Jane Bürgermeister And The Goal Of Global Genocide

[James L Walker]

The greater conspiracies (and the greatest) are the ones that dupe the participants into believing that they are actually conspiring toward a different and varied concern (often thought to be a good thing) and are unaware of the sum of their collective actions. That method allows for millions of participants, all believing that they are reasonably innocent.

"The Truth is merely the sum of the inner deceptions."

On the outside, the appearance is still the same as if the entire group were a cohesive conspiring group fully aware of their deceit.

Such is the make of Man.

Well said.

[Carleas]

Actually history has shown again, and again that the larger, the harder it is for people to conceptualize, and consequently believe. I mean, just think about it.

There is that famous quote from Hitler's general that reiterates this in better prose.

I'm kind of disappointed you followed up that previous argument with this one. This one sucks too.

I would say more but I'm at work and can't really type too much here.

Do you agree that, to a point, a conspiracy is more vulnerable to leaks as it gets larger? Let's say there's a point where people's ability to conceptualize a conspiracy starts to break down. Up to that point, you must say that a conspiracy is more vulnerable when more people are in on it.

It also seems like, if conceptualizing the conspiracy is the problem, you have 1) super-humans at the top who can conceptualize large organizations, and 2) less conspiratorial conspirators, e.g. the people doing the work of the conspiracy don't really understand what they're doing.

I think both these points suggest that at the levels at which conspiracies become less-leaky with size, they also become less like conspiracies as we generally understand them.

I guess this is not a universally accepted notion, but to my mind the evidence suggests that even the outliers are within relatively strict constraints for how large an organizational apparatus they can understand. Those at the top, while more powerful and better informed, are probably similarly unable to understand the full extend of their actions. As such, though they may have conspiratorial and sinister motives, the outcomes are likely to be off; at best, they will understand that large systems are chaotic (in the butterfly-effect sense), and thus that the best the outcome can be predicted is by a probability distribution.

Even assuming there are super-humans, uncannily able to comprehend large organizations and chaos-defying foresight, the rest of the people, who might be part of the conspiracy in the legal sense that they know they are doing something wrong, and what they do has the effect of furthering the ultimate goals of the conspiracy's mastermind, they aren't part of the conspiracy in that they aren't acting towards the purported goal. This has the effect of making the conspiracy less top-down, of making it not a conspiracy controlled but a network of independent actors. Even if individuals are able to reliably coax a desired response from the network, the size of the conspiracy as such is actually quite small, and the theory under which conspiracies become leakier as they grow is not refuted because this is a small conspiracy.

Ultimately, all this still makes larger conspiracies harder to pull off. The less the underlings know, the more they act not for the conspirators motives, but for their own, and the less likely that they will act in the conspirator's interests and against their own. And even when everyone is on the same page, perhaps deceived into acting on bad reasons, the large the conspiracy the more noise there will be in its actions, i.e. the more individual decision makers will choose incorrectly when attempting to further the conspiracy (especially since this setup seems to select for people that aren't great at choosing the best way to achieve their goals).

[Gobbo]

Do you agree that, to a point, a conspiracy is more vulnerable to leaks as it gets larger?

Let's put it this way: if it gets big enough, individual leaks don't matter. Say I was the sole person responsible for 9/11 and I have a bunch of evidence—cool, everyone, including you, has the belief that something so large would have been revealed -already-, so my evidence is worthless, except to the minority who can conceptualize things without an authority.

Basically if you control the news you can make any large conspiracy happen. Like spraying the sky with chemicals, daily, and other things. It's pretty easy. As I said, everyone will just believe that a leak would have occurred (on mainstream television).

Ultimately, all this still makes larger conspiracies harder to pull off. The less the underlings know, the more they act not for the conspirators motives, but for their own, and the less likely that they will act in the conspirator's interests and against their own.

That is simply not true. Look at any company.

People's motives are for getting paid so they can go watch TV—I mean, on average. Look at a company like Apple who is able to constantly conspire the world. Then compare that with a group like Masons, who even more efficiently and efficiently conspire the world (and mostly compose Apple I would imagine).

The number of people involved doesn't really matter so long as the incentive is there, and for most people the paycheck is the only incentive. Or, if you get into it more, fear of death of your family. I've talked to people in positions like this—they all suspect the truth but delude themselves for the money or safety (and who can blame most?) No one incentive is to naturally stick their noses in grand workings. Many are just regular joes who cannot conceptualize it.

It also seems like, if conceptualizing the conspiracy is the problem, you have 1) superhumans at the top who can conceptualize large organizations, and 2) less conspiratorial conspirators, e.g. the people doing the work of the conspiracy don't really understand what they're doing.

Yes. That is what we have. As as aside, I find it kind of funny you feel that conceptualizing basically just the things happening in the world takes 'superhuman' traits. It's really easy if you just read the books whose content talks about geopolitics and basic elite values systems being occult in nature—but you have heard all that before from me.

Anyways, you are trying to make a distinction between a 'everyone knowing what is going on' conspiracy and the pyramidal, top-down kind. We can make that distinction but functionally, there isn't one. Whether or not you even accept Masonry beyond the surface level Shriner stuff, society -is- a pyramid.

At this point in my life I would say that conspiracies are just a part of life because people figured out a long time ago that it's easy to perpetuate them and fairly hard to expose them. Most people think in accordance with authority and that is just a fact.

[James L Walker]

To Carleas:

You assume that those who are ordered by the inner circle of conspirators are conscious of what actions or duties they are told to perform on speaking about large orchestrated conspiracies.

For instance if I had paint filled with explosive thermite and ordered a bunch of workers to go paint a building they unknowingly become my accomplices even if they are ignorant of my devised plans.

A large conspiracy is full of unknowing accomplices which is how leeks of conspirators are kept to a minimal if any leek takes place at all.

Of course those that leek out information can be framed, bribed, killed, or just plain made to disappear if you think about it.

How many disappearances are there in the United States alone per year?

[James L Walker]

The trick of a very large conspiracy is to make it seem so impossible to the much larger population that psychologically they are made to think that it can't be true.

It is a trick or method that has been very successful.

Conspirators by their very nature have to be masters of human psychology.

Psychological warfare is their weapon and tool of their trade.

[Carleas]

I don't really know what we're talking about any more. If we're talking about all of society, how are we talking about a conspiracy at all? Aren't we talking more about competing, overlapping conspiracies that could just as well be described as factions or parties or tribes as conspiracies? It seems like if everything's a conspiracy, if every company is a conspiracy, the word loses its meaning. Everyone's a conspiracy theorist if chosing between Mac and PC makes you complicit in one conspiracy or another.

Help me nail this down. If the conspiracy is global, and everyone's a part, and we're really just talking about the rat race, what is it about conspiracy theorizing that makes it significantly distinct from political or social theorizing?

[Gobbo]

Come on, man. This is not at all complicated. Don't fold up into confusion just yet.

We're not talking about all of society. Why would you say that... Just focus on what I said. You presented a distinction (people in the know vs people being used) and I explained how that is accurate, but functionally irrelevant/the same. Please don't confuse me saying that 'society is a pyramid' (that was a metaphor) as meaning that all of society is, itself, one conspiracy.

If you want, just apply what I said only to 9/11.

I believe you to be close to understanding my point. Keep going.

[Carleas]

First, there's a distinction that needs to be made between 'large' conspiracies and 'important' conspiracies. I think we've been calling both big, which is confusing. I started by saying that a large conspiracy, one involving a lot of people, would be more likely to be uncovered than a small conspiracy. It seems like you've been arguing that an important conspiracy would be less likely to be uncovered (going of your one-man 9/11 hypothetical), but that doesn't necessarily contradict the correlation between size and discoverability.

Next, let's focus on the company/conspiracy distinction, because I take it there is one. A company is kind of like a large mundane conspiracy. Apple is conspiring to make money, and employs people all over the world to that end. What distinguishes a company from the kinds of conspiracies we seem to discussing is that, from the top to the bottom, everyone at Apple is trying to make money. The dudes stocking shelves at the Apple store is paying rent, the executives are paying the mortgage on their fifth house. There's no deception. In a conspiracy, as I understand the distinction, above a certain level the top of the pyramid is lying to the bottom of the pyramid, so that the bottom thinks it's trying to make money, and the top is actually trying to e.g. kill a large part of the world's population.

But what I was saying made large conspiracies more vulnerable was something that really only applies when part of the pyramid is lying to the other part. It goes to the structure/policy distinction: companies are well structured to produce what they want to produce even when everyone is working for their own selfish motive of rent or mortgage payments. For much of the pyramid, there isn't much difference; the dud dropping off the thermite paint is just earning a paycheck. But somewhere along the hierarchy there's a big disconnect between what one level wants and what they are telling the lower level to achieve. The more 'surface' there is along this level of the hierarchy, the more possibility the that level below will end up achieving the wrong thing.

Going back to the 9/11-of-one: here, it seems like we're talking about a mismatch of largeness and importantness. If 9/11 were done by one person who somehow did it and deluded everyone into thinking she didn't, it would be inconceivable. But it wasn't hard to convince everyone that a slightly larger conspiracy was responsible for it and did not remain unknown following the attack. It was shocking and hard to believe, but the group responsible in the accepted story is reasonable, so that it's conceivable that they did it and didn't get found out until it was too late and most people accepted it.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Sorry, the Bilderburgs wouldn't do this. They are already on top, and in charge. Anything that substantially changes the international system puts them at risk. There is indeed a conspiracy, but you already fell for it via misdirection. They are being set up so another group can take over for them.... one with the means to do so, but not as much power. They are second best, and have every reason and desire to attract as much attention to their enemies as possible. Hence why someone like Walker, who does next to nothing with his life, has found out about this 'truth' despite being no where near anyone or perhaps even saw someone from the distance who knew such people. He didn't get this through word of mouth, it was implanted in the internet in spots where he could read it.

Every conspiracy theory on the internet is put there for disinformation purposes and to lead you astray. Don't you think the richest and most powerful people in the world could afford the smart people to hack websites, send custom virus' to people's computers, or send people to steal laptops if something they were doing actually was exposed? Why would they be so lazy in their response? Because they too read these conspiracy theories involving them, and it's as weird and confusing to them as to you, and think crazy people are writing it like everyone else, and go on with their lives as well.

All the while the enemy plots and lurks beneath our radar, because people enraptured with conspiracy theories don't want to admit that the storyline they accept is fake, implanted, and that they are a fool for believing it.

The common term and reward of giving 'the key to the city' is evidence they are not conspiring.... they don't need to, they are on top. In ancient times, the gate guards who held the gate would oftentimes be bribed or run away to the enemy camp.... so the king of the city would have to figure out how to keep the gate key at night with someone who could be trusted. It turns out the only person who could be trusted was the one with the most to lose if someone broke into the city, and so they would give him the key.... as no amount of bribing or promises from the enemy would normally cause a defection from the richest and most powerful man there. Nobody necessarily liked him, but he kept the damn gate locked at night..... cause nothing good could possibly come to him if others got into the city at night.

You see, someone is after that key. The people you are attacking Walker are not the enemy, but the silent ones who are always smiling and plotting, supporting you, posting conspiracy theories on the net, and crushing the weak and poor.

[Gobbo]

CN,

Can you do me a favor? Can you never talk about conspiracies ever? Everything you say is an unresearched guess. One after the other.

I don't care about talking about this at a practical level. I know what happened and why. I'm interested in talking about the theory—the reasons why these lies do, in fact, stick to otherwise smart people like Carleas and the rest of this board. If you want, go start a 9/11 thread and circle jerk over there.

Carleas,

I'll respond more, but I'm not making any difference between important and large. I'm saying larger conspiracies are always harder to uncover than small, and that when a conspiracy grows in size it does not raise the likelihood of it being uncovered or otherwise exposed—basically.

[Trajicomic]

The common term and reward of giving 'the key to the city' is evidence they are not conspiring.... they don't need to, they are on top. In ancient times, the gate guards who held the gate would oftentimes be bribed or run away to the enemy camp.... so the king of the city would have to figure out how to keep the gate key at night with someone who could be trusted. It turns out the only person who could be trusted was the one with the most to lose if someone broke into the city, and so they would give him the key.... as no amount of bribing or promises from the enemy would normally cause a defection from the richest and most powerful man there. Nobody necessarily liked him, but he kept the damn gate locked at night..... cause nothing good could possibly come to him if others got into the city at night.

You see, someone is after that key. The people you are attacking Walker are not the enemy, but the silent ones who are always smiling and plotting, supporting you, posting conspiracy theories on the net, and crushing the weak and poor.

I want to print these words, frame them, and post them all on my wall.

[James L Walker]

*Flips the bird at Contra Nietzsche*

I will not even be indignant of myself to respond to your poorly constructed post filled with insults. It signifies the last straw of patience I have for you.

[Faust]

Walker has a point, CN. You're on a short leash, here. keep it about the issue, if you don't want a time-out.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Contra - do your complaining in Rant House or help & Suggestions - Faust

[Gobbo]

Lawl@ people who refuse to admit controlled demo in 2012.

I refuse to even entertain that (and always have) but Siatd could convince u.

[James L Walker]

TO CONTRA:

Is not philosophy that which centers itself around questioning, exploration, and skepticism?

I am against your aims to censor and sanitize this website.

From this day forward I have lost all respect for you as a person.

You have lost all credibility in my eyes from hence fourth.

[Faust]

Again, let's keep it to the topic.