Conspiracy Theory and Truth Verification

So I’ve been looking into the Carlyle Group, trying to learn more about the Carlyle Group and their activities. There of course is a wealth of information on the side of conspiracy theorists. Now, I fully understand that conspiracy theorists are oftentimes trying to justify their own paranoia. However, not everyone who is paranoid is paranoid without cause.

In the world of Politics backroom deals are par for the course, that’s the way the game is played, and has always been played. So to assume that there aren’t any conspiracies going on is pretty naive. Now, I’m the type of person that doesn’t like to use the word ‘evil’ because it’s so subjective. So don’t think that I am trying to uncover ‘evil’. What I am trying to figure out is what the hell is going on. I want to know how the system works, and I don’t want the naive whitewashed version that the public gets, nor do I want the paranoid hell that many conspiracy nuts get.

So not all conspiracy theories are incorrect. But how do we know which ones did their diligent research when so much effort has been put into covering tracks, and supplying misleading trails of clues by the leaders we are looking into.

If there is one thing that has become clear to me during the reign of GW, it’s that the Bush family do act like Mafioso Royalty. I know that groups like Carlyle help obfuscate the money trail by tracking all over multiple bureaucratic jurisdictions through many financial institutions.

So how does one find out what is actually going on while maintaining a healthy skepticism, buying into neither the conspiratorial black hole of paranoia, or the bland acceptance of naivete?


In my opinion, maintaining a healthy skepticism is perhaps the only way to sift through data without succumbing to either naivete or paranoia. Perhaps that begs the question. For me, the independent corroboration of data is a big factor, although given the echo chanmer that is the modern media that is becoming more difficult to judge.

Perhaps, though, the problem is more abstract. Conspiracy theories seem to depend too much on the notion that there is a clear, directed intelligence behind them: One puppetmaster (or puppetmaster group) pulling all the strings. I wonder if that’s really the case; the recent, excellent film “Syriana”, for example, does a good job of showing how critical decisions regarding oil politics can get made without anyone necessarily seeing the big picture (or for that matter even a significant portion of the picture).

I think the best you can do is examine the evidence for internal consistency (minus the evangelical analysis of the supposed conspiracy), corroborate it against other evidence (especially from those who are trying to disprove the “conspiracy”, and draw your own skeptical conclusions. Not much help, I know, but then again we are all out to get you, so why should we make it easy?:slight_smile:

Yeah, it’s a tough question. What brings it up for me is I am doign research on the Carlyle Group, and it’s really hard to sift through what’s there, and I’m not even studying data like their transactions. Is there anyone out there monitoring organizations like this at all besides the Conspiracy crowd?

Yeah, I am not too big on the single puppetmaster idea. That is silly, because even amongst factions and cabals there is inter-office rivalry that can split one faction into multiple factions and remerge them. Hell, I belong to multiple groups that I have loyalty to that could conceivably represent a conflict of interest at some point.

Heh, yeah, well if you’re all out to get me personally then I guess that massages my ego a bit. Though, I’ve been finding certain aspects of my life quite boring, I hope I didn’t bore you too much.


  1. First, think long and hard about whether and why you want to know what’s going on. (Conspiracy-theory buffs are often people with way too much time on their hands and way too little genuine excitement in their lives.*)

  2. Break down the conspiracy theory in question into as many logically irreducible questions as you can; research each one separately; post a GD or GQ thread on each one and you will get almost every perspective on it imaginable, or, at least, a wide range of links that will lead you into further research avenues.

  3. Come to grips with the fact that, even if you discover and prove a given conspiracy, there might be nothing you or anyone can do about it; and even if you can, it’s far from certain that you should. Some things are better left alone.

  4. Blow it off and get drunk.

  5. Read Illuminatus! At least you can have fun with it.!

*Quite unlike your typical Doper.

Basically because I genuinely want to know. I’m not searching for conspiracies per se, I am seeking to know how the system works. Right now I am looking into Carlyle, and I am asking myself why I want to know, and what route I want to take. I am somewhat politically active also.

Ok, so can you help me figure out the answer to this question in reference to Carlyle:

How does one explain the concept of a Hedge Fund that owns a majority stake in multiple defence contractors, and obfuscates it’s activities not through dishonesty, but by using financial institutions that cross multiple jurisdictions, creating a line of bureaucracy that is hard to discern.

I suppose some things are better left alone, but while I listen to my fear, I don’t like for paranoia to be a motivating factor. In the end I am just genuinely curious. As I said, I don’t really find much use for the Good/Evil paradigm, so I’m not out looking for the bad guys. I am out looking to see how it works. Maybe I want to start my OWN Illuminati Hedge Fund one day. :wink:

That doesn’t have as much entertainment value as it once did.

Yeah, I like Robert Anton Wilson. I haven’t read that one yet though.

Umberto Eco’s Foucault’s Pendulum is a classic in the genre of thinking about conspiracy.

Yeah, I need to read that, I have a copy around here somewhere. But again, I’m not focusing on the Conspiracy, I just want to learn more about the Carlyle Group. :wink:


The technical term for that would be a “very clever idea.”

One of the things you have to do is always step back and ask yourself, “does this make sense?”

For example, look at the JFK assassination. In order for the barest minimum of the various conspiracy theories to be true, you’d have to have an organization which controlled Congress, the military, the FBI, the Secret Service, the White House staff, and the Dallas Police Department. If such an organization existed and wanted to kill the President, how would it do it? Would it shoot him in the middle of a public street in front of hundreds of witnesses? Or would it arrange for the President to die of apparent natural causes when nobody was around? (Which, come to think of it, is how FDR died. Hmmmm.)

Or look at the John Birch theories about Communist influence in the United States. They believed that there were tens of thousands of Communist agents working in this country. They controlled every level of government, they controlled the media, they controlled the military, they controlled law enforcement. If you believe these reports there were more Communists in the United States than there was in the Soviet Union. Which is where you pause for a second - why were they still hiding? If the Communists had that much control of the country, why not just come out into the open and declare us the People’s Republic of America?

Are you trying to determine whether the Carlyle Group is a “conspiracy” or not? If so, what would its supposed aims be? It would have to be something beyond the conventional profit motive to qualify, wouldn’t it?

Conspiracy, by Daniel Pipes, is a pretty good introduction to the role of conspiracy theories (as distinct from actual conspiracies) in history and politics:

[hijack] Is this book pretty fair, or is it affected by Pipes’ fairly well-known anti-Muslim bias? [/hijack]

May I ask what, exactly, makes that clear to you? Also, how do Mafioso Royalty act? (Please don’t say, “Just like the Bush family.”)

Well they out CIA agents when they are displeased with them. They use people like Saddam Hussein toward their ends, then toss him aside when it becomes inconvenient. They use organizations like the Carlyle Group to launder money. They get together with the Capos of Saudi Arabia, and help decide world foreign policy in private meetings with the Saudis. GHW Bush was head of teh CIA before he entered the executive. They have a tremendous amount of influence over the world oil industry. The way they do business for Carlyle is that HW and Jim Baker will go in with and make nice with the Saudi princes, they won’t even talk shop, then they’ll leave and the Carlyle guys will come in and talk shop with them. Carlyle which was started in 1986 and has worked with Bush and Baker quite a bit since then has executive level access all over the world due to it’s relationships with the Bush family and other heads of state. They have controlling interests in multiple defence companies, and have priority access to the DoD through their connections. Iran Contra is a prime example of what they’ve been doing for years. They started a war in Iraq in order to secure oil fields. Afghanistan and Iraq would be prime real estate for American domination of oil interests. There are bushes in many key political positions all around the world. They are some of the main membership in Skull and Bones along with their buddy Dick Cheney. The Bush family in skull and bones is not as prominent as the Walker family, which they are also descended from.

Now this is a rumor, but wasn’t Prescott Bush a bootlegger or something? Isn’t that how he made his money? I’ve also heard a rumor that Prescott Bush was instrumental in forming the CIA, which his son later ended up controlling. I have not verified these things.

Now I am not interested in defending my terminology of Mafioso Royalty. You can take it or leave it. It’s probably redundant as any oligarchic family structure is “Mafioso” in nature. I am referring to their willingness to get down and dirty in the way they conduct politics, when I make that statement.

BrainGlutton It’s a conspiracy only if you think that profiteering off of war is evil. Power is power, and I don’t want to get into the moral implications of whether or not they SHOULD be doing what they are doing, and the word ‘conspiracy’ implies evil intent. However, it is a clever orchestration of funds worldwide being used to influence geo-politics by weilding massive corporate influence.


Fair so far as I could tell. Modern (i.e., post-1948) anti-semitic conspiracy theories in Muslim countries are treated, but only briefly – IIRC; couple of years since I read it. Otherwise, it hardly mentions Islam at all.

Does that make them a “conspiracy,” or just a ruling-class family using their wealth and power to get even more as aristocrats have always done?

Or is there a difference?

I don’t think so.


FYI, here’s a great place to find the hottest, juiciest conspiracy theories:

If there *is * a conspiracy, I don’t know how you verify it. It seems that when conspiracy theories pop up, they can easily be shot down by others saying the person who brings the conspiracy theory to light is a kook, looney tune, or a paraniod. Those labels tend to shoot people down quickly, and unless there is actual evidence (which is difficult to define - what’s proof to one person is not proof to another), they tend to just float out there in the air. Conspiracy = paranoid nutjob to many people.

The JFK Assassination is an example. **Little Nemo ** lays out a number of valid pressure points that would all have to be in on it to make it happen. But does it make it a slam dunk that there wasn’t a “conspiracy”? Not for me. I don’t know who was behind it or why (there are a number of different theories), but for me, my common sense approach tells me that the way his neck snaps in the Zapruder film indicates there was a shooter from the front right. The Grassy Knoll. But even this visual “evidence” has been debunked. Pro-single-assassin folks use the film to say that his head could have snapped that way from a shot from behind. Uh, maybe. But take all the nonsense and static out of the way, and what does the evidence tell you? If it tells you the bullet came from the front right, you are a conspiracy nut. If you think it came from Oswald’s gun, then you are on the official bandwagon. What’s correct? Who knows? But I think that all of the groups that **Little Nemo ** mentioned could also have been in the position of “covering their asses”, a common position ordinary people/businesses/politicians/government agencies take on a daily basis. “Covering their asses” doesn’t mean they are part of a vast conspiracy. It means that people want to keep their jobs. The President was shot. There were many people/organizations that had to answer for that. Oswald was a simple way to tie up the package, stop the questions, and allow those organizations (like the Dallas PD and Secret Service) chalk it up to a lone, crazed gunman who acted alone. That stops a lot of probing of the Dallas PD investigation methods, what the FBI/CIA were doing or may have known, or what exactly are the Secret Service procedures for protecting the President and were they followed that day? We’ll probably never know the truth. But at the time, I can see a lot of motivation for people to buy into the Oswald story even if they didn’t truly know, because this would help them keep their jobs. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator. Being part of a mass conspiracy is unlikely. Protecting yourself after the fact is something else.

To me, I think the best way to prove **anything ** is to be completely objective, allow for different points of view, and by all means follow the money.

Then make up your own mind.

What this proves is that, like most people, you have not studied ballistics and forensics and so what seems to be common sense, is in fact, incorrect.

This is not a failing, I’m no ballistic expert myself, but the people who are have tested and shown that the way his head snapped is consistant with being shot from behind and up.

So back to the OP, sounds to me that the Carlysle Group is where some very rich people store their money. This gives the group power and influence, how is this a conspiracy? Is the World Bank a conspiracy? The Federal Reserve? What are you looking for?