When Inferring to a Conspiracy might be the Best Explanation - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14954443
Pants-of-dog wrote:Who is the establishment in this case?


Sir Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh. :lol:

By the Establishment, I do not only mean the centres of official power—though they are certainly part of it—but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised. The exercise of power cannot be understood unless it is recognized that it is exercised socially.


How do they have leverage over all the participants?


They control the politics inside discipline. They have a lot of influence over careers and reputations.

What is their common agenda?


To preserve the authority and credibility of their institutions and that of the larger institution of science itself. Science is a priesthood and just like any priesthood it closes ranks when its integrity is challenged.

Again, they are all competing for the same awards, grants, positions, funding etc. if they are all climatologists.


People who spend a decade studying to make a career for themselves inside academia aren't natural born world shakers, science isn't the cutthroat world you seem to imagine it is. In that line of work people get awards, grants, positions, and funds by developing relationships and playing ball, not by rocking the boat. And if climategate didn't come out right those awards, grants, positions, funding etc could have been jeopardized for everyone.

Then there is also fossil fuel money for any climatologists who wish to claim that ACC is incorrect.


And along with that fossil fuel money comes excommunication from academia and exile from polite society and a lot of heat that nobody in their right mind would want to subject themselves to when they could have a comfortable career without the conflict and controversy.

I found it heavy on opinion and light on facts.


Just like you. :D
#14954445
Sivad wrote:Sir Muir Russell and Lord Oxburgh. :lol:


First of all, they were responsible for only two out of eight inquiries. It would be impossible for them to have controlled the other six.

Second of all, please provide evidence for your claim that rigging inquiries is standard practice for them.

They control the politics inside discipline. They have a lot of influence over careers and reputations.


Please provide evidence that these two men have so much influence over careers and reputations that they were able to exercise control over all eight inquiries.

To preserve the authority and credibility of their institutions and that of the larger institution of science itself. Science is a priesthood and just like any priesthood it closes ranks when its integrity is challenged.


So many of them have no reason to preserve the credibility of UEA or the specific scientists accused in the manufactured scandal we call climategate.

Since no one was questioning the integrity of science itself, it makes no sense to assume they were closing ranks to defend it.

People who spend a decade studying to make a career for themselves inside academia aren't natural born world shakers, science isn't the cutthroat world you seem to imagine it is. In that line of work people get awards, grants, positions, and funds by developing relationships and playing ball, not by rocking the boat.


They get these rewards both ways: by developing relationships, and by looking better than their competitors.

And if climategate didn't come out right those awards, grants, positions, funding etc could have been jeopardized for everyone.


Not really. No.

And along with that fossil fuel money comes excommunication from academia and exile from polite society and a lot of heat that nobody in their right mind would want to subject themselves to when they could have a comfortable career without the conflict and controversy.


Please provide evidence that tenured professors will be fired simply for advocating that ACC is wrong.

One of the things I noticed about the Atlantic editorial is how the author ignores how the fossil fuel industry is actually conspiring about ACC.
#14954663


In this talk, Professor Uscinski will show that conspiracy theories follow a strategic logic: they are tools used by the powerless to attack and defend against the powerful. Conspiracy theories must conform to this logic, or they will not be successful. In this way, conspiracy theories are for losers.
#14954682
Sivad wrote:There are systemic conspiracies where you have a large number of people who haven't orchestrated the conspiracy and haven't been formally initiated into it but are consciously and willfully complicit in it.
Sure, so if I take this at face-value, are you suggesting that automobile operators are consciously and willfully complicit in man-made climate change? Also, if you do not believe in man-made climate change, you may strike that notion and use big oil instead. Is this truly a conspiracy, or are you mincing words to get a point across? In which, you offer a social critique. A critique that has been expounded by many other people, mind you.

The establishment news media is a good example of that kind of conspiracy, the owners and the top journalists and editors are deliberately manipulating news and information in the interest of a corrupt establishment and everybody else in the industry is just going along to get along.
Again, propaganda follows conspiracy. Ignorance isn't an attribute of the word conspiracy. Deception IS an attribute of the word conspiracy. There must be collusion at the top (technically a conspiracy can take place at the top, middle, or bottom. But one at the top will most likely impact a large swath of people), propaganda and compartmentalization take care of the rest when the plan is put into motion. It's impossible to litigate your definition of a systemic conspiracy, and that's why it's an inaccurate definition. A functional legal system can prosecute conspiracies, but not an entire population, Sivad. :lol:

Yes, people are responsible for their actions (true change starts with the self. Go watch my video- Nutrition for the Shadow. Shadow, as in the Jungian subconscious), but deception is deception. And it's a key ingredient in the art of war. This of course, leads us to the notion that there is (and always has been) a war on consciousness. Minus anecdotal narratives, people are not naturally evil, people are not naturally good. People are like potter's clay. Is potter's clay evil or good?

They know what's expected of them and they play their part in the rigged system in exchange for the sweet status and the filthy filthy lucre.
This is a zealous and bombastic description of the average citizen. This kind of cynicism is not fruitful, hence why you're pushing everyone away by taking jabs at everything we say. A cynic is one who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.

The system didn't rig itself, the world is a dastardly plan conceived by villains and carried out by whores.
I hope you're being facetious. You just told me that large systemic conspiracies control everyone, and that everyone is complicit in its execution because they're greedy. That's a very simplistic approach, and I'm not fond of your underhanded reasoning. Perhaps you should study criminology. Crime at the top typically affects crime at the bottom. This is, again, due to the nature of hierarchical organization. It certainly is a multifaceted problem (profit motives, search for identity, existential power trips, etc), but the world is not a one-dimensional plan conceived by villains and carried out by whores. :roll:

I'm not sure why you're so angry when you post on Pofo.






Systemic-Conspiracy as Social Pathology

Many social systems theorists are considering this. The critique is- as groups become larger and more complex over time, psychopathic (sociopathic/narcissistic/borderline personality disorders) personality types rise to the top of the social pyramid. This is due to their lack of empathy or the way their brain is conditioned (child hood trauma/abuse) and/or wired. Once a psychopath has the opportunity to shape or influence policy, the group emulates the vision/direction. Hence a systemic and pathological conspiracy.

Despite fancy words and academic journals, this isn't a new phenomenon. Whole empires collapse when the wrong people are at the helm successively.

On a spiritual note: Secret societies, blackmail, and spiritual wickedness play a large role in psychopathy or parasitic social behavior.

Lastly, a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory is an exercise in critical thinking. When a conspiracy theory becomes a pathological belief it's typically a cognitive coping mechanism and a sign of underlying psychological alienation/conflict. Mental illness is not always characterized by a belief in a conspiracy theory. Also, dogmatic tenacity is not always a sign of mental illness. Pofo has a knack for fostering psychological splitting (all-or-nothing/black-and-white thinking), and that kind of irrational dialogue can ruin discussion.

Be seeing you,


-RT
#14959691
Here's an excellent documentary on the 2008 financial crisis

In it, we can see how a conspiracy at the top of a financial hierarchy influenced people's behavior. Someone had to say "let's give out loans to poor people." A conspiracy is like a pathogen, it infects various areas of society. AS for the people taking out loans... People are prone to chasing fads and sometimes a fad is a conspiracy. Remember big tobacco?

If you make it far enough, the doc explores this point as well
The critique is- as groups become larger and more complex over time, psychopathic (sociopathic/narcissistic/borderline personality disorders) personality types rise to the top of the social pyramid.
#14959884
RhetoricThug wrote:Systemic-Conspiracy as Social Pathology

Many social systems theorists are considering this. The critique is- as groups become larger and more complex over time, psychopathic (sociopathic/narcissistic/borderline personality disorders) personality types rise to the top of the social pyramid. This is due to their lack of empathy or the way their brain is conditioned (child hood trauma/abuse) and/or wired. Once a psychopath has the opportunity to shape or influence policy, the group emulates the vision/direction. Hence a systemic and pathological conspiracy.




I posted a wiki article on meta-power a while back, you should read it. If you look at the system with that concept in mind you'll see that it's not so much "psychopaths" hijacking otherwise virtuous institutions but power designing institutions and systems to serve its own ends. Take the founding of the US for example, the system of government was literally devised in secret, by plutocrats, in a smoke filled room with the primary concern being "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority." The system itself is a conspiracy.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public
— Adam Smith


The trade of the ruling class is power and when the ruling class gets together the conversation always ends in a conspiracy against the public.
#14959886
The man who is possessed of wealth, who lolls on his sofa or rolls in his carriage, cannot judge the wants or feelings of the day-laborer. The government we mean to erect is intended to last for ages. The landed interest, at present, is prevalent; but in process of time, when we approximate to the states and kingdoms of Europe, — when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small, through the various means of trade and manufactures, will not the landed interest be overbalanced in future elections, and unless wisely provided against, what will become of your government? In England, at this day, if elections were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would soon take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.


That's the Father of the Constitution(James Madison) hatching a massive systemic conspiracy against the public interest. That's how power works, it's not incompetent, it's not haphazard, it's organized, deliberate, and effective.

#14960395
^How does a post about the American Revolution address my last two posts? BTW Sivad, if you study colonialism and the founding of America, you'd realize that political differences were put aside to fight a common enemy/the crown.

Take the founding of the US for example, the system of government was literally devised in secret, by plutocrats, in a smoke filled room with the primary concern being "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority."
Oh I wonder why they had to meet in secret, Sivad... :lol: For real man...

You've injected a Marxist critique splitting technique by emphasizing the bold bits, but I'm not sure if you understand what you're bashing.

You might as well say all institutions are systemic conspiracies. :roll: Wait, you did "The system itself is a conspiracy." Maaaaaaaaaaaaaaaan :smokin:

What's next, something touching like "I grew up in a large family and my father was head of the household. One day, while surfing Wikipedia, I realized my childhood was a LIE. The nuclear family is a systemic conspiracy. It's a social construct created by the Patriarchy! It's organized sexism!"

That's how power works, it's not incompetent, it's not haphazard, it's organized, deliberate, and effective.
Sure, what's your point? Who said power is incompetent and haphazard?
#14962028
If one does accuse you of being a “conspiracy theorist” or a “revisionist,” what do you reply to those critics?

Their instinctive repartee is that anyone doubting the vulgate is self-evidently an unreasoning ‘revisionist-conspiracist’.

The tactic is so inane that it would be risible if the propagandistic stakes of this discursive set-up were not as decisive as they really are. It is their standard inquisitorial trump. Indeed, it is not directly aimed at the critic but at whatever audience might be listening to the debate: it is meant to scare away readers and potential supporters from the critic’s warnings by tarnishing him with the most unsavory label the system has devised for the purpose, that of the truculently stupid paranoid. In the general arena of public opinion, any skeptical attack —carried out outside any conventional party line or schema— on the abuses of the power structure is likewise resisted by its discursive custodians (at all levels and of all political shades), who have been conditioned to brand reflexively the dissenter as an insufferable ‘conspiracy theorist’.

The fact that there is indeed out there a slew of amateurs who churn out a profuse amount of extravagant pamphlets full of wild speculation, referenced by threadbare bibliographies, certainly helps their case. But the question at hand does not pertain to those conspiracy theorists, but to the trahison des clercs: if you are perceived as breaking ranks with your former brothers-in-arms, they will make you pay.

Guido Preparata, Associate Professor of Political Economy, University of Washington
#14962238
Sivad wrote:If one does accuse you of being a “conspiracy theorist” or a “revisionist,” what do you reply to those critics?

Their instinctive repartee is that anyone doubting the vulgate is self-evidently an unreasoning ‘revisionist-conspiracist’.
What's the context, epistemology or macro-economics? The term conspiracist is fairly new, and I wouldn't say revisionist carries the same meaning.

If we're talking about human knowledge, this quote comes to mind: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

The tactic is so inane that it would be risible if the propagandistic stakes of this discursive set-up were not as decisive as they really are. It is their standard inquisitorial trump. Indeed, it is not directly aimed at the critic but at whatever audience might be listening to the debate: it is meant to scare away readers and potential supporters from the critic’s warnings by tarnishing him with the most unsavory label the system has devised for the purpose, that of the truculently stupid paranoid.
That's a fancy way of describing ad hominem. And I would say it is aimed at the critic, because that's what the reader sees. A label can frame perspective.

In the general arena of public opinion, any skeptical attack —carried out outside any conventional party line or schema— on the abuses of the power structure is likewise resisted by its discursive custodians (at all levels and of all political shades), who have been conditioned to brand reflexively the dissenter as an insufferable ‘conspiracy theorist’.
This is true. Nonetheless, it's not always a coordinated effort. Culture can do this. People do not like psychological stress, and that's why people ridicule skeptics. It's not that they're conspiring, it's just conditioning, like he said.

The fact that there is indeed out there a slew of amateurs who churn out a profuse amount of extravagant pamphlets full of wild speculation, referenced by threadbare bibliographies, certainly helps their case.
Sure, amateurs muddy the water.

But the question at hand does not pertain to those conspiracy theorists, but to the trahison des clercs: if you are perceived as breaking ranks with your former brothers-in-arms, they will make you pay.
This is just group-think. Standard group behavior. Happens in society or in the arts & sciences.

Guido Preparata, Associate Professor of Political Economy, University of Washington
Here is a nice followup interview:

Dr. Guido G. Preparata: They Want to Turn Us All into A Global Society of Termites

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Your book "Conjuring Hitler" received a laudatory criticism of our friend Peter Dale Scott. Moreover, I share the view of this great intellectual on the fact that this book is essential in the work of historical research. How did you arrive at conclusions against the flow of the historians of the establishment, namely that Hitler was made by the United States and Great Britain and that World War II was inevitable?

Read more: https://ahtribune.com/in-depth/1802-gui ... arata.html


It's nice to see academics compile alternate history. Alternate history is often overlooked until a certified intellectual publishes something. Thank you for bringing this to the thread, Sivad. :up: I'm trying to remember which philosopher said this, but I'll paraphrase the quote: "Human history is a crime story."
How rich are the Rotschilds realy

A more reliable source https://www.youtube.com/w[…]

BigSteve is just following a proud tradition of Am[…]

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/102[…]

The Next UK PM everybody...

Jeremy Corbyn is the most unpopular Opposition le[…]