Talking about conspiracy theories

by morton_h, the blogger 

If we want to discover, to learn or to know something, we need to have a hint, a feeling, a sensation, a recognition of patterns, maybe a suspicion. When we become aware of what creates this sensation and these patterns, we call it knowledge.

[scroll for at læse på dansk]

Put in a more academic way:
All sound evidence collection and processing of information to a state of knowledge - in its purest form called science - need a certain phase of creating theories. Without powerful, dynamic theories, no answers to any questions.

When the necessary and benevolent phase of theory making = our perceptions, sensations, pattern recognition, suspicions - is blocked, it becomes an act of sabotage of the creative and inquiring phase in any healthy knowledge process whereby actual knowledge is delayed or directly fails to arise.

A theory is a stepping stone on the road, not the other shore. If you are not allowed to step anywhere, you are doomed to fall in the water. Unless you know the Jesus-stunt.

Without theories, informed guesswork, temporary answers to the questions (+ a heck-of-a-lot of questions!), stopovers and summaries of acquired knowledge and the results obtained by putting the knowledge parts together for the first time, there will be a desert of chaos, stupidity and fear. The so-called 'Dark Ages' was a period when this desolate prevailed. The reason - the simple version - was because the church had monopolized knowledge and prevented ordinary people to take part in actual knowledge. And more important: had taken away the right and incitament for the people to seek knowledge by asking questions telling them, that faith, belief and hope was all there was. We, the cleracy, will talk to the Universe for you and see to that you get the 'right' version.

The Dark Ages seem to have returned in a new costume. The term 'conspiracy theory' and its use in public discourse is a taboo and religion-style denigration of curiosity, honesty and inquisitiveness and an attack against all sound knowledge processes.

Healthy theory should not contain too many assumptions. This corresponds to too many and too weak indices in a legal inquiry. A recent study showed surprisingly that people who were frequent users of the word 'conspiracy theory' made many and quick assumptions and that those they called 'conspiracy theorists', in turn, asked many questions and made fewer assumptions. However, one must of course be careful with so-called studies, but it was still strange. Almost Biblical in its psychology (you can actually find some good stuff in the Bible): 'And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? (sorry, I couldn't help taking the old dusty King James' version ...'. Or just plain: 'It takes one to see one'. Or in psychological terms: projection.

An example of that would be, when the term exploded into public discourse, which is after 9/11. Everyone questioning the pre-fabbed official version were called conspiracy theorists ... for asking question alone, because they did not put theories fourth in those days. The government and its true believers on the other hand promoted, lo-and-behold: a genuine conspiracy theory! And a grossly absurd one too: The theory about a man in a cave in Afghanistan with long beard and a laptop outsmarting the most advanced defence system of the world with the help of a bunch of pupils that had just learned to fly a one-engine Cesna, who made seven buildings fall to the ground in the most beautifully organized way violating a dozen laws of physics, aso ... Oh sorry, according to the Bush theory there were only twobuildings. After a while and because of the theory the Iraq War started on a(nother) thick Bush-lie about WMD's - even the dumbest people knew that after a month - but right before the guy was telling us the truth!

This is just one example of how the c-word works: it mades us stop all proper thinking. In the case of Bush it was accompanied with a certain amount of religious clichees like: 'Either you are with us, or you are with the 'terrorists', the concept of terror as you remember being another new speak concept that blossomed vigorously during the same campaign (VNAC: Vocabulary for the New American Century). The fear of conspiracies being exposed (pov: the conspirators) and the fear of mentioning conspiracies and thereby insulting the conspirators (pov designed for: the people) is similar to what the dark-age religion, the Catholic Church, created. God, the great auto-conspirator, works in mysterious ways. And should any mortal = employee in the human branch of the cosmic body (the Corporation) question whether this usurpatory god, who has taken credit for the creation of the Universe, is competent for the job based on the very same gods rather poor business case, then burning logs will fall from the sky.

If we stripped the c-word for its malicious intent, 'conspiring' would just mean 'to be inspired in each other's company'. Question is, can you destile words from their historical context? Actually yes, and here you will see clearly, in what way and what extent words can be weaponized and a spellcan be cast.

The historical load is: a small group of people in fora outside the attention of the many are making decisions about actions that will hace significant implications for the many, without asking them for advice or permittance. These measures have large, decisive and far-reaching consequences for the many and their descendants. Give me an example of an important historical event, where this was not the case! The use of conspiracy as synonymous with 'fanciful rubbish' is therefore highly non-historical. It is the norm, not the exception.

The opposite of conspiracy is either 'pure chance' or 'evolution'. Darwinism's main theory is all about chance and mutation as the guiding force in evolution = history, since social-darwinists 'biologizes' history. The British and later the Anglo-American elite scientific support - they use even the word of why exactly THEY had the right and duty to rule over other people in the world, called Darwinism or 'social-Darwinism', same-same. Where hace I heard this before, 'Thou shalt rule over the creatures of the Earth'? Oh, but darwinism was opposed to Christianity, so it can't be from Genesis, can it?

Not surprisingly the specific concept of 'conspiracy theory', the combination of the two words, came from one of the Anglo-American / Transatlantic elitist think tanks, the paramilitary organization called The Rand Corporation. A senior executive from this corporation recommended a CIA director to respond to the persistent and annoying questions that crescended after the Warren Commission's cover-up of the Kennedy assasination by simply and without the blinking of an eye denying everything and label all inquisitive citizens and journalists with the hybrid term: conspiracy theorists! Just after 9/11 another big scale cover up took place, and the c-word was aquired once again.

?? And here we go again: these irresponsible parasites on human culture - an ancient business - are simply scared of questions, and the c-word is their venomous defence against questions. Re-spons-ability: the will and ability to answer questions, as for instance: 'What are you up to? Is that beneficial to others than yourself?' The global parasite class is responsable impotent.
 
The Law of Jante (well known to all Scandinavians) and statements about conspiracy theories work so well together, that we could consider them as synonymous. The second can be formulated in terms of the first:

• Do not think you can form an overview over theories
• Do not think you can ask questions
• Do not think you get answers by asking questions
• Do not think that there are answers to those questions
• Do not think you have the right to ask and theorize
• Do not think you have the opportunity to know
• Do not think you have the right to know
• Do not think that thereis  a bigger picture, for everything is random 
• Do not think that you can find the bigger picture since it is not there
• Do not think that if you find it anyway, that people are going to listen
  (and if they do, we have certain measures and methods ...)

Laws are formulated by those in power in order for them to keep their power. They always claim the deep concern of the people, but people normally just need common sense. How come we go around af ordinary people censoring and policing each other, wouldn't you expect decrees to go out a from Caesar Augustus that all the world you know ...? (good old King James again) Yes, but the scary, non-human and virus-like with this word is, that it comes out of the mouths of non-powerful people and without hesitation is spit in the face of other non-powerful people. The word has contaminated peoples speech organs globally, now infecting human being like AIDS, SARS, H1N1 or Ebola. And people do not even know that they have the infection.

By the way: All four viruses bear peculiar and distinctive traces of being developed in laboratories, and seem like the verbal virus to be designed to poison their particular spheres. Just to mention this fact will cause the verbal virus to take effect immediately. If you are getting this information for the first time, it is advisable to seek information on just H1N1, where the laboratory eugenicists in the military segments of BigPharma screwed up and were unveiled. They contaminated the huge amount of vaccines, that they had stored long time before anyone heard of this socalled flue with ... the flue itself! If you study things like that because you are worried for you and your childrens health and life, you can be sure that you are called ... guess what?

The toxic, viral c-word is a piece of 'shut-up-candy'. Like any newspeak it can never be taken for its direct value. And now to poetry. The mindset behind the use of the c-word goes with the following monologue:

• What you say now irritates me.
  I do not know why, but it does.
• Well, now I know why, but I won't say.
• I used the word, and I had a real authority in the back.
  I can't remember which one ...
• I skip all substance and arguments, because it is too difficult - and tiring.
• OK, I'll say it: You make me feel guilty when you pose questions I can't answer - guilt is something that I am trying to get rid of.
• And you suggest that I haven't done my homework, which is a lie! ... But why would I want to do that? I have a TV.
• Since you now present something different from what we learned in school, it must therefore be You that is wrong. See, this is logic!
• I once heard this word on television, or where was it? Anyway: You are one of those con-whatever-theorists!
• I've had it, are you now questioning the word itself!? Do I have to understand and explain all words in order to use them?!
• We weren't suppose to think buttom-up. I said that the Russians and their president are bad people, because they are! So we are the good guys and they are the bad guys, and why? Because we were told, top-down! We don't have to think deeply about that and don't tell me about circular arguments! .. what is that anyway?
• You can poke your airy theories of Edward VII and an big conspiracy to start 1st World War up yours! It may well be that you can refer to a few thousand historical documents, but in my history book from first year high school it said, that it was all coincidence and that the Germans did it. And so do the guys in Oxford and Cambridge, and they are objective, for they were hired by the British Establishment with the serious task of writing war history, so they must know it.
• And the thing with Dresden and the allies exterminating 200.000 Germans civillians I don't give a shit about! They deserved to be fried.

The good news to all fellow conspiracy theorists of the world is, that every time the dragon spits venom in your face - be it from its own mouth or from all the automatons of the civilian world copy-pasting its venom - every time we are getting there, we are hitting the dragons nerves. It is almost a truth-o-meter.


Almost. There are in fact some crappy conspiracy theories out there floating around in the alternative communities. And some of them will have no doubt been implanted to create confusion and discreditability ('look what the fools have come up with'). Which only shows, that we need to metes: the truth-o-meter and the crap-o-meter.

Al den snak om konspirationsteori

Hvis vi vil vide noget, er vi nødt til at have en fornemmelse, en sansning, en genkendelse af mønstre, en mistanke. Når vi bliver klar over, hvad der skaber denne sansning og fornemmelse og disse mønstre, kalder vi det viden. 

Sagt på en mere akademisk måde:
Al sund vidensopsamling og -bearbejdelse – i sin rendyrkede form kaldet videnskab - har brug for i en vis fase at skabe teorier. Uden teorier, intet svar på noget spørgsmål. 

Tabuiseringen af teorifasen = vores sansninger, fornemmelser, mønstergenkendelser, mistanker -  er derfor sabotage af den kreative og spørgende fase i enhver sund vidensproces, hvorved egentlig viden udsættes og udebliver.

En teori er en trædesten på vejen, ikke den anden søbred. Hvis man ikke må træde nogen steder, er man dømt til at falde i vandet, medmindre man er Jesus.

Uden teorier, kvalificerede gætværk, midlertidige svar på spørgsmål, mellemlandinger og opsummeringer af opnået viden og resultater, der fås ved at sætte vidensdele sammen, hersker der et øde af kaos, dumhed og frygt. Den 'Mørke Middelsalder' var en periode, hvor dette øde herskede, for kirken havde monopoliseret viden og forhindret almindelige mennesker at få del i egentlig viden. Og ikke nok med det. De havde gjort det syndigt på egen hånd at skabe viden ved at stille de rette spørgsmål. Behøver vi at genfortælle, hvad de gjorde ved folk, der tænkte lidt for meget over tingene?

Begrebet 'konspirationsteori' og dets brug i offentlig diskurs er en tabuisering og nedgørelse af nysgerrighed, hæderlighed og spørgelyst og et anslag mod alle sunde vidensprocesser.

Sund teoridannelse må ikke indeholde for mange antagelser. Det svarer til for mange og for svage indicier i en juridisk bevisførelse. En nylig undersøgelse viste overraskende, at folk, der var flittige brugere af ordet 'konspirationsteori' gjorde mange antagelser, og at dem, de kaldte for 'konspirationsteoretikere' til gengæld stillede mange spørgsmål og gjorde færre antagelser.
 
Man skal nok være forsigtig med såkaldte undersøgelser, men det var dog alligevel sært. Og det svarer fuldstændig til, hvad man kan observere. 

Man kan fx. foretage sin egen stikprøve -test. Her er opskriften for dem, der har brug for den slags: Gør en måneds seriøs research om 'menneskeskabt global opvarmning', om den manglende videnskab bag, om svindlen i IPCC og East Anglia University, om hvad CO2 egentlig er og især: hvor enorme klimaforandringerne har været i Jordens historie. Fyr den så af i et lummert middagsselskab blandt akademiske æggehoder og politiske korrekte, især på venstrefløjen og insistér på at tale substans. Spørg fx. hvad de rent faktisk ved om CO2. Spørg dem om de ved, hvor meget CO2, der blot slap ud sidste gang vulkanen Hekla slog en prut, der stoppede flytrafikken i Europa i en uge. Spørg dem om det konkrete tal for, hvor meget CO2, der lagres i havene, i isen og i jorden og bed dem om at sammenligne med de mængder, som mennesker udslipper. Spørg dem om, hvorfor gartnere bruger CO2 i drivhusene, og om det er for at slå livet der ihjel. Spørg dem om den lille istid, spørg dem om solcykler, spørg dem, hvad det ville betyde for landmænd i Afrika, hvis CO2-indholdet blev fordoblet. Spørg dem om, hvor man milliarder, Al Gore og co har scoret på svindelnummeret. Fuldfør regnestykket for dem spredt over hele den kræftbyld, vi kan kalde klimaindustrien (humanister kan ikke regne...), spørg dem, hvad der blev af miljødebatterne og miljøbevægelserne, da hele klima-stuntet blev rullet ud. Spørg dem, spørg dem, spørg dem. Så skal du se dem diske op med antagelser i den helt store stil.

Frygten for konspirationen og den foreløbige viden, vi har om den, er som det mørke, religionerne skabte. Guds, den store auto-konspirators, veje er uransalige. Og skulle nogen dødelig = ansat i menneske-afdelingen af den kosmiske krop (korporationen) stille spørgsmålstegn ved, hvorvidt denne usurpatoriske gud, der har taget æren for Universets skabelse, er kompetent til jobbet baseret på selvsamme guds ret dårlige business-case, så falder der brænde ned fra himlen.

Hvis man fraregner den ondsindede intention, betyder 'at konspirere'blot 'at blive inspireret i hinandens selskab'. Men det vil være svært helt at barbere historiens mærkning bort fra ordet.

Verbal-historisk set betyder det snarere, at en gruppe bestående af ganske få personer i fora uden for de manges bevågenhed tager beslutninger om tiltag med afgørende konsekvenser for de mange, uden at spørge disse til råds. Disse tiltag har store, afgørende og langtrækkende konsekvenser for de mange. Giv mig et eksempel på en afgørende historisk hændelse, hvor dette ikke har været tilfældet!

Det modsatte af konspiration er enten 'ren tilfældighed'eller 'evolution'. Darwinismens hovedtese handler netop om tilfældighed og mutation som den styrende kraft i evolutionen = historiens gang. Den britiske og senere anglo-amerikanske elites videnskabelige underbygning - de bruger selv det ord-  af, hvorfor netop DE havde ret og pligt til at herske over andre mennesker i verden, kaldes darwinisme eller 'social-darwinisme', same-same.

Ikke overraskende kom begrebet 'konspirationsteori' netop fra en af den anglo-amerikanske / transatlantiske elites tænketanke, nærmere bestemt den paramilitære organisation ved navn The Rand Corporation. En ledende medarbejder herfra anbefalede efter Kennedymordet en CIA-direktør at svare på de ihærdige og nærgående spørgsmål, der ankom efter Warren-Kommisionens cover-up, ved simpelthen og uden at blinke: 'at benægte ALT og kalde alle spørgelystne borgere og journalister for konspirationsteoretikere'. Der var den minsandten igen: disse uansvarlige parasitter på den menneskelige kultur - en ældgammel gesjæft - er simpelthen bange for spørgsmål, og k-ordet er deres giftige forsvar mod spørgsmål - an-svar-lig-hed: evnen og viljen til at svare på spørgsmål, fx. 'Hvad har I gang i? Er det særlig godt for alle andre?

Janteloven og udsagn om konspirationsteori er synonyme. Det andet kan oversættes til det første:

• Du skal ikke tro, du kan danne overblik via teorier
• Du skal ikke tro, du kan stille spørgsmål
• Du skal ikke tro, du får svar ved at stille spørgsmål
• Du skal ikke tro, der findes svar på den slags spørgsmål
• Du skal ikke tro, du har lov til at spørge og teoretisere
• Du skal ikke tro, du har mulighed for at vide
• Du skal ikke tro, du har lov til at vide
• Du skal ikke tro, at der findes sammenhænge, for alt er tilfældigt 
• Du skal ikke tro, at du kan finde sammenhænge, der jo ikke findes
• Du skal ikke tro, at hvis du finder dem, at nogen vil høre på dig
  (og hvis de gør, har vi visse metoder ...)

Love er formuleret af magthavere. Det samme gælder janteloven og dens opdatering om konspirationsteorier. Skulle love og befalinger ikke udgå fra Kejser Augustus? Jo, men det skræmmende, ikke-menneskelige og virus-lignende ved dette ord er, at det kommer ud af munden på ikke-magtfulde folk og udåndes lige i ansigtet på andre ikke-magtfulde folk. Ordet har kontamineret tale-organet på ét menneske og smitter nu et andet menneske som AIDS, SARS, H1N1 eller Ebola. Og smittebæreren ved ikke selv, at vedkommende bærer smitten.

Alle fire vira bærer i øvrigt besynderlige og markante spor af at være udviklet i laboratorier, og synes ligesom den verbale virus at være designet til at forgifte deres særlige rum. Blot at nævne dette forhold vil bevirke, at den verbale virus straks træder i kraft. Hvis du på læsende tidspunkt ikke har hørt om den slags, så kan det anbefales at søge oplysninger om netop H1N1, hvor de selvsikre militære laboratorie-eugenikere, der kopulerede med BigPharma, dummede sig og blev afsløret. Og hvor de måtte hive i nødbremsen og aktive Plan B (hvad gør vi, hvis vi bliver afsløret...?). Så kan du være helt sikker på, at du bliver kaldt for ... gæt hvad?

Det toksiske, virale ord (og det var jo 'konspirationsteori', hvis ud har glemt det) er et 'hold-kæft-bolsje'. Som alle ordet i Ny-Sproget kan det aldrig tages for direkte pålydende.
Det kan oversættes til dansk som følger:

• Det, du siger nu, irriterer mig. Jeg ved ikke helt hvorfor, men det gør det altså.
• Jo, nu ved jeg det, men jeg siger det ikke.
• Jeg fyrer ordet af, som om jeg havde en ægte autoritet i ryggen. Jeg kan ikke lige huske, hvad den hed ...
• Jeg springer hele substans- og arguments-feltet over, for det er alt for besværligt - og jeg orker det heller ikke.
• Du giver mig dårlig samvittighed, når du spørger på den måde - samvittighed er noget, jeg i øvrigt prøver at slippe af med.
• Du antyder, at jeg ikke har gjort mit hjemmearbejde, det er fanderme for dårligt! … men hvorfor skulle jeg også det?
• Siden du nu siger noget andet end det, vi lærte i skolen, må det derfor være dig, der er gal på den. Lyder det ikke vældigt sundt og logisk?
• Jeg hørte en gang det her ord i fjernsynet, eller hvor var det lige, som jeg ikke kan huske? Nå-men: det er i hvert fald sådan én, du er!
• Nej nu stopper vi: begynder du også at stille spørgsmål ved ordet!? Kan man nu ikke længere fyre ord af, som man ikke kan gøre rede for?!
• Du skal ikke komme her og ødelægge den gode stemning. Det var jo ikke meningen, at vi skulle tænke. Jeg sagde jo bare, at russerne og deres præsident er onde mennesker, for det ved vi jo! Altså vi er de gode og de er de onde, og så skal du ikke komme her og snakke om cirkulære argumenter … !
• Du kan stikke dine luftige teorier om Edward VII og en omfattende konspiration om at starte og gennemføre 1. Verdenskrig op i røven! Det kan godt være, at du kan referere til et par tusinde historiske dokumenter, men i min historiebog fra 1. G stod der altså, at det hele var tilfældigheder. Og det siger de også i Oxford og Cambridge, og de er objektive, for de er ejet af det Britiske Establishment og fik det ærefulde hverv at skrive krigshistorie, så de må jo vide det.
  Og det dér med Dresden gider jeg overhovedet ikke at høre om !!

Den gode nyhed for alle med-konspirationsteoretikere er, at hver gang gang Dragen spytter gift i vores ansigter - det være sig fra egen mund eller fra alle de automatoner i den civile verden, der har indoptaget dens gift - så er det fordi tampen brænder, så er det, fordi vi har ramt dens nerver. Det er en slags sandheds-indikator.

En slags. For der flyder virkelig konspirationsteorier af ringe substans rundt i de alternative netværk, hvoraf de fleste af dem uden tvivl er implanteret for at skabe forvirring og diskredibilitet ('se bare, hvad tåberne nu er kommet op med ..'). Det viser os bare nødvendigheden af at bruge sandhedsindikatoren og kritisk tænkning i begge retninger.