The Piracy Cons

“The individual is handicapped by coming face-to-face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists.” – J. Edgar Hoover

“Oh, that’s just a conspiracy theory.” I hear that daily. Admittedly, I do tend to wallow in foul and grotty bogs. While most people are met with salutations, my social interactions tend to include that colloquialism. If anything further is to be said, it is most often followed by “that’s been debunked.” To you I’m paranoid. To me you’re uninformed. I hear it so often, that I’m identifying with that first phrase as my personal pronoun. You have been informed of my preference. Since October 4, 2017, California law allows for fines and incarceration if you refuse to address me that way. While I probably won’t press charges, the fact that I can makes me feel good. It makes me powerful. I control language.

In another example of controlling language, the term ‘conspiracy theory’ itself first came to common usage in 1967, after the 1963 assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the mother of all modern day conspiracies.

The term was readily floated by the CIA, in part through OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD, to discredit any one investigating the killing of J.F.K., and the resulting governmental coup. Hindsight and released documents have shown that the CIA had a lot to gain by stifling that research. In a short while the CIA was able to publicly alter the meaning of the words “conspiracy theory” and have it used in a disparaging attitude. I like to think of the term as sort of a psychic safety valve, similar to a steam vent on a pressure cooker. It is an easy way not to have to face, and deal with often unsavory facts. It’s also quite naïve and a cop-out, disingenuous and lazy. By reflexively dismissing anything as such, signifies you have not researched, nor intend to, what you already have made your mind up about. In regard to ‘It’s been debunked’, at least there was some inquiry into the issue, which is appreciated. Who debunked it? Well, that’s a different story. To quote Timbuk3 “The wet look / The dry look / The FBI look / But can you judge a crook by his cover-up?” More bothersome still, how did ‘conspiracy theory’ come to simply imply that it’s untrue?

A relative asked if I believe in conspiracy theories. Short answer yes. Conspiracy theories do exist. So do conspiracies. So, what are we talking about here? A theory. What is a theory? A hypothesis, a conjecture. To quote a dictionary “a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something…” In theory, I can do anything! The world is awash with infinite options. Only waiting for me to make a choice. I can even choose to make a pizza. In theory. As long as I don’t take any action in that regard, not even pre-heating the oven, then that’s all it is…a theory. Doesn’t mean it’s true or false. It’s just a theory. Now, if I start to gather ingredients; tomatoes, cheese, flour, etc. the possibility of this theory being true increases. If I pre-heat my oven the possibility now becomes a probability. Still might not be correct, as the ingredients may end up on the floor, or as a calzone. What we are dealing with is the percentage of possibilities. Once the ingredients are combined and the result placed in the oven, care, attention and awareness must be applied so that all the components merge with each other. When done correctly the cheese will hold it all together, and it will all be based on a solid crust foundation. Nobody wants a half-baked pizza theory.

A ‘conspiracy theory’ is a type of theory regarding a conspiracy. Which infinitely abound everywhere. “A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful” is a definition of conspiracy. I love that piracy is a major part of that word. Yo-ho-ho! Aye, mateys, I do indeed! Do secret decisions happen? Almost exclusively, and everyday. Are most harmful? Maybe not most, but it depends on your perspective. If two or more managers at a company discuss firing a problem employee, is that a conspiracy? I would argue yes, even if the employer had the utmost altruistic intentions. It may be of great benefit to the company, yet harmful consequences to the dismissed employee could be proven. The fact that the decision was made in secret seals it’s fate as a conspiracy.

As ingredients to make a pizza are gathered, the likelihood of a pizza increases. As evidence of a conspiracy, no matter how circumstantial, is collected, the greater the relative percentage of possibility extends. Until it becomes a probability, and then (maybe) a proven fact. Similar to “preponderance of evidence” in a civil trial. In a sense theorizing conspiracies is like an intuitive exercise in connecting-the-dots. “We balance probabilities and choose the most likely. It is the scientific use of the imagination. -Sherlock Holmes

The biggest difference in my example though, is that in ‘real world’ we usually start at the other end. The pizza already exists. The theory then becomes in determining who concocted it, which is always easier after the fact. A wide array of information from numerous and disparate sources will exist, even if a conscious effort was made to cover up this evidence. The denials, and obfuscation by the baker, and even the lack of evidence itself can be regarded as evidence of a conspiracy. Think any deviation from the normal procedure, anything out of ordinary; the standing down of security for example, or ‘malfunctioning’ cameras and/or missing video which could dis/prove an assertion. The fact that it is an exception to routine procedure and normal dictates, tends to suggest that it is, in fact, part of the conspiracy. The more one questions scenarios, and the more that do from their sphere of influence, the greater the number of dots appear. Eventually enough dots appear that connecting them isn’t even necessary, for each piece of evidence becomes a pixel of a much larger image revealed in photographic clarity.

Rare is the person who can predict a conspiracy before it happens. First and foremost was George Orwell. Infowars.com founder Alex Jones is another. By being immersed in evidence both have proclaimed many theories that weeks, months or years later have come to pass. Or, as Mr. Jones claims of Infowars: “Tomorrow’s News Today”. The following clip shows Alex warning of the 9/11 attack months earlier, in July of 2001. In this broadcast he mentions both the World Trade Center and Osama bin Laden by name. Lucky guess? Coincidence? Or, conspiracy theory based on overwhelming evidence? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMEzedvS4Js The only real coincidence in regard to the clip, was that it was being re-run on local Dallas public-access tv the very same day the attack happened, on September 11, 2001. What really ingratiates Alex to me, is that he asks in that clip that you don’t believe him, and that YOU research his claims and decide for yourself. He points to the evidence, and has reached his own conclusions, but demands you make up your own mind and decide for your self. To us, a ‘conspiracy theory’ is to be actively investigated, and the theory itself is open to change and development as more data is acquired. It is not, however, (as is usually the case) reason enough for prejudicial pooh-poohing, and it certainly is not an excuse to invalidate the conclusions (nor the person reaching them) drawn by anyone who has looked into the issue. Your choice to not evaluate the facts negates your credibility in even having an opinion on them.

Another widely used device used by those dismissing conspiracy theories is that those who research these topics tend to wear foil hats. Outside of jokes, I’ve never actually encountered anyone wearing one. Allegedly, these tin (now aluminum) cranium caps act like a Faraday cages which block the intrusion of government mind control waves, as well as prohibiting access to the thoughts of the wearer. In 2005, MIT did a study in regard to the effectiveness of these hats, and here is their conclusion of that study –

“Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government’s invasive abilities. We speculate that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason.”

Once upon a time, and for centuries, most information shared was transmitted via the written word. While most establishment newspapers had an editorial stance and perspective, investigative journalism was still prevalent. In larger cities different opinions and news could be found in various papers. As news agencies were formed however, and syndication grew, the stranglehold on information became tighter. With the advent of, and prevalence of television as the dominant source of information, the fetters were fastened. It’s called programming for a reason. The 60hz flashing flicker rate instills a receptive, near hypnotic trance state in viewers. While reading, we actively participate by imagining the images and details described. Conversely, via television, thoughts, images and concepts are ‘pushed’ into our consciousness. As we’re in a passive state as well, our defenses are down and critical thinking is compromised, allowing almost anything presented to be absorbed and accepted. Subliminal seeds are planted, rooting in our unconsciousness, and later flowering as our own conscious thoughts.

Previously, a multitude of newspapers offered a variance of views, next, news came in only three flavors. Same strained, selected story, just presented to appeal to different tastes. Investigative objective journalism pretty much died during this time, and was left to wither on neglected vines. News media became nothing more than the mouthpiece of the ruling elite. My rule of thumb is, if I am being told something, it’s a lie. If I dig around myself, and research what I can, what I find is still suspect, yet generally something closer to the truth.

The interweb is an invaluable tool for this, and has drastically changed the playing field, a 21st century equivalent to Gutenberg’s invention. So much so, that in a violent pushback to regain control, the high tech ruling elite have enacted all sorts draconian censorship while implementing social credit scores. Thousands of people have had their voices choked; conservatives, Christians, gun-owners, Jews, homosexuals, comedians, even conspiracy theorists. Funny, seems very similar to the “bad guy list” used by the Nazis.

To me, all thoughts are welcome, I can decide for myself what’s relevant. I’ll choose hate speech over political correctness anytime, at least it’s honest and sincere. If I never hear your ideas, how can I decide their value? Many people banned have also had their bank accounts shut down in a fascist effort to stop people from supporting themselves. Remember Nazis painting yellow stars on Jewish store fronts? Same concept. Only it’s occurring now. Alex Jones had his banking services shut down, and was instantaneously banned on Twitter, Google, Facebook, Instagram and other social platforms within minutes of each other. It almost appears that it was pre-planned. “oh, that’s just a conspiracy theory” According to The Atlantic –

“Infowars is subject to the strictest ban. Facebook and Instagram will remove any content containing Infowars videos, radio segments, or articles (unless the post is explicitly condemning the content), and Facebook will also remove any groups set up to share Infowars content and events promoting any of the banned extremist figures, according to a company spokesperson.“

A simple lone man, with truth on his side, who stood up to the elite, and has documented many of their conspiratorial crimes. Repeatedly. He’s the bad guy. Snopes said so. Ultimate non-person now. Censor and silence his thoughts, then talk nasty smack about him on a platform where he can’t defend himself. For everyone else; can’t share his information, can’t talk abut him, can’t even mention his name unless you’re condemning him. Think about that. Official Facebook policy. You’re next. Think about that too. Life on earth, 21st century style. Alex and many others were banned because they were declared “dangerous”. Not physically, but intellectually. Social norm ruffians. Alex may be manic, boisterous, passionate and uber-interruptive, but I certainly don’t view him (or his information) as a threat. I see exponentially more danger coming from those who would silence him. His only danger is to those Orwellian boot stompers. To them, sure, Alex is dangerous. Well, the truth is like that too. It is dangerous.

While morsels of truth are out there, they are concealed in plain sight in a buffet of lies. In a never ending, ever increasing kaleidoscope of overwhelming information, the discernment to ingest only relevant truths becomes necessary. Intuition and experience are allies here. Once one sees ‘the big picture’ it becomes easy to see how all the jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together. There is also no going back, as predictable patterns are repeated, they become easily recognizable and almost rote.

While it may be a good idea, I’m not suggesting that everyone question everything, only that it’s probably in your best interest not to offhandedly disregard those that do as a nut. “There will never be a complete theory of anything.” – R.A.Wilson. I’ll never know the whole truth, and I don’t think I’m paranoid enough to even come close to what’s really going on, but I do believe that the more I know, the more stable my life foundation will be. Awareness increases safety and survivability. Like an inflatable ball held underwater, the truth will ALWAYS rise to the top. It just takes too much energy to suppress it. In my favorite conspiracy perspective; Robert Anton Wilson also theorized –

“You should view the world as a conspiracy run by a very close-knit group of nearly omnipotent people, and you should think of those people as yourself and your friends.”