NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/conspira/14634

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 3.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!menudo.uh.edu!ccsvax.sfasu.edu!f_gautjw
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy
Subject: Re: Secret Societies
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 15:02:58 CST
References: <[e-mail]>
Organization: Stephen F. Austin State University
Lines: 64

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John W. Redelfs) writes:
>
[text deleted]
>
> What is the point of this exercise?  I'd like all to know on
> alt.conspiracy that there are secret societies.  A secret society could
> exist within the Council on Foreign Relations and Ted Frank wouldn't
> even know about it.  Neither would Chip Berlett.  And even if he did know
> about it he wouldn't say so.
>
> --
>
>
> --------- All my opinions are tentative pending further data. ---------
> ------------ John W. Redelfs, [e-mail] -------------

I think a lot of people have trouble accepting the basic concept of
conspiracy theory because of the type of logic encountered.  By their
very nature, conspiracies can seldom be "proved" in the same sense
that a theorem in geometry can be proven.  Lacking such deductive
iron-clad proof, many minds discard the available evidence and throw
out the whole conjecture.  "Proof" of the existance of a conspiracy
involves various pieces of overlapping evidence whose intersection
suggests a high probability of collusion towards some particular goal.
If the names of the same individuals are cropping up in connection
with certain shrouded activities followed by certain similar rare
events over a long enough period of time, then a high probability of
conspiracy may indeed be there.  But one can only "prove" such a
hypothesis in a statistical sense; i.e., given enough information
one might establish to a reasonable mind that there is a 99.9%
likelihood that the mice are indeed after the cheese.

I find it unreasonable that anyone would discredit the basic idea of
"conspiracy theory" although there are obviously those who do it.
I certainly don't find it unreasonable that one might discredit any
given conspiracy theory as we all read the data differently.  I ask
myself:  Why would anyone discredit the basic concept of conspiracy
theory?  Are any of the theories presented on usenet sensitive enough
and accurate enough and receiving broad enough circulation to warrant
attention from any conspirators?  Certainly darkness hates even the
faintest glimmer of light.  Could someone's attack on conspiracy theory
in general [or against particular important conspiracy theories] be part
of a conspiracy?  Could they be on the payroll for this?  Could such
a conspirator be unwitting and not think of themselves as being part
of a conspiracy but instead accept the myth that they are doing
mankind a great service by helping to mid-wife a great new age.  Is
the "New World Order" far enough along where its proponents can
finance propagandists to tailor articles and rebuttals for specific
needs or does it have enough volunteers who've bought its line and
spew forth its dogma.  Certainly its proponents would prefer to
usher in such an era with the appearance of positive social evolution
rather than have an uninformed misled public realize it has been
jammed down their sleeping throats.

If there were such a conspiracy by anti-conspiratorialists, how would
we ever know?  We could only suspect.  We might see a strange overlapping
of events that gives that high probability intersection mentioned
and then see a barrage of plausible smokescreens and shouts of "paranoia".
We only have to watch an occasional clerk at the market make change
to realize that some in our society are indeed innumerate and could
be expected to have great trouble with a type of logic that involves
concepts of probability.

-Joe Gaut