Thursday, August 31, 2017

... on Conspiracy Theories

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Conspiracy Theories · New blog on the kid : Some People Seem to Stamp me as a Conspiracy Theorist

Why are conspiracy theories rational to believe?

This question previously had question details. You can find them in the question comments.

Quora Question Details Bot
Aug 8
How do conspiracy theories work and how they explain the current disagreements between political parties?

Anthony Zarrella
Answered Aug 22
They aren’t. Period.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Aug 23
Except when they are?

Like the “conspiracy theory” about Nixon, thereafter known as Watergate scandal?

Anthony Zarrella
That’s the thing—there was no “conspiracy theory” in the common sense of the term.

There was a conspiracy… but it actually was kept secret, right up until it was blown by someone on the inside failing to keep it. There were no amateur sleuths with too much time on their hands and a paranoid mindset—there were professional investigative journalists following up real leads from a real informant.

Contrast conspiracy theories, which posit a near-flawless cover-up, with 0% defection… except somehow the evidence is available to Joe Schmo on the internet, who is clever enough to see the “truth” that everyone else has overlooked in plain sight. Yet, somehow, the same all-powerful conspiracy that has “silenced” all witnesses fails to do anything about Mr. Schmo posting their dirty laundry all over the internet…

Hans-Georg Lundahl
3h ago
“There were no amateur sleuths with too much time on their hands and a paranoid mindset—there were professional investigative journalists following up real leads from a real informant.”

It seems the difference between these two is - how much they are paid and by whom.

“Yet, somehow, the same all-powerful conspiracy that has “silenced” all witnesses fails to do anything about Mr. Schmo posting their dirty laundry all over the internet…”

Getting out an attitude about Joe Schmo and about the internet is at least ONE thing they could do - or already did, courtesy to you?

Or maybe simply waited for you to do without bothering even to monitor it … except decades back when making decisions about who was going to be your teachers (yes, I consider departments of education one key to global conspiracies, which I think there are, or perhaps even there is, in the singular). Both in school and at university.

Henry Makow is a conspiracy theorist, and a known such. He has been doing so much by now, he has at least as much informants as those behind the Watergate blowup. Same for Lyndon LaRouche.

Also, claiming there were no people acting conspiracy theorists before the Watergate blowup is a fairly vast claim - which you could of course prove if there had been an internet back then, and no “cleanups” on it over time and we could not google anyone who had been getting jeers on the comment section of his youtube five days before the blowup.

Now, internet and youtube were NOT around then, so how do you prove the claim?

How do you prove, that the mentality of the professional journalist is not identic to that of the amateur sleuth with a paranoid mindset, for instance?

How do you prove, supposing it was not, that he had no contacts answering to that description which led him to chose an area of investigation?

There is a difference between a court of law in which a guilty man must be proven, and a police investigation, in which a suspect needs to be cleaned before investigation ceases.

A conspiracy theorist is not comparable to the court of law situation - since, by the fact of theorising rather than looking at a court sentence, he is admitting there was so far no condemnation.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
45m ago
Also, a conspiracy theory usually does NOT posit a near-flawless cover up.

Look here:

“Follow the money … from the Templeton Foundation”

One of the foundation’s main funding areas is “public engagement”, and a representative sample of grants (ranging from tens of thousands to millions of dollars) clearly shows the foundation’s goals. Here is a small sample of grants that have been made more recently:

  • Vatican Observatory Foundation—“Building a bridge between faith and astronomy”

I don’t see a very flawless cover up to one reason why a certain Guy Consolmagno quietly ceased to reply to mails from a geocentric (myself) after first reply.

Conspiracy theories are not about secret agreements and events only, but by large more about events actually shown in the open, but on which one counts that it will not be noted - as by most it is not.

Own answer
to above, after debating with Zarella

Why are conspiracy theories rational to believe?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Thomist after starting with CSLewis
Answered just now
“How do conspiracy theories work and how they explain the current disagreements between political parties?”

Have you ever seen the kind of question in which ALL parties agree, because it is sometimes a “matter of decency” to agree on a thing?

When this thing is keeping old laws as they are, OK, no problem - it could be a matter of decency when all parties today are agreeing along with many other parties of the past back to when the country became Christian.

When it is about introducing a new bill, or staying with a legislation which may have been rushed through fifty or hundred years ago, I sense a certain concern that the “matter of decency” and “broad agreement across party borders” stuff is due to some conspiracy.

Like some money offered, either directly to politicians of both or the several parties, or to some things in connection with both parties, by some vile thing like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Which, as we know, is promoting contraception and abortion.

Keeping school compulsion going, despite schools being at least as involved as guns in school shootings, seems to be one of the goal of some conspirators.

Since Columbine 1999, we have seen several debates about restricting gun rights, and I have seen ONE man debate about abolishing school compulsion, both compulsion in strict legal sense and in the sense of making schools less necessary for making a living later on. That ONE man being me.

I have also seen several things which seem like conspiracies to marginalise my blogs.

Do you begin to see where there might be a conspiracy?

Or, take the questions on which there is a widely acknowledged and dramatically mediatised disagreement between parties. Like Democrats being for gun control, Republicans against, mostly. Well, for some reason, there seems to be a silent agreement between both to mention guns, but not to mention the fact that both Klebold and Cassie Bernall were in some sense - I think a practical rather than a legal one - required to be at the High School.

Conspiracy Theories: I have a boss who is constantly talking about the Illuminati and the New World Order. He completely believes in their existence and their influence in the world. I'd like to hear some opinions. Do any of you believe in those two things? If so, why or why not?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Blog : "". Debating evolutionists for 15 years
Answered just now
I certainly believe in them influencing the world, but I am less sure about their existence as a group other than more well known and openly acting lodges and sects.

So, say that many freemasons are involved in the French boycott of discussing Young Earth Creationism - this is a nobrainer, they exist, they are openly visible, they are known not to be promoting Biblical literalism for as long as they exist basically (even in the time of Anderson 1723 they were doing a clearly anti-Biblical thing, refusing to require adherence to a specific religion, while being a society of very clearly religious nature).

My doubt is this:

  • are Freemasons in France simply obeying their Masonic leadership in the usual way?
  • or are the lodges acting on orders of Illuminati, a kind of “backlodge” more secret than they are?

Or Bilderberg group and Bill and Melinda Gates promote depopulation. This is known. My doubt is this:

  • is that a culture they share?
  • or are they tools of the Illuminati?
  • or are Illuminati their tools?

One function the theory of Illuminati could have is this, to exonerate ordinary Freemasons, ordinary people with that culture which the Gates foundation and the Bilderberg group promote.

“Yea, sure, they are in a vile thing, but they are not Illuminati, they are just unwitting tools to the Illuminati.”

It is possible that the guy you are exonerating with such words is “as Illuminati as it gets” in real life.

But that things like Bilderberg group, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Masonic Lodges do exist and do exert openly and sometimes perhaps less openly an influence for evil, that is not to be doubted.

Also, I am not sure that Satanism is not an optional exercise open to all Masons showing an inclination that way, I am sure it exists, among other things because there are defectors from it. Suppose these are false defectors, who would be willing to stage such a thing, in some cases arguably with very intense and prolonged efforts to appear as defectors from such a thing?

When it comes to John Todd, his show did not last that long in his life - his witness survived his show. He could have been a fake defector, and just be a clumsy one. That is one reason, if he is still alive and in mental hospital, I would like him freed from there (he has already served sentence for the crime he did) and publically HEARD about his testimony about Illuminati. It involves allegations about Tolkien and C. S. Lewis which simply seem impossible to me, among other things for reasons of how old each person was at a time. Unless of course he has some Cagliostro type longevity, which would have allowed him to be adult as opposed to teen before CSL died. But he could have been either lying or misled by co-conspirators about identity of the man whom he thought was CSL - he could have been told a very clumsy lie so that, if he should defect, his testimony should become less credible.

On the other hand, if John Todd’s age was faked and his youthful appearance hid an older person, it would be a good idea to hear him on what his real relation to JRRT and CSL were. Hear him, as in hear him in court, where he could go under suspicion of calumny - since if he was NOT paying JRRT and CSL to serve Illuminati before his defection, he calumnied these two by claiming he had done so. For my part, I think they were calumnied, but not sure if actively John Todd was knowingly doing so, and for what motive, or whether John Todd had been fooled.

Here is another defector:

Bill Schnoebelen FORMER ILLUMINATI MEMBER Speaks Out - Fact or Fraud?
Mark Dice
Ajoutée le 1 nov. 2012

Bill Schnoebelen has been going on for a bit longer time than the years John Todd was active. John Todd was doing conferences I think in just two years, 1973 and 1974. That his testimony is still discussed is due to two circumstances, it was recorded and commented on, and that survives his activity, and he has been doing so ill since then, in personal fortunes, that one wonders if Illuminati were “taking care of him” so as to make him appear totally incredible. But it is now quite a few years since I heard of Schnoebelen, as I recall, and he is still going on.

So, if he is a fake defector - which I do NOT think he is - they sure did a better job this time than with John Todd.

Plus : if John Todd and Bill Schnoebelen are fake defectors from a sect never existing, at least Bill Schnoebelen has a backing of good conspirators who are helping him do an excellent show - but believing that is believing there is a conspiracy, just another one than the Illuminati one.

Oh, btw, if Bill Schnoebelen is a real defector he too is victim of a circumstance making him less credible : he has been published by Chick Publications, who have promoted the fraud Avro Manhattan and fraud or Novus Ordo dupe Alberto Rivera. THEY are in a conspiracy against Catholicism.

Btw, if Chick Publications would like to publish some of my material, go ahead. BECAUSE, my conditions are a general licence for anyone publishing, not a contract with exclusive rights, and therefore not a specific endorsement of publisher in his other capacities - this means, even if you could tie Chick to me, you could not tie me to Chick in that way.

If Chick Publications conspire to publish false testimonies, that is one possible explanation for Bill Schnoebelen. But not the only one, he could have taken them because he is too little knowledgeable about Catholicism to see that Avro and Alberto were frauds. He could have thought Chick was more honest and bright than he was in fact.

And of course, as I mentioned there are other candidates than Illuminati for being the conspirators driving the world down, the type of Protestantism with Anti-Catholic slant Jack Chick represents so far by publishing and endorsing Avro Manhattan and Alberto Rivera is one of the candidates, just as Communism and KGB are.

The algorithm by which my qualification for a certain question is chosen by quoran machines is sometimes opaque to me. But in this case, the qualification as Creationist was chosen - even though Conspiracy theories are quite another kettle of fish. My experience of computers tells me, this could be because the LOTS of people who recently, last decade, have associated Creationism to conspiracy theorising, have cluttered quora with posts where both words are mentioned.

That Kent Hovind is a Creationist and that he is published by Jack Chick, these are two reasons why this could happen - but considering the number of Creationists who are not Hovind and are not published by Jack Chick - could it have happened without a conspiracy, this much?

Confer that my capacity as a Thomist gets automatically selected as my qualification for answering about rationality of conspiracy theories - Thomist and rational being also often associated. But this due to a very well known fact, accessible without any cluttering due to possible conspiracies.

Note on Schnoebelen
Updated with an excuse to him
If he was ordained as a priest, he seems to have been a bit vague about who did it.

Pope Michael may or may not have good reasons not to disclose personal identities of the bishops conserating him bishop, but he knows they are (or main consecrator is) of Duarte Costa line and what implies.

Schnoebelen seems to have been somewhat more vague:

When I was a Satanist, I was also an ordained priest in the Old Roman Catholic church and a minister in a supposedly “Christian” Spiritist church.

When and where do you find any "Old Roman Catholic church"?

You are Roman Catholic or Old Catholic, the separation was about Vatican I, which Roman Catholics accept, Old Catholics reject. This rejection also meant they have no episcopal connection to Rome, they have their episcopal connection to Utrecht. And as they are claiming precisely that no see is higher than the local see, they will hardly claim that Rome is above Utrecht, and therefore will hardly have any interest in calling themselves Roman.

Update: sorry, there seems to exist sth called "Old Roman Catholic" too, I did not know this.

Here is the source, the defense of Rolf Lingen

1. FRHL's ordination is considered to be valid, i.e. he is considered to be a validly ordained priest. On his youtube-channel ("sedisvakantist") he published: "Succession: Bishop Alois Stumpfl - Schismatic / Old-ROMAN-Catholic (*NOT*: Old-Catholic!); Stumpfl ordained AND consecrated Friedrich Wiechert; Stumpfl ordained AND consecrated Josef Maria Thiesen; Wiechert ordained Schmitz, Thiesen consecrated Schmitz. In 1978, Schmitz abjured from the Old-Roman-Catholic Church, testified by Marcel Lefebvre and Franz Schmidberger, and became member of the "Society of Saint Pius X" (SSPX). In 1980, Schmitz became sedevacantist and left the FSSPX. In 1996, he ordained me. IMPORTANT: Thiesen - as priest - converted to Catholicism. His ordination was considered valid by the Catholic Church both under Pius XI. and under Pius XII. He was not allowed to work as a priest in 1926. He received dispense from celibacy in 1942. Later, Thiesen reverted into the Old-Roman-Catholic sect and was consecrated by Stumpfl."

Imprisonment for Sedevacantism (2)
Pater Rolf Lingen | Ajoutée le 4 sept. 2011

I owe Schnoebelen an apology./HGL

A Conspiracy to Shut Up a Question?

No comments: