloated" now because the system created a great deal of expendable income for the masses with which to consume. Individual humans have as much responsibility for its bloat as corporations. Just blaming corporations for all the evils in the World seems a cop out.

No. A thousand times no. I am a huge fan of personal responsibility and I have fought this consumerism virus all my life on a personal level. But as sickened as I am by the bloated carcasses of the fat and unhappy souls slouching towards idiocracy, I understand the the poor fucks were gamed, manipulated, and literally trained to be such mindless consumerbots.

If you do a poll of the most evil man of the 20th century, of course the usual suspects will dominate, but my vote goes to a guy most folks have never even heard of, the father of public relations, Eddie Bernays.

Anyone truly interested in why cters think the world is being manipulated by a conscienceless elite would do well to watch this doc in full. (This is the full four parts, but its out there in individual bits too.) Yeah, it's long, but it is well done, it isn't at all the usual nwo type fare, and it is well worth the time spent if you want some insight into why the modern world is as fucked up as it is and why it didn't just emerge.

It was planned, it was not a secret, and it worked like a dream. Or a nightmare, depending on your pov. Unless you factor this part of the equation into the mix, you cannot intelligibly argue against the idea of elites seeking to control the masses.

 
So it's based on advances technology? The elite have always enjoyed the best food had access to the best educations and employed the best technology. If it's based on advances in technology does that put the modern elite miles ahead of people like Andrew Carnegie or Cornelius Vanderbilt? If it is based on the benefits of medicine, technology and education. Doesn't that make your average North American or European part of the elite? They are miles ahead of your average Yanomami or Kayan. There need to be some kind of metric involved.

Fine. Come up with that metric and get back to us and we'll take it for a spin.
 
I don't agree with you.

Take farming for instance. Modern farming in the first world is no where as hard on the environment as 'traditional' agriculture is. In the 30s, we had a Dust Bowl, today we have a major drought in the same area and no Dust Bowl.

Where are the smoke filled skies of the coal fired plants of the late 1800s?

The worst abusers of the environment is state owned industries. When Pemex's Ixtoc well blew out in 1979, the beaches from the Yucatan to just south of Corpus Christi were slathered in heavy weathered oil. The Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle was almost killed off. The fishing and tourism industry was devastated (It took most of year to kill the well). Pemex paid NOTHING on either side of the border for the environmental destruction and clean up and for the loss of incomes. When BP's well blew out they spent millions on clean up, remeditation and pay outs.
 


Curtis has made some thoroughly thought-provoking documentaries, but this is probably his second best (I think 'The Power of Nightmares' was marginally better, and 'All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace' is up there too.

I would recommend all the debunkers and meta-members who haven't seen those 3 BBC documentaries to give them a view.
 
conspiring force ("the elite") as the deliberate prime mover in most major world events

I've never seen a conspiring force as the prime mover but conspiring forces do try their best to instigate, provoke, agitate, manipulate and then try to steer the wave. If you have vast resources at your disposal then I think you would probably be more than tempted to play master of the universe as well. To develop a vision for the world and to put all your considerable power into attempting to realize that vision. Do you really deny that some people are doing exactly this?
 
I don't know what the emergent world view is because its never expressed as a coherent pov. All I really see is deconstruction of cartoon strawmen versions of ct stuff. Actually, I would love to have someone step up and explain this emergent view. I know what you folks don't think is going on re the elite and hidden hands, et. al. But if that is not taking place, what IS taking place. I think that would be a fascinating discussion and if it were to take place I am guessing that there would be more overlap than the artificial dichotomy of the labels would suggest.
'

You mention "hidden hands", emergence is somewhat related to a similar sounding term: "invisible hand". But that's a rather limited market term. Emergence has many aspects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergence_in_humanity

But basically it's that that individual events and overall trends are generally not planned, because it's impossible to plan things in such large and chaotic systems.
 
I've never seen a conspiring force as the prime mover but conspiring forces do try their best to instigate, provoke, agitate, manipulate and then try to steer the wave. If you have vast resources at your disposal then I think you would probably be more than tempted to play master of the universe as well. To develop a vision for the world and to put all your considerable power into attempting to realize that vision. Do you really deny that some people are doing exactly this?

Clearly people try to influence world events. The Koch brothers for example, or the Dalai Lama, or Bill Gates, or Howard Zinn. The question here is exactly how much effect do they have in how things turn out the way they want them to, how much of their efforts are secret, and how much are done in conjunction with other people (a conspiracy).
 
Curtis has made some thoroughly thought-provoking documentaries, but this is probably his second best (I think 'The Power of Nightmares' was marginally better, and 'All Watched Over By Machines of Loving Grace' is up there too.

I would recommend all the debunkers and meta-members who haven't seen those 3 BBC documentaries to give them a view.

They are all good, and you have to put the Trap in there, but this one is most pertinent to what we are speaking of so maybe you can say something about it beyond, hey, go watch the other ones. ;)
 
'

You mention "hidden hands", emergence is somewhat related to a similar sounding term: "invisible hand". But that's a rather limited market term. Emergence has many aspects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergence_in_humanity

But basically it's that that individual events and overall trends are generally not planned, because it's impossible to plan things in such large and chaotic systems.

Yes, there's not getting around chaos, which is why the whole climate change bit is not panning out and why the models aren't workable and shouldn't drive policy.

But again, this goes back to what I was on about with the misunderstanding of what is meant by planning. It's not a matter of nailing all aspects of some meticulously crafted unberplan or any of that cartoon nwo stuff. That's a meme meant to distract from the real deal, a deal which isn't anywhere as neat an unified as the cartoon Dr. Evil version.
 
They are all good, and you have to put the Trap in there, but this one is most pertinent to what we are speaking of so maybe you can say something about it beyond, hey, go watch the other ones. ;)
I could, but it's heading towards 4am, and I'd prefer to have had less beers before yapping about why I think it's essential viewing for anyone who wants to understand how Freud and his nephew's ideas and conceits have impacted on life today.
 
SR1419 said:
Corporations do reflect the society in which they operate. Just look at all the regulations- environmental, labor etc now as opposed to 100yrs ago- Those are a direct result of the society around them dictating the environment in which they operate...they do not operate in a vaccum.

This doesn't follow. Those regulations were put into effect to temper corporations who fought them every step of the way.

Do you think it was better when there were no regulations and corporations could pollute and exploit the environment, work children and adults to the bone etc?
 
JRBids said:
I fail to see how coincidence is the opposite of conspiracy.

Ok, how about you explain this "emergentist" worldview Mick has juxtaposed against the "designed" pov of the cter.

An action takes place and sets off a reaction that causes another reaction etc until the end result. In a designed/conspiracy point of view the ultimate result is decided at the beginning.

I am leave the house at 4PM get in my car and drive down the road, swerve to avoid a dog and hit an oncoming vehicle and kill someone. I do not plan to kill someone when I Lwave the house..
 
Clearly people try to influence world events. The Koch brothers for example, or the Dalai Lama, or Bill Gates, or Howard Zinn. The question here is exactly how much effect do they have in how things turn out the way they want them to, how much of their efforts are secret, and how much are done in conjunction with other people (a conspiracy).

Right. This is why I bridle at the conspiracy theory bit. So much of the social engineering that was planned was done so out in plain site and published for all to see. The eugenics "secret plan" was vigorously debated and advocated in the pages of the NYT and other organs of the press.

But of course, there are layers to the cake as well, and connections that aren't apparent to the casual glance (Like Dalai Lama and the CIA) so there certainly are conspiracies and always have been. Secret societies, too. They compete, they collaborate, and they shift alliances, and they do so in secret. But it's all in flux and it's not a monoplan or static.
 
How come conspiracy theorists never claim there is a conspiracy around something good that happens?
 
An action takes place and sets off a reaction that causes another reaction etc until the end result. In a designed/conspiracy point of view the ultimate result is decided at the beginning.

I am leave the house at 4PM get in my car and drive down the road, swerve to avoid a dog and hit an oncoming vehicle and kill someone. I do not plan to kill someone when I Lwave the house..

That's not exactly a worldview, so as far as I can see the pont of divergence is the misunderstanding of what cters mean by planned or designed. It doesn't mean that unforseen events don't happen or that plans go awry. You didn't plan to kill someone, but you did plan to arrive at your destination.
 
How come conspiracy theorists never claim there is a conspiracy around something good that happens?

They do in a sense, eg, when a successful solution to a crisis happens, they can say the crisis was engineered so the solution would be praised.
That view probably comes from the apocalyptic christian anti-christ myth from Revelations, and how he will be praised and given power for providing solutions to strife in the world.
 
That's not exactly a worldview, so as far as I can see the pont of divergence is the misunderstanding of what cters mean by planned or designed. It doesn't mean that unforseen events don't happen or that plans go awry. You didn't plan to kill someone, but you did plan to arrive at your destination.

So change the example to be a worldview. So change it to end with the Twin Towers crashing down. Is it that hard?
 
They do in a sense, eg, when a successful solution to a crisis happens, they can say the crisis was engineered so the solution would be praised.
That view probably comes from the apocalyptic christian anti-christ myth from Revelations, and how he will be praised and given power for providing solutions to strife in the world.

Have they ever done that/ I can't think of any examples.
 
How come conspiracy theorists never claim there is a conspiracy around something good that happens?

It depends on what you mean by good and who decides. When some folks point to a conspiracy around destroying traditional values and tearing apart the fabric of society, they are quite correct. But there are plenty of people that think this is the best thing that could happen and can't wait for it to finally fall.

In general I find folks who slam cters don't really understand where they are coming from. I know I didn't. I used to laugh when I would hear all that wank about the war against Christians or the war against the family. What fucking loons.

Well, having checked into what they were really about and seeing things from their perspective instead of just dismissing it, I actually learned the terrain and they are absolutely correct in their pov. All that is happening and they are losing the battle bigtime, as they will be the first one's to tell you.

The only thing that is up for debate is whether that is a good thing or not.
 
Do you think it was better when there were no regulations and corporations could pollute and exploit the environment, work children and adults to the bone etc?

No, but again, it wasn't the corporations that put the regs in place, so I'm not sure what your point is.
 
I could, but it's heading towards 4am, and I'd prefer to have had less beers before yapping about why I think it's essential viewing for anyone who wants to understand how Freud and his nephew's ideas and conceits have impacted on life today.

Don't post drunk is a rule I've learned to live by the hard way, so I can't kick against that.

It is essential viewing, though, as it shifts the lens completely if one isn't aware of any of that aspect. Damn, but in a very real way, no Eddie, no Freud as a massive influence in America. In no way was it just the power of ideas that won the day; it was the manipulative sociopath whoring for his uncle that carried the day.

Watch at least the first hour of that vid, folks, if you aren't aware of this slice of history. Things will make a lot more sense and you will have a better understanding of why those idiots who are already waiting in line for Black Friday and their kindred spirits are like they are.

Eddie Bernays. If you don't know who he is and the direct effect he's had on your life, you are ripe for the picking and being picked.

Here it is again. Not a lot can truly be said to be absolutely vital viewing. This can and is.

 
Last edited:
Fine. Come up with that metric and get back to us and we'll take it for a spin.
You are the one making the claim without any real measure to prove the difference between the elite and the poor beyond your perception of the ability of the elite to "wall themselves off from the poor". Since you made the claim you should have some way to validate it.
 
It depends on what you mean by good and who decides. When some folks point to a conspiracy around destroying traditional values and tearing apart the fabric of society, they are quite correct. But there are plenty of people that think this is the best thing that could happen and can't wait for it to finally fall.

In general I find folks who slam cters don't really understand where they are coming from. I know I didn't. I used to laugh when I would hear all that wank about the war against Christians or the war against the family. What fucking loons.

Well, having checked into what they were really about and seeing things from their perspective instead of just dismissing it, I actually learned the terrain and they are absolutely correct in their pov. All that is happening and they are losing the battle bigtime, as they will be the first one's to tell you.

The only thing that is up for debate is whether that is a good thing or not.

Actually I think the "culture war" conspiracy theory is very much up for debate. But probably elsewhere. Suffice to say you are a firm believer in that particular theory.
 
Modern farming in the first world is no where as hard on the environment as 'traditional' agriculture is. In the 30s, we had a Dust Bowl, today we have a major drought in the same area and no Dust Bowl.

Thankfully, lessons have been learned in respect to deep ploughing. However, is monocultural farming not hard on the environment? With respect to bio-diversity, that's very debatable.

The worst abusers of the environment is state owned industries. When Pemex's Ixtoc well blew out in 1979, the beaches from the Yucatan to just south of Corpus Christi were slathered in heavy weathered oil. The Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle was almost killed off. The fishing and tourism industry was devastated (It took most of year to kill the well). Pemex paid NOTHING on either side of the border for the environmental destruction and clean up and for the loss of incomes. When BP's well blew out they spent millions on clean up, remeditation and pay outs.

BP were responsible, through corporate negligience for the biggest environmental disaster in American history, so holding them up as a shining example of how corporations are better than public entities seems odd. BP are just one corporation in a long list that includes the following disasters: the Summitville mine, Dunsmuir, the Phillips Disaster, Martin County coal slurry spill, Basin F, the Berkeley Pit, the Cuyahoga River pollution, Picher Oklahoma, Exxon Valdez, WR Grace in Montana, Hooker Chemical, Hinckley and the Love Canal. If I recall correctly, Union Carbide owned the Bhopal site and those who suffered there had to fight tooth and nail to get any kind of compensation.
 
'

You mention "hidden hands", emergence is somewhat related to a similar sounding term: "invisible hand". But that's a rather limited market term. Emergence has many aspects:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence#Emergence_in_humanity

But basically it's that that individual events and overall trends are generally not planned, because it's impossible to plan things in such large and chaotic systems.

So social emergence gives rise to patterns, structures, and organizations and then those organizations act upon the world with deliberate agency to shape or reshape the world according to their purpose. ordo ab chao... get it?

"Emergent processes or behaviours can be seen in many other places, such as cabal and market-dominant minority phenomena in economics"

"different reasons for the market dominance of different groups. Some groups achieve market dominance because of colonial oppression or apartheid. In other cases, it may be due to the culture and family networks of these groups."

"A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together, usually to promote their private views or interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue. Cabals are sometimes secret societies composed of a few designing persons, and at other times are manifestations of emergent behavior in society or governance on the part of a community of persons who have well established public affiliation or kinship. The term can also be used to refer to the designs of such persons or to the practical consequences of their emergent behavior, and also holds a general meaning of intrigue and conspiracy. The use of this term usually carries strong connotations of shadowy corners, back rooms and insidious influence. The term is frequently used in conspiracy theories"

In her book, Shadow Elite: How the World's New Power Brokers Undermine Democracy, Government, and the Free Market,[3][4][5][6] Wedel explores the nontransparent ways in which, in her view, many of today’s top power brokers operate. She explores what she suggests are the rules of the game these contemporary power elites are writing to benefit themselves and their social networks, and what she sees as the negative implications for democracy, the rule of law and the free market. Her work assesses what she claims is the significant extent to which the new rules take us beyond traditional corruption and conflict-of-interest — and into an accountability-challenged era.

Labeling the new breed of U.S. and international political operators "flexians," Wedel finds these ultra-nimble players moving seamlessly among roles in government, business, think tanks, and media, advancing their own personal agendas and those of their associates (not the public and private organizations they are paid to serve), at the expense of democracy and accountability. Examples include retired four-star army general Barry R. McCaffrey and financial advisor Larry Summers, among many others, both foreign and domestic.

By a flexian wearing several hats simultaneously (think tanker, retired military or government official, corporate representative, so-called "objective" expert), as did Barry R. McCaffrey in the run-up to the Iraq war, Wedel claims to show how a flexian can gain extraordinary insider knowledge and influence in order to custom-tailor a version of the "truth" benefitting the highest monetary bidder. In this way, flexians not only "co-opt public policy agendas" but "craft policy with their benefactors' purposes (monetary profit) in mind."

Some flexians work together in what Wedel calls “flex nets,” close-knit networks that guard and share information. Like flexians, flex nets arose to fill a new niche. Wedel writes that, just as flexians cannot be reduced to mere lobbyists, neither can flex nets be reduced to interest groups, lobbies, old-boy networks, mafias, and other such groupings in society, government, and business. Like interest groups and lobbies, flex nets serve a long-established function in the modern state, mediating between official and private. And, like the mafia networks, flex nets have their tentacles in both state and private organizations. But, unlike mafia, many of their activities are not secret, but open, as members of flex nets make their case all over the airwaves. Thus while flex nets incorporate important aspects of other such groupings, they also differ from them in crucial ways—and those ways are precisely what make flex nets less visible and less accountable. Examples include the dozen or so players around neo-conservative cold-warrior Richard Perle, some of whom have long been working together in various incarnations for as long as 30 years to change American foreign policy according to their own ideology.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janine_R._Wedel#Shadow_Elite
Content from External Source
Janine R. Wedel is a university professor in the School of Public Policy at George Mason University and a Senior Research Fellow of the New America Foundation.
 
Last edited:
You don't 'disconnect dots'. Certainly, you can connect them, but if left alone they are simply dots.

Until they jump out of the bushes and eat you. Pattern recognition and agent detection are essential for survival, the human species would never have arisen without them.

It is believed that humans evolved agent detection as a survival strategy. In situations where one is unsure of the presence of an intelligent agent (such as an enemy or a predator), there is survival value in assuming its presence so that precautions can be taken. For example, if a human came across an indentation in the ground that might be a lion's footprint, it is advantageous to err on the side of caution and assume that the lion is present.[1]

Psychologists Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner wrote:

“ The high cost of failing to detect agents and the low cost of wrongly detecting them has led researchers to suggest that people possess a Hyperactive Agent Detection Device, a cognitive module that readily ascribes events in the environment to the behavior of agents. [2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection
Content from External Source
 
No, but again, it wasn't the corporations that put the regs in place, so I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is without the regulations we would still have sweat shops and corporations polluting the environment. You seem to play dumb often when you reply to posts.
 
Back
Top