Ask the conspiracy theorist

[chinchalinchin]

@Telemark

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.

Let’s be clear. I don’t believe in a vast conspiracy that determines who gets elected years beforehand nor a concerted effort by a small group of people to rule the world. I think certain sectors of the economy have a vested interest in what occurs within the political realm since it affects their profits (e.g., investment banks being concerned with who gets nominated as the Fed Chairman since that will have a huge impact on their lending and borrowing) and they have to take steps to ensure the political wind blows in their direction. Hence the lobbying industry and perhaps, the manufacture of political candidates.

Anyway, onto the circumstantial evidence!:

Political dynasties. The Kennedys, the Bushs, the Daleys, etc. Let’s look at the Kennedys, for example. I don’t have a problem with them coming from, shall we say, less than honest means via Joe. I don’t have a problem with accepting a trio of brothers making huge political splashes. I don’t have a problem accepting some of their children were just as politically savvy. I don’t even have a problem with a bunch of distant relatives like Caroline wanting to capitalize on their name’s esteemed clout. But when Mary Shriver’s own personal blue-eyed Austrian gets elected governor of California without any relevant qualifications, in my mind everything gets called into question.

Then, you have things like the new rule change at the Republican National Convention whose only purpose seems to be the exclusion of potentially viable dark horse candidates like Paul or Johnson. The only reason for something like the rule change is to make sure grass root candidates aren’t able to get elected. Obviously, the Republican establishment doesn’t want anyone in power they don’t approve of, constituents be damned. If you accept that, you’re led to the inevitable conclusion not a single Republican president in the future, if not the majority in the past twenty-thirty years, will be elected without the explicit approval of Republican party (this is what I mean by grooming. When I said ‘groomed from birth’ I was being hyperbolic. If your agenda doesn’t fit with theirs, then you’re out). The Democratic Party is not much better, if at all. Democrats don’t really have to worry, though, since the undercurrent of dissidence in their party was crushed with McGovern. It seems as though they’ve not only drank the Kool-Aid since then, but have taken to intravenously injecting it straight into their veins.

At some point, in a system approaching a gridlock of corruption like ours, keeping in mind the boom of derivative markets in the 70s and 80s that led to a massive amalgamation of capital so that huge conglomerates now owned defense contractors/advertising firms/media companies/everything else, you have to ask when will crony capitalists look at their accounting ledgers and realize, 'if investing in lobbying increases our profits, why not the manufacture of political candidates themselves? It would, after all, be cheaper, given we don’t really need to spend money on promoting them since, you know, we pretty much own the media. Nor do we have to worry about their loyalty since it can be ensured through the promise of well-paying jobs (see: the revolving door between the CIA and defense contractors, every senator and president who has ever retired from the political life and become a ‘consultant’, etc.)

[Telemark]

@chinchalinchin

Political dynasties. The Kennedys, the Bushs, the Daleys, etc. Let’s look at the Kennedys, for example. I don’t have a problem with them coming from, shall we say, less than honest means via Joe. I don’t have a problem with accepting a trio of brothers making huge political splashes. I don’t have a problem accepting some of their children were just as politically savvy. I don’t even have a problem with a bunch of distant relatives like Caroline wanting to capitalize on their name’s esteemed clout. But when Mary Shriver’s own personal blue-eyed Austrian gets elected governor of California without any relevant qualifications, in my mind everything gets called into question.

So your strongest piece of evidence is that there are wealthy, powerful families. Sorry, but that’s pretty laughably weak. Powerful and wealthy families have a been a factor in all societies, and in nearly all political systems. Why would you expect the US to be any different?

And a popular, conservative movie actor elected governor of California already has precedent; remember Ronald Reagan. How about Al Franken in Minnesota? Sonny Bono? Gopher from the Love Boat? It’s not really a major stretch, it’s a trend.

I don’t think you’ve presented anything of value.

[Telemark]

@chinchalinchin

If you accept that, you’re led to the inevitable conclusion not a single Republican president in the future, if not the majority in the past twenty-thirty years, will be elected without the explicit approval of Republican party (this is what I mean by grooming. When I said ‘groomed from birth’ I was being hyperbolic. If your agenda doesn’t fit with theirs, then you’re out).

And your second piece of circumstantial evidence is actually worse than the first. You’re claiming that there’s something untoward about the leaders of a political movement trying to control who becomes a candidate for that party. The political leadership of most parties don’t want radical candidates because the rarely get elected, they polarize the party, and they often espouse positions that are contrary to the party platform. These things change over time, slowly, and you can certainly object to specific rules that are intended to slow or stifle change.

But that’s a far cry from “pre-selected people” by shadowy puppet masters. It’s politics in the 21st century. It’s been going on since political parties came to existence in the US. If anything, we’re much more democratic then we were in until the 1950’s when the general public didn’t even vote in primaries for the most part.

[Loach]

@chinchalinchin

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. "

Your criticism of the use of Occam’s Razor in this instance is missing the main point. This thread has gone on for 12 pages. Not one fact or piece of evidence has been presented. The only “theory” has come from one poster’s imagination, a novice’s grasp of philosophy and some misinterpreted information from the Internet. If it was an actual choice between theories or an argument about a particular theory, I would agree that just using Occam’s Razor to refute it would not be enough. But in this case it is very useful to point out someone’s silly arguments. Kozmik’s “theory” isn’t just wrong or over complicated. It’s silly.

[Telemark]

@Loach

Kozmik’s “theory” isn’t just wrong or over complicated. It’s silly.

But at least it’s not a theory.

[DrFidelius]

Seriously. A theory needs to be more than “I read this in the New York Times this morning, therefore Illuminati!”

[Kozmik]

@Furious_Marmot

If they won’t say what their methods are, how do you know that succession within the Illuminati doesn’t work that way?

Because their succession for obvious reasons must be secret. Their succession might even be like that for the Pope who is resigning, and then a successor will be named.

I want to make it clear that no one of the Illuminati will be the next Pope. It would be beneath them to take a public office such as Pope or President. Understand that Benedict XVI ascended to the Papacy from being a Cardinal just as Barack Obama ascended to the Presidency from being a Senator. The Illuminati cannot ascend to the Papacy or the Presidency; they would descend to the Papacy or the Presidency. The Illuminati are inviolate, from on high, and have fallen, as it were, to intervene in decidedly human affairs.

@Furious_Marmot

Are you Illuminati?

No.

@Furious_Marmot

Why should we trust you?

Because I trust you.

@Marley23

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?”

Ok. I might have some specific questions for you.

@Muffin

Kozmik, who made the pope retire, and why did they make the pope retire?

The Illuminati made the Pope retire for reasons that may soon be revealed. Remember that the last Pope to resign was Gregory XII in 1415, nearly 600 years ago. Before The United States was founded, before Galileo, before Columbus’s voyages. That you can even ask these questions non-hypothetically is remarkable.

@DrFidelius

Seriously. A theory needs to be more than “I read this in the New York Times this morning, therefore Illuminati!”

A theory:

Power appears to rest with an effectively small number of people. These people can be termed collectively as oligarchy. Power, however, does not rest with the oligarchy but with the synarchy. Synarchy can be defined as rule by a secret elite. As the Wikipedia article on synarchy explains, Some conspiracy theorists use the word “synarchy” to describe a shadow government, a form of government where political power effectively rests with a secret elite, in contrast to an “oligarchy” where the elite is or could be known by the public. Thus, power is not with the oligarchy, the heads of government; rather, power is with the synarchy, the Illuminati.

[Furious_Marmot]

@Kozmik

Because their succession for obvious reasons must be secret. Their succession might even be like that for the Pope who is resigning, and then a successor will be named.

If their methods are secret, how can you make any statements about their methods without being privy to them?

It looks like you’ve slipped up. You reveal all kinds of secret information about the Illuminati, then turn around and say there is no way for outsiders to know that information. Just admit that you are one of them already. This deception is not working.

[Muffin]

Kozmik, can the illuminati powered by batteries, and is the Energizer Bunny an illuminati?

[Jackmannii]

Stay low to the ground or they’ll sniff you out
you never know what you will find

[DrFidelius]

@Kozmik

. . .

A theory:

Power appears to rest with an effectively small number of people. These people can be termed collectively as oligarchy. Power, however, does not rest with the oligarchy but with the synarchy. Synarchy can be defined as rule by a secret elite. As the Wikipedia article on synarchy explains, Some conspiracy theorists use the word “synarchy” to describe a shadow government, a form of government where political power effectively rests with a secret elite, in contrast to an “oligarchy” where the elite is or could be known by the public. Thus, power is not with the oligarchy, the heads of government; rather, power is with the synarchy, the Illuminati.

And several months later, you still demonstrate a seemingly willful ignorance of political and/or economic power. Your grasp of international relations and domestic influence remains below the level of a Saturday morning cartoon. You have been given very good and accurate information but you continue to pile more and more absurd and contradictory fantasies onto your construct. You are quite incapable of seeing that your delusions are not even internally consistent.

I am sorry, but you are not even entertaining.

[Muffin]

Kozmik, who made Adam Weishaupt an illuminati?

[Kozmik]

@Furious_Marmot

If their methods are secret, how can you make any statements about their methods without being privy to them?

In the same way that you speculated about their methods in this post.

@Furious_Marmot

It looks like you’ve slipped up. You reveal all kinds of secret information about the Illuminati, then turn around and say there is no way for outsiders to know that information. Just admit that you are one of them already. This deception is not working.

How do I know that you are not one of them?

@Muffin

can the illuminati powered by batteries

@Muffin

is the Energizer Bunny an illuminati?

No. The Illuminati, though, like the Energizer Bunny, keeps going and going and going…

@DrFidelius

And several months later, you still demonstrate a seemingly willful ignorance of political and/or economic power. Your grasp of international relations and domestic influence remains below the level of a Saturday morning cartoon. You have been given very good and accurate information but you continue to pile more and more absurd and contradictory fantasies onto your construct. You are quite incapable of seeing that your delusions are not even internally consistent.

I am not ignorant of political and economic power. Political and economic power can be explained by heads of governments; the President of China, the President of India, the President of the United States, and all the other heads of government. However, this does not completely describe power. There is the oligarchy; the royal family and the Pope, among others. Then there is the synarchy; the Illuminati.

I know that I lost you on this point, DrFidelius.

I want to bring you back to that point so that you may understand.

As the Wikipedia article on synarchy explains:

Some conspiracy theorists use the word “synarchy” to describe a shadow government, a form of government where political power effectively rests with a secret elite, in contrast to an “oligarchy” where the elite is or could be known by the public.

DrFidelius, let me go through this quote point by point.

Some conspiracy theorists

I’m not the only conspiracy theorist.

use the word “synarchy” to describe a shadow government

Unlike the heads of government who can be publicly known, the shadow government is more like the royal family, except they are not publicly known.

a form of government where political power effectively rests with a secret elite

Not a public elite like the royal family, but a secret elite; the Illuminati.

in contrast to an “oligarchy” where the elite is or could be known by the public.

The royal family is an oligarchy because they could be known, and are known, by the public. The Illuminati is a synarchy because they cannot be known by the public and may only be known to an oligarchy like the royal family.
DrFidelius, do you understand all of these points?

@Muffin

Kozmik, who made Adam Weishaupt an illuminati?

Adam Weishaupt’s superior.

From the Wikipedia article on Adam Weishaupt:

The actual character of the society was an elaborate network of spies and counter-spies. Each isolated cell of initiates reported to a superior, whom they did not know, a party structure that was effectively adopted by some later groups.

[Muffin]

@Kozmik

I’m not the only conspiracy theorist.

So you finally admit that you are part of a conspiracy. Are you an illuminati, or are you one of the illuminati’s minions?

[Furious_Marmot]

@Kozmik

In the same way that you speculated about their methods in this post.

That post is me asking you a question about the Illuminati, because I don’t know a thing about them beyond what you’ve told us. In 13 pages, you are the only one who has answered questions about the secret workings of the Illuminati or whatever else you call the conspiratorial organization that controls some, if not all, world events.

You have represented yourself as possessing insider information about the workings of the Illuminati, which only a member could possibly know. Now either admit that you are one of them, or that you just pulling all of this out of your ass.

@Kozmik

How do I know that you are not one of them?

Strictly speaking, you don’t. But I’m not the one answering questions about how the Illuminati work, you are.

[DrFidelius]

Koz, I am not the one with reading comprehension issues here. You did not need to elaborate on a quote from Wikipedia (a useful first review but hardly an authoritative or primary source) that says that your personal delusion has been held by others. It no more indicates the existence of your syndic than a similar quote about children believing int he Easter Bunny.

We understand the content of your beliefs; where you lose us is at the point where your beliefs fail to map onto reality.

[Kozmik]

@Muffin

Are you an illuminati

No.

@Muffin

are you one of the illuminati’s minions?

No.

@Furious_Marmot

You have represented yourself as possessing insider information about the workings of the Illuminati, which only a member could possibly know. Now either admit that you are one of them, or that you just pulling all of this out of your ass.

I admit that you presented me with a false dilemma.

@DrFidelius

Koz, I am not the one with reading comprehension issues here.

Good to know.

@DrFidelius

You did not need to elaborate on a quote from Wikipedia (a useful first review but hardly an authoritative or primary source) that says that your personal delusion has been held by others.

I did need to elaborate because, while you acknowledge that it has been held by others, you call it a “personal delusion”.

@DrFidelius

It no more indicates the existence of your syndic than a similar quote about children believing int he Easter Bunny.

Except the Easter Bunny is a delusion.

@DrFidelius

We understand the content of your beliefs

Do you?

@DrFidelius

where you lose us is at the point where your beliefs fail to map onto reality.

I believe that there are heads of government. I believe that there is the oligarchy; the royal family and the Pope. I believe that there is the synarchy; the Illuminati.

The heads of government have their origin in the concept of the nation state which developed after the Peace of Westphalia of 1648. The oligarchy; the royal family and the Pope have their origins in the divine right of kings which goes back to at least 800 when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne as Holy Roman Emperor. The synarchy; the Illuminati predates the Papacy and goes back to the Roman Empire and perhaps even earlier.

The heads of government is reality; however, the heads of government do not have explanatory power. The oligarchy; the royal family and the Pope is reality and account for things that the heads of government, which postdate the oligarchy, do not. The synarchy; the Illuminati is reality because not everything is accounted for with the royal family and the Pope, namely, that before the situation with the royal family and the Pope, there was the Roman Empire, which, with the Roman Emperor, was the oligarchy of the time.

DrFidelius, don’t think about the heads of government and the synarchy for a moment (the former whose orgins we know and the latter whose origins we don’t know) and concentrate on the oligarchy. I know that your eyes glaze over when I mention the royal family and the Pope, when I mention kings being crowned and Popes sitting on their papal throne; nevertheless, the fact that there is the oligarchy, that there is the royal family, that there is the Pope speaks to the royal family and the Pope as not being delusions.

DrFidelius, the royal family and the Pope is no “Easter Bunny” and neither, I contend, is the Illuminati.

DrFidelius, the oligarchy is no delusion.

Why then, DrFidelius, do you seem to believe that the synarchy is a delusion?

[Furious_Marmot]

@Kozmik

No.

No.

I admit that you presented me with a false dilemma.

No, I have presented you with the inescapable conclusion of your claims.

You claim to have knowledge of the secrets of an organization that is immensely powerful and secretive. From your descriptions of the global power conspiracy, it is clear that they do not allow outsiders to access their secrets. The only explanation that fits the facts that you have presented to us is that you are an insider-a member of the conspiracy, ie. an Illuminatus.

If you are not one of them, how did you come to have this knowledge? What are your methods? What are you hiding? Until you provide a plausible alternative explanation for your expertise in all things Illuminati, it is only reasonable to assume that you are one of them.

It is not possible to say what your motives are. But judging from the malevolence you have ascribed to the conspiracy, one can only assume that you are up to no good.

[DrFidelius]

Koz, you are wrong. You are wrong in general and in detail. You are wrong on so many points that we have spent months on this and have not yet reached a point where your ideas intersect reality closely enough to demonstrate where you are wrong.

You are wrong on motives, wrong on results, wrong on personalities involved, and wrong on implementations of political and economic power.

Do you believe your lack of an education allows you a better insight into the working of the world than people who have actually studied economics, politics and history?

[Kozmik]

@Furious_Marmot

No, I have presented you with the inescapable conclusion of your claims.

You claim to have knowledge of the secrets of an organization that is immensely powerful and secretive. From your descriptions of the global power conspiracy, it is clear that they do not allow outsiders to access their secrets. The only explanation that fits the facts that you have presented to us is that you are an insider-a member of the conspiracy, ie. an Illuminatus.

If you are not one of them, how did you come to have this knowledge? What are your methods? What are you hiding? Until you provide a plausible alternative explanation for your expertise in all things Illuminati, it is only reasonable to assume that you are one of them.

It is not possible to say what your motives are. But judging from the malevolence you have ascribed to the conspiracy, one can only assume that you are up to no good.

@DrFidelius

Koz, you are wrong. You are wrong in general and in detail. You are wrong on so many points that we have spent months on this and have not yet reached a point where your ideas intersect reality closely enough to demonstrate where you are wrong.

You are wrong on motives, wrong on results, wrong on personalities involved, and wrong on implementations of political and economic power.

Do you believe your lack of an education allows you a better insight into the working of the world than people who have actually studied economics, politics and history?

:smack: