Ummm . . . if we had a world government, wouldn’t we have a world without war?
An arms manufacturer must be a member of the board. 
I think your choice of words illustrates the problems one can get into raising legitimate questions while using adjectives like “sinister”.
I neatly avoided a hijack there, but I’ll partake in a mini-hijack here and respond to this:
It is technically illegal to market anything as a drug without proper testing. There is a giant loophole Congress passed as a sop to the supplement industry (DSHEA), which permits general statements like “promotes prostate health” or “aids memory” (whether or not there is solid scientific evidence). And of course detailed quackery is committed constantly (hair growth and diet supplements are among the most glaring examples in terms of national marketing), and millions can be made before the underfunded FDA can get around to warnings and (rarely) legal action. I would not term these sorts of promotions “sinister” - medical quackery has been occurring in various guises through much of human history. Likewise, people constantly attempt to make money in questionable or shady schemes. without there being gigantic shadowy combines seeking to control the world.
One other danger to encouraging the conspiratorialists - sometimes there is an air of bigotry behind their “investigations”. Semantics are one thing, anti-Semitism is another (fulminations about the Elders of Zion, international bankers et al).
And Betty definitely has it all over Veronica. 
I agree with most of what you wrote in the OP, and I enjoyed the discussion of Mugharradh a great deal. However, the connection between knowledge and power is more tenuous than this, in my opinion. In my experience, knowledge is an aid in exercising and refining power, but the power does not stem from knowledge. Rather, I think it stems from will to dominance, and pragmatism far more than knowledge. It is quite cheap to buy expert opinions on any subject these days. The energy and pedigree for leadership is far more expensive. CEOs don’t wield power because they are knowledgable, they wield power because they are natural leaders.
Indeed, I would guess that those most knowledgable of the power in the world are not the ones who wield it. They may have friends in high places, but they probably only enjoy their connections because they don’t try to interfere. Those who lead are ‘biased’ toward their own institutions.
Pick up the book “New World Order” by Anne-Marie Slaughter, I have it and haven’t read it yet. It’s about the system of organizations around the world like the Council on Foreign Relations, the UN, and various and asundry acronyms constitute a world government of sorts tying together it’s member states.
I think you in particular would dig it based upon your posts.
If you didn’t know you could move your hand you wouldn’t be able to punch someone. Leadership is a knowledge of sorts. No one is born a leader. Not even Jesus jumped out of the womb and started managing his operation immediately, it took him a few years to develop his potential talents into useful skills.
jackmanii Well the word sinister is a subjective interpretation. You seem to be advocating that we need to keep conspiratorialists at bay so we apply these subjective biases to the word conspiracy in order to not encourage them. I feel like both of these approaches are a path of ignorance. While I think that conspiratorialists go too far in one direction, people who dismiss them out of hand are going too far in the other direction.
Erek
I’ll put a vote in for Veronica, jewish chicks are wildcats in bed when you get them going.
It effectively was your key claim about the Assassins, and a major part of your overall argument.
My rough understanding of what you were saying:
- Conspiracies to take over the world really happen, we see them in history.
- I mean, look at the Assassins, they planned to take over the world!
- Thus conspiracies shouldn’t be rejected.
My point:
- You know little of history, especially the bits you are claiming back your thesis.
- For example, the Assassins did not plot to take over the world (Captain Amazing’s explanation is far better.)
- Thus you have not proved your case that history shows conspiracies happen.
Read some real history, instead of basing your conclusions on vague Sufi texts and claptrap about the “New World Order”. Then if you feel the same way, come back here and post about real-life conspiracies. Otherwise, I can’t take your arguments seriously, and I guarantee many other people are having the same problem.
(Wilma, by the way).
This is a very broad use of “knowledge” you are advocating here. Yes, if you broaden your definition of knowledge sufficiently, you will eventually include power. If I didn’t know my lungs could inflate, I couldn’t breath, etc. But you haven’t touched my point, which is that power is dependent on many things other than knowledge. You’ve got to have pedigree and/or a natural talent for leadership. Learning helps, experience helps, but it’s not the same thing as power. George W. Bush had more power on the day he was born than I will ever have, but that doesn’t mean he’s more knowledgable than me. There are many people on this board who know more about international politics than George W. Bush, but none of them have his power to effect it.
You know something we don’t about the House of Lodge (nee Liebowitz)?
If so, such a government/conspiracy/organization still must not have effective control over all states. Why set your puppet governments to fight each other? (I mean, unless you’re Ming the Merciless.) I can’t really believe the Iranian or Chinese governments take their marching orders from the CFR or the Bohemian Grove.
Well as long as you have enough knowledge that you feel secure in not acknowledging any new knowledge from someone you have deemed as ‘inferior’. Good luck with that!
Erek
They members of another giant consipiracy group - The Teddy Bears, duh!
Here is a review of the book I recommended.
You all are showing bias as to what you think that I believe that the world structure looks like or who runs it. I have not proposed anything of the kind. I made an example that was unsatisfactory, I pulled back on it, as I wasn’t married to it, though apparently Atticus was. I don’t care if I was incorrect about the Hashishin, it was a bad example, but using a bad example doesn’t dismiss my point. However, Atticus’ reaction to it illustrates my point quite well, in that he is willing to dismiss an argument about semantics by arguing that I was incorrect about the Hashishin which I admit was a half-assed example. He claims it is a core part of my argument, which it is not, it’s actually irrelevant to my argument. BrainGlutton on the other hand makes some comments about whether or not I believe Bohemian Grove tells the Iranians or the Chinese what to do. I never claimed anything of the sort either, all I have done is point out examples of secret societies moving in the background that are too quickly dismissed as conspiratorial nonsense, and that’s no more true or accurate than the conspiratorialist who thinks they have found THE ANSWER.
Dismissing an idea without giving it much thought because of some shallow aesthetic aspect that you don’t like is every bit as ignorant as someone who simply accepts something because it suits their paranoia.
All I am saying is that sometimes true things get dismissed as conspiratorial, as I gave the example of the Bush/Saudi connection, which I have seen dismissed many times, and incidentally is more central to my argument than the Hashishin or the Freemasons.
Atticus I’ll leave you a story about the “history” that you think that you know. A friend of mine was writing a book on the Korean war. When one enters the archive the only thing they are allowed to bring in, is a single sheet of paper and one pencil. The reason for this, is because Koreans were coming in and seeding the files. The problem wasn’t that people were stealing information from the archives, as much as manipulating what was in those archives, archives that are then read by historians and used in their publications. Sometimes the inaccurate information is caught, and othertimes it makes it into publications that are read by millions of people.
So when you are going to go around arguing about the “TRUTH” of secret societies, I’d like to remind you of one little word that is an essential part of that whole equation: Secret. So if you deny that my example of the Hashishin is relevant that’s ok, I will retain equal skepticism of my source material as I will over the “Correct” interpretation that I received on the authority of an internet message board.
Erek
Close enough, I’m afraid. Pity, It’s been nice chatting with you. You had best put your affairs in order. Like, in the next three days.
That’s true, I really need to get my shit together so I can leave for Puerto Rico on Tuesday, where we are going to be scouting out locations for the first annual International Pirates Conference, Ahrrrrcon!
Thanks for reminding me.
Erek
I love the base concept of this post. There are a lot of cultural, national or personal biases based on the first mental picture that a given word presents that, if overlooked for the sake of discussion or debate, would lead to a more enlightening discussion and raise the probability of growth. I don’t have a lot to add to this particular discussion as I tend to agree with the OP and positions presented other than to say:
As to conspiricys, I seem to have met an equal amount of people who fall to each side of the bias. Some scoff at the mere mention of the word while others hold religiously to the concept. For me personally, I prefer the old saying: “Just because you’re parinoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”
For Illuminati, again this is something that forms an instant mental picture that I believe is basically incorrect. Groups of various sizes and levels of power conspire all the time. From personal experience: After working for many years on the production floor of a factory (and believe me, any medium to large size factory has it’s share of rumor mills and conspiracy theorists) I moved up into middle management. I thought I knew how the business was run and how decisions were made, I was very mistaken (read, I was unconsciously biased). The vast amount of information and considerations that I and my co-workers had never thought of was at first overwhelming. After absorbing them I began to see things in a different light. Upon returning to the floor I found the same plate of hash that had always been there. I tried to share some of the information but was answered with doubt and disbelief. The thing is, none of the information was considered confidential (at least within the plant) and would have been shared to any employee interested enough to ask questions. The “Illuminati” within this company operates with an open door policy and now that I see that, I understand more about how other decisions are made in other areas eg. politics, economics, other businesses etc. I think to socially define Illuminati as a secret group out to rule the world is incorrect. All leaders pull the strings of their puppets, that’s what makes them leaders and, many times, the only thing that veils their actions and intents is our own unwillingness to give up the biased concept of “Us vs. Them” and take a look at the whole picture. Sometimes the easiest way to hide something is within full view.
Just my opinion of course.
I am looking forward to more Bias Clock subjects that I can debate better, especially Religion and Theology, plenty of social bias found there.
Oh, and by the way, definately Betty Rubble.