I’m with you on this one.
China is a great example of how easy it is to cover something up. Most young people have no idea that anything significant happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989. It has, essentially, disappeared.
The best, perhaps only, way to have a conspiracy work is to leave stuff in the open, but convince people that they just don’t care.
I’d be very interested in your thought, if any on the subject of Protocol of Sèvres.
BTW, it is, I think, 2nd time I’m asking for anyone to opine on this particular event but so far, no takers :o
The thinking that concludes conspiracy is only a conspiracy if nobody except conspirators knows about it is pretty boxed.
What’s funny is that now that we all now of Protocol of Sevres conspiracy we tell ourselves it really is not a conspiracy because we all know about it – “how can it be secret if I know about it”. Which implicitly means something is a conspiracy if I don’t know about it. This, further on, has a convenient argument against any conspiracy theory that says “Heck, I don’t know about it, therefore it is not a conspiracy.”
The whole idea seems extremely counter intuitive.
A conspiracy is pretty much just a group of people working together, and we all know that happens. The OP is asking about conspiracies in the sense of Conspiracy Theories.
Supposedly there’s this mass conspiracy across New World Order nations and several levels of U.S. government to put a foreign African Muslim in the Oval Office to challenge our Constitution and embody Socialist and Communist values and make it even easier to murder unborn babies.
Or something.
I think you missed the point of my post. What I was saying was just what even sven said more directly. These days, at least, conspiracies don’t need to take place in secret. Politicians who want a certain fact or set of facts to be kept quiet can simply call their allies in the mainstream media and the various government offices that produce data and politely ask that the facts be presented a certain way. The true facts may be presented directly in a few media sources, usually those that are obscure or far outside the mainstream. The most popular news outlets will generally go along with the approach that the politicians want.
The run-up to the Iraq War was an excellent example of how this works. True, there were many reports about the non-existence of the WMDs, the non-existence of the links to Al Queda, and the Bush administration’s dishonesty in making its case for war. But those reports were buried under an avalanche of “news” in the mainstream media heavily tilted in favor of war. As a result, most Americans did not know the truth, and assumed there was some justification for what Bush was saying.
Well you have lived in China so I’ll defer to you, but from my visits there, it seems more like a case of Tiananman being just another riot, protest etc that was put down.
So how do you know what a conspiracy actually is?
And what is the source of your Washington insider/news media expertise?
CNN might be obscure now, but it wasn’t in 2003.
I notice you didn’t make any effort to answer my questions:
The first question would be especially important. You asserted everybody knew the story was false and they went along with the conspiracy anyway. You also said the press (a monolithic body, as we all know) knew there were no weapons and went along with the conspiracy because, uh… I’m sure a good reason is coming.
I’ve looked it up and I see I was wrong about the US giving aid to Saudi Arabia. (On the other hand, you’re wrong about the per capita income comparison. We make almost twice as much as the Saudis do.) However, the US did back up the monarchy with American troops stationed in Saudi Arabia from 1990 to 2003 and still maintains a small force there. Moreover, it’s certainly true that American money spent on oil goes to the monarchy, and of course Bush made no secret of his favorable stance towards the monarchy.
Bleh. Young people everywhere are clueless about things that happened in 1989. I’m 29 and I bet you not 1 in 10 of our peers could tell anybody what happened in Berlin in 1989 and why it was important.
I actually think the government could cover up a UFO crash if it occurred in an isolated area and they managed to get there first. I just don’t think they would want to. I think it would be too much of an event-that-will-go-down-in-history for whatever President who happened to be in power at the time, not to publicize it.
When you correct for the 5-10 million foreign guest workers who are counted for population purposes, but don’t get to stay and don’t make any money, the numbers are much closer.
Anyway, the point is they’re a rich country and we don’t give rich countries aid.
Okay, but what does that have to do with a “conspiracy”? Every third grader knows that the Saudis get a shit ton of money selling oil.
I’ll see your “young people everywhere are clueless” and raise you a “People everywhere are clueless”.
If they weren’t so clueless, we wouldn’t have stuff like “Are you smarter than a Fifth Grader”, or those idiots Jay Leno talks to on the streets, or any number of other half-baked viewpoints or things.
Personally, I think that if there are conspiracies, they’re usually a small handful of people in charge of something who collude. In other words, things like university admissions officers deliberately slanting things in favor of one group or another, or even a couple of congressmen on a committee colluding to do something they want.
I have a hard time believing that any large scale conspiracy could stay secret in the 1950s and 1960s, much less in today’s hyper-investigative environment.
You can look at a history of medical experiments on willing and unwilling subjects by the US and other countries here. Very chilling. A Biref History of Human Experiments
Most of these were only exposed after the deaths of the participants or personnel conducting the testing.
I doubt there are many third graders who know that. Some ninth graders, perhaps, but not third graders. The conspiracy aspect, as I’ve already explained, is that politicians, certain media outlets, and the military-industrial complex have mislead most of the populace into believing that Iraq (and to a lesser extent Iran) were the supporters of Al Queda while the Saudis were good, solid friends and allies, thereby creating popular support for a war in Iraq and a hostile stance towards Iran, while avoiding any popular groundswell against Saudi Arabia. In reality, the Saudis were and are pro-Al Queda while Iraq and Iran were mostly against both Al Queda as bin Laden’s type of extremism. America’s leaders certainly knew the truth about these matters, but they aimed to spread untruths among the general public.
Well, yeah, but I bet most young people in Germany have some idea.
The problem is that I don’t think most people believe the Saudis are friends and allies. You think they do, but it’s an oversimplification. Bush was roundly mocked for holding hands with Prince Bandar - an image that appeared in a movie that won an Oscar, by the way - and I’ve heard people say for a decade that one reason America should reduce its dependence on oil is that the oil money goes to Saudi royals who give it to terrorists. This is not an underground point of view; you sometimes see it referenced fairly openly in national politics. Nobody particularly trusts Saudi Arabia. And it’s not because they “were and are pro-al Qaeda” either - al Qaeda HATES the Saudi royal family because they’re rich and decadent and cozy with the West, to the point they allowed Western troops into the country before Desert Storm. I have no doubt at all that some Saudi royals support al Qaeda. It’s an enormous family with something like 3,000 princes.
When you boil it down, your theory is “People have different opinions than me, so it’s obvious they’ve been duped by a conspiracy.” It’s a little immodest.
The Tuskegee experiment went on without the public knowing for over 40 years.
For the love of all that’s sacred, modify your argument based on repeated corrections; every single time you bring that up you get corrected on factual grounds, and then you repeat it some time later with no changes made, at all.
No, the Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment was not a secret, and only a ‘conspiracy’ in as much as it involved people working in concert… much like every single group project, ever. The researchers published, in public journals. People at large didn’t make a big deal about it because people didn’t care. It did not go on without the public knowing. It went on without the public caring.
If you’re going to use some threadbare anecdote in conspiracy threads, at least use MK ULTRA. It had a cool name.
Are you honestly suggesting that the Tuskagee experiment was on the front pages? Are you suggesting it was open? if so you better do more talking with all that is holy. Because your diety has let you astray. It was ended when an AP reporter released the story to the public. Then and only then did public outcry end it. that is when the public knew.