Intransparant and manipulative governance has only itself to thank for it. The mistrust, at least, is entirely merited. — Tzeentch

I think that's a good observation.

The corporate community represented by powerful think tanks like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission seems to believe in ideological and economic cycles punctuated by periodic changes of governing political parties that lend themselves to the advancement of corporate interests in “leaps forward”. Little consideration is given to the interests of the people.

PARIS 2008 GENERAL SUMMARY – TRILATERAL COMMISSION

So, we can see how conspiracy theories can have a basis in fact. Which illustrates why dismissing them out of hand amounts to denial.

What would cultural equality entail? — ToothyMaw

No idea. I'm just asking. Presumably, different races have different cultures (and religions).

Or are we to ignore cultural and religious factors and focus on economic, educational, and political factors, exclusively?

It wouldn't be completely wrong to say conspiracy theorists endorse some version of Modal Realism, a position that seems to blur the lines between possibility and actuality and those who aren't conspiracy theorists seem more familiar, intuitively or by exposure, with Probability Theory — TheMadFool

That's a good point. In which category would you put police detectives acting on a working hypothesis to solve a crime?

why do a subclass of conspiracy theory when you can have a class of its own that functions as an antithesis to conspiracy theory. — Caldwell

Because I'm referring to a subclass of "conspiracy theory" or theory about conspiracy, not the "antithesis" of it. Maybe it could be called "analytical conspiracy theory" or there may be better terms for it.

I don't think it is that important though as the discussion is not as much about the theory itself as about people's reaction to it.

Yes, but also educationally and politically. — ToothyMaw

What about culturally and religiously?

In fact, it can be speculated that some people seek positions of power precisely to compensate for their deeply felt powerlessness. — baker

That's very true. But, equally, some people may seek power due to overconfidence, feelings of superiority, etc., and resulting sense of entitlement.

Besides, once you've acquired a taste for power you may want more, simply because it feels good to be powerful.

Isn't that just a theory? Why use the specific name of a currently much discussed phenomenon if that's not actually what you want to talk about? — Echarmion

Yes, it is a theory. But I'm referring to those conspiracy theories that are (1) evidence-based, (2) well-thought-out, and (3) likely to be true, as opposed, for example, to deliberately fabricated narratives serving as political propaganda.

I'm referring to a subclass of "conspiracy theory" for which I do not as yet have a name. If you wish to suggest one, please feel free to do so.

And no, I haven't been "living under a rock for the past 5 years". I am aware that people speak of conspiracies and/or conspiracy theories, but this isn't something that is normally discussed in my social circle.

"Racial equality" is a state in which people of all colors share equal opportunity, and, thus, equal outcome. — ToothyMaw

So, "racial equality" is defined primarily in economic terms. Or?

Once a person has internalized and generalized that sense of powerlessness, narratives aligned with that powerlessness will appeal to them. — baker

Yes. That makes sense. But it still needs to be established how big a factor powerlessness is in particular cases. I'm sure even powerful people might come to suspect that a conspiracy against them is being hatched by rivals or opponents if they think there is evidence to justify their suspicion.

Do you know people like that in your life? In both camps? I do. — Caldwell

Yes, I suppose we all do know people like that in our lives. And we ourselves may belong to one camp or the other on occasion.

First, a conspiracy theory will adopt the aesthetics of a scientific or forensic analysis but will cherry pick it's results, using bad epistemology to justify this (see the zetetic method for an emblematic example). — Echarmion

I see what you mean. However, this was not what I meant by conspiracy theory. By "conspiracy theory" in this context I meant something more like "fact-based working theory on the basis of which we attempt to logically explain events or situations".

Obviously, I'm not an expert on conspiracy theories and I wasn't aware of any technical term for it. I only thought of it after noticing a tendency here to label certain statements "conspiracy theory" even when no conspiracy or theory was advanced or suggested.

This is why I used the provisional phrase "credible conspiracy theories" and "legitimate working theories". In those cases where "cherry picking" and "bad epistemology" is applied then obviously the theory turns into something else.

In short, I was thinking more along the lines of a working theory that, for example, a team of police detectives might devise as part of their effort to solve a criminal case.

In other words, there would be a systematic process of examining the evidence, advancing arguments, making suggestions, proposing a working hypothesis, etc., and formulating a thought-out and tested evidence-based theory.

By the way, I've added quotation marks to the Amazon description of Brotherton's book as per your request.

People who feel powerless seem to be more prone toward conspiracy theories. — baker

There may be some truth in that. However, the question arises as to whether feeling powerless is (1) a fundamental or innate feature of their psychology or (2) the result of some factual observation that motivated that feeling (a) in general and/or (b) in relation to the particular theory.

... Appolodufus (he neither denied it nor confirmed it when I put it point blank to him that he was a user on the other site). — god must be atheist

Actually, that's a lie.

This was your "question":

Are you in fact ImmanuelCan from the other forum? Yes, or no, it actually is neither here nor there, I'm just curious. — god must be atheist

And this was my answer:

Personally, I very rarely frequent online forums. I happen to work from home at the moment so I have a bit of spare time to engage in discussions here. — Apollodorus

Obviously, the answer is NO.

In reality this philosophy ultimately leads to increasing levels of inequality. For the simple reason that money is power and power corrupts. — TaySan

Agree. Despite all the progress, inequality seems to be an intractable problem and new forms of inequality constantly emerge. Money hasn't solved the problem. On the contrary, whoever has the money has the power to decide what is right or wrong and ensure that their views are given priority over the views of others. This tends to exacerbate the problem instead of solving it. This is why the wealthy (rightly or wrongly) often become the subject of criticism and conspiracy theories.

I do think it's important to consider conspiracy theories on a case by case basis, and avoid dismissing them on the basis of the political views of the person advocating for them (genetic fallacy). — bert1

Correct. I think the rational approach would be to consider a conspiracy theory on its own merits and always under due consideration of what is generally accepted as facts. (Obviously, I'm not talking about the rantings of psychopaths or political propaganda here)

But the difficulty that often arises is that there is a tendency to dismiss a theory out of hand and sometimes even the facts on which the theory is based. Denial is in some cases an expression of anxiety or fear. For example, it may be motivated by an unconscious fear of having one's own assumptions challenged or something along those lines. This may be why denial can manifest itself in the form of a reflex reaction even before the person in question has considered the facts.

The future just involves more and more programmed social behavior, where people will become less and less free and not even realize it because they have been manipulated into accepting servitude. — darthbarracuda

That appears to be the case. The original object of philosophy was to enable us to attain freedom, especially intellectual and spiritual. Hence Plato's allegory of the cave showing that we are not just prisoners of society but also of the way we perceive ourselves and the world we live in.

It may also be worthwhile noting that while initially politics played a minor role in our lives, society seems to have become more and more politicized and more recently, psychologized.

The problem with Capitalism is that it rewards shameless opportunism. While I'm only discounting so much as to your claims of Rockefellers, what I'm suggesting is that, if you keep on as you have, you'll be following that paper trial forever, as it just doesn't lead anywhere. — thewonder

And what I'm suggesting is that you’re reading the wrong books, ignoring the sources, denying the facts, and constructing your own science fiction theory just to contradict others.

To understand how the Rockefellers ran their banking and oil empire you need to read objective and factual books like Rulers of America: A Study of Financial Capital by Anna Rochester.

As for the CIA, it was conceived by Rockefeller people, headed by Rockefeller people, and funded by the Rockefellers.

William “Wild Bill” Donovan, the “founding father of the CIA” was a long-time employee of the Rockefeller Foundation.

In 1941 Donovan organized US intelligence operations into COI (Coordination of Information) and asked Rockefeller lawyer Allen Dulles to head it. The COI HQ was at room 3603 at the Rockefeller Center.

In 1947 the CIA was officially created.

In 1952 Dulles was officially appointed as head of the CIA.

William J. Donovan – Wikipedia

Rockefeller people created the CIA, headed the CIA and were sitting in the US Administration as advisers and policy makers in matters concerning the CIA.

The CIA was a Rockefeller operation from start to finish. That’s why it has always represented the interests of the oil, pharmaceutical, and chemical industry.

But if you choose to deny the facts, that's your problem, not mine. It makes no difference to me.

In the meantime, however, I would suggest to continue to render apparatuses of social control inoperative — thewonder

Sure. But as I explained to you on the other threads, you've got no chance in a million of achieving that as long as you don't understand what those apparatuses are, how they operate, and who controls them.

My point is that if Nazi's were ostentatiously godless, as is often argued, they would have deliberately chosen something more pagan or secular, — Tom Storm

Correct. Steigmann-Gall makes some valid points in The Holy Reich. Obviously, some Nazi leaders, perhaps including Hitler himself, were atheists. But on the whole, Germans were Christians and the Nazis intended to use a sanitized form of “positive Christianity” for their own purposes.

Richard Steigmann-Gall – Wikipedia

That's what I'm saying. Save your psychoanalysis to your family members. You seem to recognize (falsely, most of the time) one emotion, and no more. You're a one-emotion guy.

lol I do appreciate your sense of humor. Do carry on.

It is NOT exclusively a Prussian military tradition. — god must be atheist

lol I never said "Gott mit uns" was "exclusively" Prussian. I simply said the Nazis continued a Prussian tradition. They didn't specifically introduced it to appeal to Christians as suggested by @Tom Storm.

I'm not even entirely sure as to what Sullivan & Cromwell has to do with David Rockefeller. — thewonder

Sullivan & Cromwell were a top law firm that represented top bankers and industrialists like J P Morgan, Ford, and Rockefeller.

As the Rockefellers gradually replaced the Morgan and Ford Groups, S&C came to represent Rockefeller interests.

S&C lawyers were not just CIA directors they were part of the US Administration and were involved in public policy making as admitted by the S&C own website;

"During World War II and its political aftermath, S&C lawyers such as noted partners John Foster Dulles and Arthur Dean played important individual roles in helping shape domestic policy and international affairs"

Sullivan & Cromwell LLP

As I said, the Rockefellers used top lawyers to run their banking and oil empire as well as to influence domestic policy and international affairs.

They also had "God is with us" festooned on Nazi/Wehrmacht belt buckles. — Tom Storm

"Gott mit uns" was a Prussian military tradition going back to the 1800s. The Nazis simply continued it. I don't think we should read too much into it.

What do you mean? Why am I going on and on about this? Look at yourself in the mirror. — god must be atheist

It wasn't me who started this thread. You're getting angry with yourself IMO.

I don't think that it's fair of you to allege any indoctrination, though. — thewonder

Well, it isn't fair of you to allege "conspiracy theory" either, when I was just trying to help you understand some facts that you seemed unaware of. I'm just being honest and I'm telling you what you sound like to me.

But anyway, let's start again.

You are talking a lot about the CIA.

I'm saying that Rockefeller representative Allen Dulles was the first director of the CIA.

Allen Dulles - Wikipedia

Do you or do you not accept this?

Well, if you start like that, I wonder how many people who are singled out as a group like having these attributes blindly attached to them? — god must be atheist

That was an exaggeration on my part. I had no intention to start a thread with that specific title and I never will. And no, I'm not "angry" at all. Least of all with that statement. But maybe you are?

Anyway, why are we going on and on about this when @Seditious has already admitted that he/she does hope that God/"sky daddy" doesn't exist?

Let's start another thread if you want. Why keep flogging a dead horse?

I'm just saying that they didn't set up British or American intelligence. That's what I thought that you had said, but, perhaps, I have misread you? — thewonder

I just told you that the very first CIA director was Allen Dulles, partner at the law firm Sullivan & Cromwell that was representing Rockefeller interests.

Allen Dulles - Wikipedia

That's why I asked you if you knew how the Rockefellers ran their banking and oil empire, because they did it through lawyers like Dulles.

But if you're denying the facts then possibly you've been indoctrinated too far for anything to be done about it. So, I can't help you.

Some people are frankly too frightened of life to engage in reflection. In all this the salient question is always to what extent people will be rewarded or punished for doing this - by their own thought systems or by the family and culture they live in. — Tom Storm

Yes, that seems like a sensible way to look at it. However, I'm not sure if it's fear of life in general or fear of certain ideas that seem to threaten our perception of ourselves and the world. The ego, the emotional part of our psyche, wants to be reassured in its emotional needs and therefore tends to seek out and accept ideas that fulfill those needs and reject those that don't.

That's just speculation, though. — thewonder

That's what I was trying to point out to you. You keep making claims without producing any evidence to back them up, like someone who's been conditioned to think in a certain way. Obviously, I've no idea who you are. But to me you sound like someone who's been indoctrinated by some far-left cult, no offense intended. I was trying to explain to you that the CIA is not controlled by the alt-Right.

That's why I brought up David Rockefeller and the first CIA directors who were lawyers representing Rockefeller interests. The Rockefellers were not alt-right, they were on the left of the Republican Party and sponsored many left-wing projects. But if you've decided that you don't want to believe me, and that you don't want to check the sources either then, unfortunately, nothing can be done.

But you may be onto something, A- it may not be wrong to say people come to ideas for emotional reasons. Now how would you test for that? — Tom Storm

Well, we don't tend to come into the world with too many ideas in our head. We tend to start with some basic sense perceptions and emotions. As our emotional needs become more developed and stronger, we tend to absorb or adopt ideas that correspond to those emotional needs. Only later on do we begin to examine our ideas or beliefs but even that often only partially and without necessarily exchanging them for a different set of ideas or beliefs. The case of more reflective and analytical minds is of course a different story. That's why I said that believers need to be classified according to their capacity of reflective thought.

I apologize for hi-jacking your thread to talk about crypto-vanguardism within the Communization current. — thewonder

It's no big deal. I was just trying to help you because your statements seemed to display some psychotic or manic features apart from the fact that they distort and misinterpret historical facts. That's why I told you that you need to understand yourself (and your issues) before you understand others.

Only you are interested in talking about this, however, and you just seem to be making an attempt to divert the conversation to one about the Fabians, of which you already have a thread going on. — thewonder

Not at all, I only mentioned the Fabians here in passing simply to refute your claim that the Rockefellers had nothing to do with anything, when David Rockefeller admits in his own Memoirs that he studied at the London Fabians' LSE that was funded by his father and wrote a thesis on Fabianism.

Every other sentence of yours is about the CIA. You seem to think that the CIA is controlled by an alt-right cabal. I pointed out to you that this isn't the case.

You are saying that the Rockefellers had "extraordinary amount of wealth and influence" and when I ask you what that extraordinary influence consisted in and how it was exerted, or how the Rockefellers ran their international banking and oil empire, you change the subject and claim that the Rockefellers "didn't have that amount of influence". That doesn't make sense.

If you want to continue the discussion on your own, you are free to do so. But if you want to engage in dialogue with others, then you can't deny the sources adduced by them while producing zero sources of your own.

Because there was nowhere else to do so, I had to use the forum to leave a set of points out there for someone on the internet to find. — thewonder

Well, that amounts to an admission that you're using the forum for your own agendas like you did with some of my threads.

As for you "leaving a set of points out there", you needn't bother because most of that stuff is totally incoherent and hardly makes sense to anyone. No offense, but you seem to have issues that can't be resolved on an online forum.

What I'm saying is that the Rockefellers did not have the control over the intelligence community that you have alleged — thewonder

And what I'm saying is that David Rockefeller must have had some control over intelligence agencies if he was involved in creating them. He also set up his own intelligence agency in French North Africa during the war.

It's in his Memoirs.

"I set about creating my own intelligence network from scratch. I did have some advantages. I spoke French and understood the political and economic situation better than most. In addition, I had letters of introduction to a number of influential people, two of whom proved to be of immense help"

Rockefeller established wide contacts in the region through the general manager of Standard Oil in N Africa, the powerful head of the Banque National pour le Commercial l'Industrie (a business friend), Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King (a friend of his father), Canadian General G Varnier (a friend of Mackenzie King) and other people in the Allied diplomatic community, etc.

So, basically, you're denying the sources, Rockefeller's own statements, just for the sake of contradicting me.

And you're saying you are not in denial?

↪Apollodorus ↪3017amen You two should stop jerking each other off. It's disgusting and unbecoming on a philosophy site. — tim wood

Well, that statement of yours definitely makes it sound like a proper philosophy forum.

But as a matter of fact I said this:

And anyway, @Seditious has already admitted that he is an atheist who hopes that God doesn't exist. So, that already answers the question. There is nothing more to be said unless you want to start a new thread. — Apollodorus

So, I don't think it's me that goes on and on about it.

I don't know you're on about. Everyone agreed with you in that discussion about the SPD's alliance with the German military. Besides, no one here knows anything about the far-Left and everyone just takes my idiosyncratic theories for psychobabble. — thewonder

I'm not talking about the SPD's alliance with the German military at all.

I'm talking about this:

Marxism - philosophy or hoax?

But I do agree that much of what you're saying sounds very much like psychobabble. Whether it's intentional or not I cannot tell.

I am here for critical analysis, but get put off when it gets so petty, but try to rise beyond this — Jack Cummins

I'm afraid rising beyond it is the only way. With a bit of luck it toughens you up and makes you more philosophical, too.

And it's a forum, which means that a few work and pay while others play. And that all of us who participate should just say, "Thank you!" - at least once in a while. — tim wood

I can't disagree with that. However, I think people might be more inclined to say "thank you" if they're allowed to criticize any system including Marxist political philosophy without being branded "Nazis" or "idiots". I don't think that would lower the intellectual level in any way. On the contrary, it might stimulate analytical thought even on the left.