Rise of the "Anti-Conspiracy" nut.

My previous post ranted on conspiracy nuts for not taking the time to actually consider how valid their claims are. Now's the time to rant in the opposite direction. One that doesn't get ranted on nearly as often as it deserves (and one whose existence was hinted at in my previous article.)

We all know the stereotype of the conspiracy nut. A tin-foil hat wearing person who says Illuminati reptile aliens from an underground lair in a hollow Earth are responsible for the destruction of the World Trade center by secretly placing explosives in the building that caused the devil's laughing face to appear in the smoke as the buildings went down because the Knight Templar-based Masons told them to...

... and nobody wants to be seen as that crazy. And this aversion, ironically, is giving rise to a new type of crazy.

The "Anti-Conspiracy" nut. Or as a better way to put them, "Trust nuts"


These are people who can have all the evidence right in front of them that things are not okay, and still say, "Oh, everything's okay, there's nothing wrong, nothing would be done that would harm me."

For example, the leaked Snowden documents that talked about how the NSA was collecting and saving metadata on the entirety of the phonecalls in the U.S., and having active listening by computers to communications (especially email) to search for specific keywords[1]. When the NSA admitted that it was doing this, "but for our own good." And it's further been reported that the data has been used in cases not related to the NSA's mandate. It is further well known that your rights being violated is not uncommon for police to boost how they look in their reports if they can get away with it[3]. (This latter point is especially emphasized by the NYPD's "stop and frisk" policy.)

With both these facts as public knowledge, I still hear many saying, "Oh, the NSA's work is fine, it's just trying to stop terrorists." or "They can search my stuff all I want, I have nothing to hide" or something similar."

This tendency is even creeping into the community of skeptics. I've lost track of how many skeptics I've seen that think people shouldn't even bother labeling if foods are GMO, when the main reason for labeling GMOs is to know which crops have been modified to handle roundup ready genes, which make them capable of taking on significant amount of pesticides (or, alternatively, produce their own pesticides) when those pesticides have been proven to harm people[4], harm the environment [5], and most of all, have not been properly tested[6] in the context of the impact of the change and the resulting change in how its handled in the agricultural process in regards to human health. These "skeptics," (unlike actual skeptics) aren't being skeptical at all, but just accepting things at face value without judgement or research, assuming the most benign answer is the true one, even when all evidence flies in the face of that assumption.

Other examples of "nut trustiness" in action, is assuming that items were stress tested for items beyond their purposes (Examples phrases being, "Oh, its common enough that they test these kind of things to prevent accidents." when plugging in a toaster near a bathtub due to a desire to have breakfast while soaking. or "They expect you to red-line your car all the time, it won't hurt it. Otherwise they wouldn't make it able to go that fast in the first place," etc.)



The first three rules of avoiding becoming a trust nut apply also to avoiding becoming conspiracy nut:
1. Research the idea. Look it up, is there any reason to (dis)believe from an accredited scientific source? How much research is there on it? Pay attention to what scientific articles say (if one article says, "Causes diabetes", and another says, "It doesn't cause cancer", that doesn't mean its safe).

2. Could I be wrong?
If your answer is "no" to question 2, congratulations, you're a nut. With anyone who's skeptical or open minded, they know there's always a chance they could be wrong. So if you're that certain you're probably too passionate about it, and need to back off.

3. If you're not sure sure about number 2, or think your answer is yes, ask yourself this, "What would it take to convince me otherwise." Compare what you're asking to similar questions. If you expect more proof that the system you live in could do something to harm you than a conspiracy nut needs as proof for a lunar landing... you're probably still a trust nut.


4. Is your reasoning, "God will protect you," "Governments always look out for their citizen's best interests," or something similar? If so, you're a trust nut.

5. Ask, "Is there any way that this idea that could harm me would benefit anyone else in anyway whatsoever?" If the answer is yes, there's probably then a reason you should look into it a little bit more.

Remember, the reason we evolved a complex brain for analytical purposes was specifically for survival (as are most adaptations we have).  If you're using yours to explain away actual dangers, you're on a one-way ticket to winning the Darwin awards.

---

[1] http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/08/nsa-domestic-email/2784141/
[2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/08/05/the-nsa-is-giving-your-phone-records-to-the-dea-and-the-dea-is-covering-it-up/
[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc
[4] http://www.annalsofepidemiology.org/article/S1047-2797%2801%2900298-8/abstract
[5] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.5620200725/abstract;jsessionid=D1EDED96CF142B3C0BC988C9DA962D13.f01t02?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage=&userIsAuthenticated=false
[6] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1013814108502

On Conspiracy Theories

On Conspiracy Theories

Okay, spending a day in politics online, you're going to come across a LOT of conspiracy theories. They seem to get bigger and wilder each day. And believing all the conspiracy theories is likely to make you a crazy nut if you aren't one already. However, believing that no on in a position of power in the entire world got that position of power because they want power, and that they wouldn't go through lengths to get more power without telling their ideas to the whole world is absurdly naive.

So, comes the question, what to believe? Should I believe in aliens, or should I believe that every member of the Nazi party in Germany that became employed by the U.S. after WWII all of a sudden believes that everyone should be loved and cherished regardless of race or creed?

Honestly, both are equally hard. So in this guide, I'm going to try and give a good guideline of which conspiracy theories to consider, and which ones to ignore, and which ones to look at and say, "Yea, that's probably going on."

First off, I'm going to separate conspiracy theories into two groups. This is based on that there is the hype of conspiracy theories, and there's what the word actually means. Conspiracy simply means a group of people working in secret. If you've every made a private club with your friends back in elementary school and decided to do something as a group, congratulations, you were in a conspiracy. That's seriously all a conspiracy is. And a theory actually has two meanings. In common use, theory means an idea. In science, it means a fact. Since conspiracy theories are ideas about social actions and most are merely ideas that aren't proved, we're going to assume the common use, not the scientific one. So a conspiracy theory is merely an idea that people are doing something as a group in secret.

Now, that's what conspiracy theory means. The hype often involves aliens, people in tinfoil hats, the world being hollow, etc. Basically something so fundamentally different than the world as we know it that if it were true, we'd all be idiots for missing something so big. These come across as more tall tales like the old stories of Paul Bunyan or over-the-top religious stories.

As such, for the meaning of conspiracy theories, specifically in reference to secretive groups of people doing stuff that they don't want the masses to know, I"m going to call those "subterfuge groups". For the alien-abducting hype types, I'm going to call those "conspiracy tales".

So, how to separate subterfuge groups from conspiracy tales? A big part of how it should be approached is to understand the fundamental nature of a subterfuge group.

A subterfuge group (a serious one, anyway) has one key feature, with a lot of information that stems from that.

• A subterfuge group's power increases from acting in the shadows 

This is obvious, because otherwise there wouldn't be an advantage to hiding.  It's practically a truism, "To get advantage from hiding, there must be an advantage to hiding."

This leads us to our first sub point, which is little more than an inverse of the first point.

• A subterfuge group's power increases from acting in the shadows.
• A subterfuge group's power would be less with their actions being known.

So, that kills a LOT of conspiracy tales right there. How you may ask? If aliens had the power to control our minds at will, why would they have to fear if we knew about them? If there were more countries on the inside of a hollow earth, lack of invasion options due to easily guarded entrances when compared to potential gain from trading opportunities screams that a lot of "hollow earth" ideas (especially of why it would be kept secret) just don't hold water.

So, expanding our list...

• A subterfuge group's power increases from acting in the shadows.
• A subterfuge group's power would be less with their actions being known.
• There is something more powerful than the subterfuge group.
• The subterfuge group has courses of action that it fears.
• The subterfuge group likely doesn't like risking oversite.
• Public reaction to what the subterfuge group does would not help the group's goals.
• There is a purpose.

So, any conspiracy tale about someone controlling the world's strongest government(s) is outright hokey, because such an organization would answer to noone, would have the control, and have nothing to fear, and could care less what the public thinked.

However, control is a very different thing than manipulation. 

 As such, a subterfuge group is much less likely to be pulling the strings, but to be abusing loopholes or shirking responsible action to get its power. In short, subterfuge groups don't make systems, they abuse systems.

Further, a subterfuge group can't be too big. Because the bigger something is, the harder it is to hide. The power it manipulates into doing what it wants should involve as few key players as possible. (Key note: the power it manipulates, the power is usually not its own if the power is significant, but an existing power manipulated to the purpose of the subterfuge group.)

Further, any inherently risky behavior must have some kind of payout for those actively involved in the subterfuge group. Usually power or money, although other goals often would exist (keeping loved one's safe from some perceived threat or gaining money and power for the loved ones, getting some ideological goal reached such as more influence for their religion, etc.) And usually, any risky action must have at least a comparable, if not significantly higher, payout. 

Further, the groups are weaker than something in our world, otherwise they wouldn't bother with the secrecy. This means they don't have some super power, they don't have abilities that transcend reality, they are stuck in the same world we are, they're just trying to bend it to their own ends.

So, when considering if something is a subterfuge group or a conspiracy tale, keep in mind the following features...

1. Does this conspiracy have more power than the whole world? If so, it's probably a conspiracy tale. (Sorry super-aliens, Cthullu, and most major religions, you don't hold up.)
2. Does this conspiracy fear nothing? If it fears nothing, it's probably a conspiracy tale.
3. Does this conspiracy have anything to gain that's worth more than what its actions cost it? If not, it's probably a conspiracy tale.
4. Does this conspiracy bend the laws of physics in any way, or require that reality is significantly different than how we understand it? If so, it's probably a conspiracy tale.
5. Is this organization require "perfect" or "infallible" actions to work regularly? If so, chances are its a conspiracy tale, as this risks are too high.
6. Does this conspiracy involve a few key positions of power, a small group of people, lots of power to be made by a small investment, make use of existing systems to be bent to its own means, and is it something you could reasonably see yourself doing if you were in that same position of power if you had similar goals, that seems to have some events that would be very unlikely to be merely coincidences pointing to its existence? In that case, you may have hit on a decent idea for a subterfuge group. Now it's time to start researching to see if there's anything to back it up.

---

---

These are a few Conspiracy theories vs Subterfuge ideas that I've consider, and my own gut-instinct take on them from minimal to moderate research...

Bombs were planted in the World Trade Towers before they fell.
My gut instinct on this one at first says "true". Both towers had constant bomb threats. Both towers each literally had their own bomb squads in addition to normal security because bomb threats were just that common. So were their bombs in the World Trade Towers before they fell? I'd be surprised if there wasn't. However, the so-called (and only) evidence of the way the towers fell "all at once" and beams looking cut? That evidence just doesn't cut it. Why? Because if the towers fell the way the public story matched, it'd still end up the same way. The whole building would fall at once because the stuff up higher isn't going to float while the stuff down below takes its time to fall first, but the stuff at the top can't fall while there's stuff under it holding it up. So everything falls when there's someplace to fall through (and gravity always pushes down on everything, meaning that something on top pushes on the stuff below it). So yes, the entire thing falls at once. Sorry 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

As for the shear cuts in the towers beams, most people don't realize this, but steel beams are a crystalline structure. Sure we may be able to bend them and dent them, but they can also experience what's known as a shear fracture. Which means they shatter along the weakest molecular point, which is often a smooth straight cut through the entire beam.

... however, people hyped up the previous one so much (when it was probably false) that it actually stole believability from the next one...

The World Trade Center attacks were pre-planned

With this one, there are just too many coincidences to look the other way.

1. Motive: Bush's VP had significant stock with military manufacturers.
2. Motive:  Saddam Hussein had attempted to assassinate Bush Sr., there was family vendetta there to motivate for a war in Iraq.
3. "Coincidence": The planes that hit the towers appear to be unmarked in ANY media video despite the fact they were claimed to be commercial planes (don't take my word for it, check it yourself.)
4. "Coincidence": Bin Laden was not killed during the entire Bush administration, despite the fact he admitted to it. Obama later instructed the military to kill him and a single sniper in a stealth helicopter would be able to do it. As such, it's likely not that Bush couldn't kill Bin Laden, but that he had no desire to do so.
5. "Coincidence":  There is established history between the Bush family and the Bin Laden family.
6.  Rate of Gains: Several heads of Jewish run companies were in the twin towers. Bin Laden was muslim. The planes hit exactly on those floors, most strongly ensuring their deaths, and putting Islam in a much stronger position compared to Islam. He took out the Jews power source, and the cost was a few subordinates.
7. Rate of Gains: Companies that competed with the companies of Cheney were in the twin towers. None of his were. The event also spurred a war that would put his businesses in MUCH higher demand. He made a mint, and the cost was the lives of his competitors.
8. Rate of Gains: Bush got unlimited backing to attack whatever and wherever he wanted for a short time, and he used it to take out the guy who threatened his dad, establish family control over many more oil fields, while also getting act like a war hero (despite having dodged the draft earlier in life). This is at the "cost" of the twin towers going down, which contained many more liberal organizations than conservative ones. And if there's one thing Bush isn't going to be accused of, it's being friendly to liberals.
9. Opportunity to conspire: Bush, Cheney, and Bin Laden had all been in the same place at the same time in private meetings before the attacks, and they're public record. 

Pre-planned world trade center attacks seem such a possible conspiracy that one's almost tempted to call it fact. However, it should be still pointed out that although there's motives, "odd coincidences", and a definite opportunity to conspire, there is no solid proof... yet. But there's definitely enough evidence to justify suspicion.

No Moon Landing
There's no real reason to fake this, and the rocks brought back are different enough from normal earth rocks that it makes sense for them to be real. Sure actually going into space is more expensive than making a fake rock (maybe not moreso than making a fake rock to the quality that would fool many teams of geologists with PhDs, however, I wouldn't know.) But the benefits aren't worth it. (Especially since people have independently reflected things off the surface of the moon using lasers to confirm there's something man-made there, means we still had to put something on the moon.) So fake moon landing is a conspiracy tale.

 Hollow Earth
This doesn't hold up. Literally.  Gravity doesn't worth that way. Dirt and rock aren't adhesive or strong enough to hold up the crust in a micro-dyson sphere. The crust would have to be so ridiculously well balanced and if the core of the Earth ever flipped (which we know it does on occasion from magnetic records in rocks) it would mean it's unstable enough to where the core should have crashed into the crust long long ago if the world were hollow. There's just too many things that have to be perfect to have a whole other world living inside the world's crust, and way too easy to upset. (It wouldn't have lasted the impact that wiped out the dinosaurs). Now, a more realizstic version of this would be that the crust, due to pressures and heavier elements sinking, may form a geode like caves that can in turn be warmed by magma vents meaning there's potential for subterranean life. THAT is more reasonable. Some may actually get quite large (google crystal caves for some examples), but nowhere near the size of buried continents or nonsense like that. Small towns connected by tunnels? Possible (Bon Terre mines proved people can live that way). But a fully hollow Earth? Think again.

There's an Area 51 secret facility


This one is true. I'm not saying "this is a potential thing to consider", no, I'm saying this one is true. You can travel to Roswell and see the military warning signs yourself, and if you're lucky, stick around long enough to hear of some idiot trying to sneak in and getting themselves shot by armed guards in the process. Area 51 is an established fact that it exists. That said, however....



There's aliens at Area 51
This one has one surprisingly good reason to be believe it. The military officials at Area 51 said that they have a crashed UFO. Yes, they actually said that. It was part of an official press release. You can go back through newspapers of the time period and see it yourself. Now comes the second part people miss...

The next day, the same group issued a press-release retraction saying, "Nope, it's only a weather balloon". And shortly after that, the space race between Russia and the U.S. started. So, obviously, somewhere along the line someone lied about something for some reason. Was it a weather balloon? Was it aliens? I'm actually inclined to believe a third option...

When wiki leaks released their blackwater and cablegate releases to the public, making them searchable by the public, if you searched for Area 51, there were a few communications between Area 51 and those government-hired agencies. In these, Area 51's purpose was made fairly clear. Area 51 is for peacetime what the Pentagon is for war time. At this point, it should be noted the Pentagon isn't for making war (that's President's and Congress's job) but to win war. Area 51 isn't for making peace, but winning peace. And that's a lot more insidious than it sounds. It means, making sure U.S. goals (as determined by the same people who determine our goals during wartime) are achieved during peacetime. Ousting certain leaders, toppling different governments, ensuring public support, planning strategic strikes, etc. And for peace-time, a lot of the actions are fairly war-like. It was born out of the same era and mentality where the CIA invented LSD as an attempt to create a mind-control drug.

A much more likely scenario for Area 51 is that the government wanted public support for a space race, and also was testing how to manipulate people using the media at the same time.

That's my hypothesis anyway, still, no smoking gun.

Intelligent Reptiles control humanity and can command our brains
 No. Just... no. If they can control our brains, no reason for secrecy, because if we didn't act how they wanted, they'd just make us act differently.

Banks want more money, and are willing to be underhanded to do it.
This one falls into the "confirmed" category. Lawsuits are under way for subprime mortgage issues that prove banks are willing to take illegal actions to gain more money. And obviously someone who goes into banking for a living has at least some interest in money. They've also managed to get the government to bail them out when they caused the problem, and are on record as having put significant money into the hands of politicians. They also have closed-door meeting groups at the federal reserve with the heads of the banking industry, with the Bilderberg group, and more. They've shown desire, that they have done illegal action, have had opportunity, and way too much "coincidence" that is on record as not being coincidence.

Hear any other conspiracy theories and want to tell how they hold up? Post 'em down below!