Conspiracy Book Inventory Liquidation Sale / Auction
FREE! Rare, Out-of-Print, Hard-to-Find Book Searches
Subscribers
Site--Access Back Issue of the A-albionic Quarterly Journal, the Project, and Much, Much More. . .
I have been discussing this question in another forum, so I thought I would copy and paste my initial message here too for anybody who wants to offer their own
ideas...
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOW DO WE DETERMINE 'LEGITIMATE CONSPIRACIES'??
This question is an important and valid one and deserves a serious answer.
The answer, however, is not a simple 1-2-3 type series of statements.
This is NOT an exhaustive discussion about how to recognize when a legitimate conspiracy exists -- just a beginning set of talking points.
First, let's begin at the beginning.
1. By definition, a conspiracy involves two or more people who are working in secret to accomplish some purpose -- usually unlawful or harmful.
2. So the first consideration that needs to be addressed, is HOW (what methods or tools) do we have to penetrate a secret undertaking?
3. What can we learn from historical and undisputed examples of conspiracies (of all types) regarding how they came to be perceived, penetrated, exposed, and prosecuted?
4. First, we know from history that conspirators are subject to the same range of emotions, instincts, personal failings and idiosyncracies as all other human beings. They are not omnipotent, omniscient, perfect beings incapable of making major errors of judgment or execution of their plans.
5. Many conspiracies and conspirators have been revealed due to rivalries or competition for leadership within the conspiracy or as a result of hurt feelings, perceived personal insults, or lack of recognition, as well as mistakes which resulted in demotions, explusions, harrassment or intimidation or worse of participants in the conspiracy. [The FBI's COINTELPRO programs against the Communist Party and White Hate Groups were created, specifically, to capitalize upon such internal competition, disputes, and rivalries.]
6. Many conspiracies and conspirators have been revealed as a result of defectors, disillusioned participants, or other knowledgeable parties coming forward and revealing damaging confidential information about the plans, finances, participants, and objectives of the conspiracy. These individuals often have provided documentary evidence (mailing lists, financial records, subscription lists, notes about or recordings of secret meetings, etc.) to law enforcement, legislative investigating committees, and/or the media. [Reading the autobiographies of defectors from radical left and radical right organizations is quite useful for understanding why and how they decided to end their support and participation within the conspiracy.]
7. In view of the above, it strains credulity to allege that a conspiratorial "plot" of some sort can exist for long periods of time without any exposure whatsoever -- public or private (private being usually to law enforcement or other sources which kept the knowledge private).
8. Even the most rigorous types of conspiracies (i.e. those held together by individuals trained in, and having little compunction about using, violence and intimidation) have nevertheless often been exposed relatively shortly after inception. [See, for example, histories of conspiracies involving police, correctional officers, and military personnel.]
9. Consequently, the primary means to determine whether or not a legitimate conspiracy exists must be focused upon the rules of evidence and logic used by the proponents of the idea that a conspiracy is in operation.
For example, among the questions that should be discussed are:
(a) what do the alleged conspirators hope to accomplish through a "conspiracy" -- that they supposedly cannot achieve through normal processes (political/legislative, economic, social)?
(b) to what extent is there verifiable factual evidence presented by the conspiracy theory proponents OR is their argument essentially speculative or is their evidence open to multiple interpretations?
(c) do those presenting conspiracy arguments welcome debate and discussion of their evidence? OR do they become immediately hostile and abusive toward critics and skeptics or anybody that challenges their premises and conclusions?
(d) when highly technical questions are involved which require specialized knowledge, do the conspiracy believers acknowledge that such questions (a) exist and (b) they do require specialized knowledge or training in specific disciplines OR do they attempt to dumb-down the matter by claiming "anybody" can make a judgment about the matters under scrutiny?
(e) do the conspiracy believers recognize the expertise of individuals whom may disagree with their conclusions? AND are they willing to address the specific details presented by knowledgeable parties who disagree with the conspiracy argumentation---OR, instead, do they immediately seek to discredit and disparage ALL critics through ad hominem attacks or irrelevant straw-men arguments?
----------------------------------------------------------------
HOW DO WE DETERMINE 'LEGITIMATE CONSPIRACIES'??
This question is an important and valid one and deserves a serious answer.
The answer, however, is not a simple 1-2-3 type series of statements.
This is NOT an exhaustive discussion about how to recognize when a legitimate conspiracy exists -- just a beginning set of talking points.
First, let's begin at the beginning.
1. By definition, a conspiracy involves two or more people who are working in secret to accomplish some purpose -- usually unlawful or harmful.
2. So the first consideration that needs to be addressed, is HOW (what methods or tools) do we have to penetrate a secret undertaking?
3. What can we learn from historical and undisputed examples of conspiracies (of all types) regarding how they came to be perceived, penetrated, exposed, and prosecuted?
4. First, we know from history that conspirators are subject to the same range of emotions, instincts, personal failings and idiosyncracies as all other human beings. They are not omnipotent, omniscient, perfect beings incapable of making major errors of judgment or execution of their plans.
5. Many conspiracies and conspirators have been revealed due to rivalries or competition for leadership within the conspiracy or as a result of hurt feelings, perceived personal insults, or lack of recognition, as well as mistakes which resulted in demotions, explusions, harrassment or intimidation or worse of participants in the conspiracy. [The FBI's COINTELPRO programs against the Communist Party and White Hate Groups were created, specifically, to capitalize upon such internal competition, disputes, and rivalries.]
6. Many conspiracies and conspirators have been revealed as a result of defectors, disillusioned participants, or other knowledgeable parties coming forward and revealing damaging confidential information about the plans, finances, participants, and objectives of the conspiracy. These individuals often have provided documentary evidence (mailing lists, financial records, subscription lists, notes about or recordings of secret meetings, etc.) to law enforcement, legislative investigating committees, and/or the media. [Reading the autobiographies of defectors from radical left and radical right organizations is quite useful for understanding why and how they decided to end their support and participation within the conspiracy.]
7. In view of the above, it strains credulity to allege that a conspiratorial "plot" of some sort can exist for long periods of time without any exposure whatsoever -- public or private (private being usually to law enforcement or other sources which kept the knowledge private).
8. Even the most rigorous types of conspiracies (i.e. those held together by individuals trained in, and having little compunction about using, violence and intimidation) have nevertheless often been exposed relatively shortly after inception. [See, for example, histories of conspiracies involving police, correctional officers, and military personnel.]
9. Consequently, the primary means to determine whether or not a legitimate conspiracy exists must be focused upon the rules of evidence and logic used by the proponents of the idea that a conspiracy is in operation.
For example, among the questions that should be discussed are:
(a) what do the alleged conspirators hope to accomplish through a "conspiracy" -- that they supposedly cannot achieve through normal processes (political/legislative, economic, social)?
(b) to what extent is there verifiable factual evidence presented by the conspiracy theory proponents OR is their argument essentially speculative or is their evidence open to multiple interpretations?
(c) do those presenting conspiracy arguments welcome debate and discussion of their evidence? OR do they become immediately hostile and abusive toward critics and skeptics or anybody that challenges their premises and conclusions?
(d) when highly technical questions are involved which require specialized knowledge, do the conspiracy believers acknowledge that such questions (a) exist and (b) they do require specialized knowledge or training in specific disciplines OR do they attempt to dumb-down the matter by claiming "anybody" can make a judgment about the matters under scrutiny?
(e) do the conspiracy believers recognize the expertise of individuals whom may disagree with their conclusions? AND are they willing to address the specific details presented by knowledgeable parties who disagree with the conspiracy argumentation---OR, instead, do they immediately seek to discredit and disparage ALL critics through ad hominem attacks or irrelevant straw-men arguments?
