Just reminder that this thread is entitled “Ask the conspiracy theorist.” You are free to ask all you want. But at no point were intelligible answers promised.
I was rereading “The Monster of Florence” (about Italy’s famous unsolved serial killer case) this morning, and it discusses the Italian fascination with dietrologia.
“Dietrologia is the idea that the obvious thing cannot be the truth. There is always something hidden behind, dietro. It isn’t quite what you Americans call conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theory implies theory, something uncertain, a possibility. The dietrologist deals only in fact. This is how it really is…Everyone is an expert at what’s really going on…even if they don’t know jack shit.”
“Why?” I asked.
“Because it gives them a feeling of importance! This importance may only be confined to a small circle of idiotic friends, but at least they are in the know. Potere, power, is that I know what you do not know.”
Kozmik should give dietrology a try. Even if most everyone else still points and laughs, he could have a promising second career in the Italian prosecutorial service.
What do you mean by that?
Possibly. The NYT headline is: Untouchable in Iraq, Ex-Sniper Dies in a Shooting Back Home
Why would Chris Kyle have been considered untouchable during the Iraq War?
Routh, who killed Kyle, was a Marine and, like Kyle, served in Iraq.
Because people were trying to kill him and they weren’t able to. They found it difficult to reach out and “touch” him. Are you attempting to take NYT headlines literally? Do you not understand the concept of colloquialisms?
If there were conspiracies, they would take themselves seriously. The behavior you describe is childish and silly. The conspiracies would keep their membership quiet at all costs. They wouldn’t publish lists of conspirators, members would not declare that they were part of the group, and the press (which you say the conspiracy controls) wouldn’t ask about it. The public would not be allowed to know.
Like Telemark says, people tried to kill him and they couldn’t. Has the problem been reading comprehension this whole time? Ultimately what Kozmik has here isn’t a theory as such. It’s almost like he’s in search of a conspiracy to explain reality.
Couldn’t? Or weren’t *allowed *to?
I get drawn back to this thread on occasion, and then it makes me sad.
I understand colloquialisms and know that they are often used in headlines because of need for brevity. I am not attempting to take NYT headlines literally - I just want to understand what it means, both the headline and the article. Yes, they found it difficult to reach out and “touch” him. And, yes, people were trying to kill him and they weren’t able to; however, it looks like a bounty, one way or another, was collected (and, no, that is not necessarily meant to be taken literally).
How would you know?
What is so childish and silly about the behavior?
Yes, and there are public secret societies like Skull and Bones whose names you know and then there are private secret socities whose names you don’t know.
Yes they would if they wanted to create a red herring.
What the public knows is what makes them the public.
Isn’t reality the ultimate conspiracy? This question can be taken rhetorically.
It’s common sense.
You called it childish. Why are you asking me?
In that case, how can you identify a red herring as opposed to something legitimate?
No.
It certainly can’t be taken literally!
Please elaborate.
Because you also called it childish and I am interested in understanding why you find it childish.
Someone who knows heads of governments and knows members of public secret societies and knows members of private secret societies would be legitimate.
Please elaborate.
You seem so certain.
Kozmik, is reality the ultimate conspiracy? If so, in what way? If not, what is the ultimate conspiracy?
Yes, reality is the ultimate conspiracy. In the way that The Matrix shows you reality.
Kozmik, who made the pope retire, and why did they make the pope retire?
I might answer a specific question if you have one, Kozmik, but I’m not doing “please elaborate.” I’ve posted more than I need to about this as it is, and I see no point in going into even greater detail explaining the obvious just so you can say something like “Why?” or “How do you know?” or “What if… Anarch?”
Watch out, Kozmic. Marley is one of them, which is why they made him an administrator. He who controls communication controls the world.
And while we’re at it, who holds back the electric car?
Who made Steve Gutenberg a star?
Open question to all: Am I a conspiracy theorist for thinking most high profile politicians in the US, i.e. presidents, senators, heads of various federal agencies, etc., are groomed pretty much from birth for their role and if you are not one of the pre-selected persons it’s pretty much impossible to get elected/appointed to any meaningful office? (Note: I don’t mean EVERY pre-selected person gets elected/appointed, but largely ONLY pre-selected people get elected/appointed.) And any converging agendas from various agencies and branches of government that seem to point towards a vast conspiracy like the Illuminati or Bilderberg group or whatever is simply the result of the specific kind of personality and mode of thought that is required to be that pre-selected person? I mean, I have a ton of circumstantial evidence to back this up, but absolutely no empirical evidence. Am I friggin’ crazy?
Also, I’d like to take issue with the liberal use of Occam’s Razor in this thread. It’s not really a metric by which you can use to judge the validity of a theory. It’s a principle to select the best possible theory. That is to say, if two competing theories produce the same results, the one with the least amount of assumptions should be used, just for simplicity. It doesn’t mean the complicated theory is wrong. For instance, consider these two theories: 1. God created everything. 2. Everything around us is the result of physical law. Now, the first theory requires the acceptance of only one hypothesis. The other requires to separate your assumptions into things like gravity, nuclear forces, thermodynamics, etc, which as far as we know cannot be traced back to a common origin.
In fact, Occam’s Razor is never used in math or physics. It is used quite a bit in biology, oftentimes in evolutionary biology to defend groupings of related species. Of course in reality, the razor is misleading. If you bother to look up from the textbook at the world around you, you’ll see that a plurality of convergent processes often end up at the same result, and that parsimony is more of a simplification tool for conceptualizing than scientific fact.
A quote from Gerardus van der Leeuw: “When faced with several alternative explanations, the scientist must therefore choose the simplest— that is, the one that involves the fewest number of assumptions. In archaeology, however, phenomena are assumed to be complex unless their simplicity can be demonstrated. Simplicity or elegance therefore can not be used to decide between theories.”
Please feel free to present one single piece of circumstantial evidence that you feel is very strong and defend it. I suspect it won’t hold up to much scrutiny but there’s always a chance.
Too soon to tell. But you’re wrong about politicians, for sure.
Yes.
facepalm
If they won’t say what their methods are, how do you know that succession within the Illuminati doesn’t work that way?
Are you Illuminati? Why should we trust you?