I heartily agree with your argument that there is no man behind the curtain, "it's just us". That puts responsibility for our world and the state it's in firmly on all of us, which is something the conspiracy theorists don't like to hear.
As to the Twitter guy who keeps pinging you - I wonder what his agenda is? Who's funding him? What, no-one? You mean he's doing it on his own account? But that's exactly what you're doing!
Do you really think there are no people behind the curtain who control the international financial system?
And that there is a difference between people who work together to manipulate mechanisms to achieve a common result and a compliant population who just follow the rules set for them?
Very interesting piece. I would add, though, that diffusion of responsibility for a problem can be a deliberate structural design in organizations to prevent blame from being allocated to specific individuals and thus avoid accountability and liability for negative outcomes. What looks like an emergent, accidental outcome can in fact be a contingency that has been factored in by policymakers, project managers, administrators, etc. In this regard, governments and their various departments, but also large corporations, are particularly adept at circling the wagons and protecting themselves from the public while simultaneously holding members responsible internally if targets are not achieved (or, indeed, rewarding them while they receive flak from external commentators). The problem of power thus becomes not simply one of accountability but of accountability to whom.
A great essay concerning a growing problem of focus and comprehension. In my international work, I found that most supposed “conspiracies” to screw things up were mostly the result of poor communications, the wrong incentives and often plain incompetence. It even hit close to home… because I spent decades working outside my country of birth, several family members were convinced I must be a spy! Sounded sexy and fit nicely within a narrow worldview scope.
People are frightened. It feels like we live in a post truth society. We used to trust the msm for example and even our own politicans (we always knew they were scoundrels but we understood the way they were scoundrels) and we felt they were in charge.
But now? we know our politicans are not in charge. So who is? The EU, the WEF, the UN, the US? It feels like we're losing what control we did have and democracy is under threat or at least not functioning how it should. Some people don't vote because they say 'it makes no difference.' I can see their point.
It seems to me that some groups have amassed too much power - the EU, the UN, the WEF among others. Some of them have become corrupt. It happens to good organisations over time.
I don't think the main players in these groups get up in the morning and deliberately conspire to inflict evil.
Instead it's far more banal as Hannah Arendt once said - evil comes from people who believe they're doing good and in the right.
I worked in the UK embassy in Kabul and the most frequent response to hearing about that is to assume I was a spy. When I tell that that, no, I was the management officer responsible for boring stuff like accounts, procurement, security etc the response is "that is what a spy would say".
Calling something a 'conspiracy THEORY' means there is sufficient data to back it up. They should really call it 'conspiracy HYPOTHESIS'.
You cannot convince anybody of a conspiracy if they are not open to examine it. At the same time doubt about a conspiracy will not be accepted if the person is actually unaware of the details of that conspiracy but uses it in a emotive way.
So, it is often the same people who reject one conspiracy but ( chose to) believe another. Because they are emotionally atached to it one way or another and it sways left or right, not because of data.
It takes a trained thinker to filter out confirmation bias.
Also: it is as if you are forced to pick a team. This is a political entrapment. You cannot stay in doubtland, you become the friend or the enemy. But no, i REMAIN in doubtland. I am not hoisting YOUR flag especially when you force me to chose because then THAT makes you the enemy by default.
So, in the end i reject the political forcing in regards of the Big ticket items: 'Climate', Russia/ war/ armement, Immigration.
Moonlandings i don't give a hoot, real or false. It doesn't change anything.
This essay also explains the fascination with:
A) Elite theory
B) "Capitalism" (from a Marxist perspective)
C) The "deep state" (from a libertarian perspective)
I heartily agree with your argument that there is no man behind the curtain, "it's just us". That puts responsibility for our world and the state it's in firmly on all of us, which is something the conspiracy theorists don't like to hear.
As to the Twitter guy who keeps pinging you - I wonder what his agenda is? Who's funding him? What, no-one? You mean he's doing it on his own account? But that's exactly what you're doing!
Do you really think there are no people behind the curtain who control the international financial system?
And that there is a difference between people who work together to manipulate mechanisms to achieve a common result and a compliant population who just follow the rules set for them?
Oh, for sure there are people pulling strings. But I agree with Sinéad that they're not centrally coordinated à la the Illuminati.
Very interesting piece. I would add, though, that diffusion of responsibility for a problem can be a deliberate structural design in organizations to prevent blame from being allocated to specific individuals and thus avoid accountability and liability for negative outcomes. What looks like an emergent, accidental outcome can in fact be a contingency that has been factored in by policymakers, project managers, administrators, etc. In this regard, governments and their various departments, but also large corporations, are particularly adept at circling the wagons and protecting themselves from the public while simultaneously holding members responsible internally if targets are not achieved (or, indeed, rewarding them while they receive flak from external commentators). The problem of power thus becomes not simply one of accountability but of accountability to whom.
A great essay concerning a growing problem of focus and comprehension. In my international work, I found that most supposed “conspiracies” to screw things up were mostly the result of poor communications, the wrong incentives and often plain incompetence. It even hit close to home… because I spent decades working outside my country of birth, several family members were convinced I must be a spy! Sounded sexy and fit nicely within a narrow worldview scope.
People are frightened. It feels like we live in a post truth society. We used to trust the msm for example and even our own politicans (we always knew they were scoundrels but we understood the way they were scoundrels) and we felt they were in charge.
But now? we know our politicans are not in charge. So who is? The EU, the WEF, the UN, the US? It feels like we're losing what control we did have and democracy is under threat or at least not functioning how it should. Some people don't vote because they say 'it makes no difference.' I can see their point.
It seems to me that some groups have amassed too much power - the EU, the UN, the WEF among others. Some of them have become corrupt. It happens to good organisations over time.
I don't think the main players in these groups get up in the morning and deliberately conspire to inflict evil.
Instead it's far more banal as Hannah Arendt once said - evil comes from people who believe they're doing good and in the right.
I worked in the UK embassy in Kabul and the most frequent response to hearing about that is to assume I was a spy. When I tell that that, no, I was the management officer responsible for boring stuff like accounts, procurement, security etc the response is "that is what a spy would say".
Calling something a 'conspiracy THEORY' means there is sufficient data to back it up. They should really call it 'conspiracy HYPOTHESIS'.
You cannot convince anybody of a conspiracy if they are not open to examine it. At the same time doubt about a conspiracy will not be accepted if the person is actually unaware of the details of that conspiracy but uses it in a emotive way.
So, it is often the same people who reject one conspiracy but ( chose to) believe another. Because they are emotionally atached to it one way or another and it sways left or right, not because of data.
It takes a trained thinker to filter out confirmation bias.
Also: it is as if you are forced to pick a team. This is a political entrapment. You cannot stay in doubtland, you become the friend or the enemy. But no, i REMAIN in doubtland. I am not hoisting YOUR flag especially when you force me to chose because then THAT makes you the enemy by default.
So, in the end i reject the political forcing in regards of the Big ticket items: 'Climate', Russia/ war/ armement, Immigration.
Moonlandings i don't give a hoot, real or false. It doesn't change anything.
Ah sure lookit Twitter's for twits - keeper lit 🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥💪
When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. Jonathan Swift