Conspiracies: a reasonable approach
It doesn't seem possible to get too far into the chemtrails issue without encountering the ideas of the conspiracy theorists.
Unfortunately, well-intentioned though these people may be, all too frequently their efforts to "open the public's eyes" are counter-productive for they fail to take account of certain fundamental characteristics of the human mind in approaching new and often extreme ideas.
Nor is allowance made for the antipathy generated by a minority
of conspiracy theorists whose presentation of opinions and ideas betrays flawed
reasoning and a remarkable degree of gullibility.
So let's see if we can bring some common sense to bear on this, and dispel a few of the more wayward notions.
So many of the conspiracy theories that abound presuppose a level
of intelligence, organisation, efficiency and, in many cases, some sort of "superhuman"
power on the part of the conspirators that just doesn't manifest in "real life".
For it should never be forgotten that, unless one subscribes to the "aliens from
outer space" theories, alleged conspirators are first and foremost human beings.
As such, they have as many foibles, weaknesses, vulnerabilities, illogicalities,
and simple stupid habits as everybody else.
And they're just as prone to carelessness, inefficiency, lack of attention to
detail, and failure to correctly foresee the consequences of their actions as
the rest of us!
This is not to say that conspiracies don't exist. In fact, they're even recognised in law (conspiracy to commit a crime is in itself a criminal offence — at least in the UK!).
But what must be called into question is both the extent and motive of an alleged
conspiracy, and the nature of the perpetrators thereof.
Widespread conspiracies that involve large numbers of people,
either in their planning or their implementation, are improbable, particularly
if all those involved are privy to the details of the conspiracy. Conspiracies
are, implicitly, secretive. A secret shared by large numbers of people cannot
remain secret for very long. Human nature won't allow it!
The only way this can work is through a technique of "pigeon-holing" — utilising a "need to know" policy — and that creates as many problems as it solves.
Conspiracies to "take over the world" or to decimate huge numbers
of the world population are also improbable — not in the sense that they
don't exist, but in the sense that they'd be extremely unlikely to get very far
before being revealed — and thwarted.
In the former case, humanity is simply too diverse to be encompassed within one
huge "master plan". And in the latter, well, the most "successful" candidate
so far was a scheme called "The Third Reich" — and we all know what happened
to that!
Therefore conspiracies must, of necessity, be circumscribed. They must always be a case of "the few against the many". This in itself is a limiting factor to their extent and power.
"Power" of course is a key issue. If those "in power" are party to such a conspiracy then of course they're admirably placed to do their evil deeds. However, here we have another limitation, for there can never be a guarantee that those "in power" will remain "in power" and, even more compelling than that, let us never forget that the lot of us humans is "three score years and ten". Consequently, unless some sort of "inherited conspiracy" is predicated, we run full tilt into yet another insurmountable limitation.
If one determinedly argues for an "inherited conspiracy" it becomes virtually
certain that, with succeeding generations, the nature of the conspiracy will change
(reflecting changes in the characters of the conspirators) and, in all likelihood,
become diluted to the extent that it could no longer be legitimately regarded
as a conspiracy per se.
Conspiracies must also, of necessity, be about "gain". And given
the nature of the world we presently occupy, the gain must inevitably reduce to
that of the material or economic sort. Thus, we can probably refine this further
and say that conspiracies will be focussed upon, if not direct gain, then securing
an advantage.
It must also be remembered that, having secured such an advantage, there must
also be the means to "cash in" on that advantage if it is not to lose its value.
Hence, conspiracies for gain become meaningless if in the course of their implementation
they impair the ability of "the many" to interact meaningfully with, and to the benefit of, "the few".
Of course, a "gain" or an "advantage" — having more than one's fair share
— is a two-edged sword. For what one possesses (at least in the materialistic
sense) can just as easily be lost. Thus one's acquisitions, gains, and advantages
become as much a vulnerability as they are a strength. The person who has nothing,
and seeks nothing, is in many ways far stronger than the person who owns an entire
kingdom.
Which brings us to the nature of the conspirators.
Putting aside the more "mundane" conspiracies (the local gang of hoodlums plotting to rob a bank, etc), who else qualifies?
|
Well, practically anyone really. But there are a few caveats,
and we could do a lot worse than steal a phrase from detective thrillers —
"motive, means, opportunity".
Motive is of course the easiest for, where gain (particularly of the materialistic sort, as previously discussed) is concerned who amongst us can truthfully say that we have never, or would never, be party to a conspiracy?
The latter two are the stumbling blocks though and, the more extensive or ambitious the conspiracy, the greater the requirement for the conspirators to be highly placed in society. Whether that placement be in the political, military, or commercial spheres, it is nevertheless a given that means and opportunity can only accrue to those with significant "clout". We can add to the "Big Three" a fourth — organised religion. But, by and large, this is little more than a mask for a rather specialised union of the political/commercial.
However, despite what a number of classic conspiracy theories would have us believe, one class of conspirator that remains highly improbable is that of the "secret society" per se.
Now let's be very clear about this. Its easy to see how from within one, or a combination of, the Big Three a number of people can get together to conspire against the community as a whole and thus, by virtue of their conspiratorial association, qualify as being a sort of "secret society". Its similarly easy to see how members of a sub-group within one of the Big Three may conspire amongst themselves to gain some sort of advantage over the rest.
But, in most cases, high placement within one of the Big Three is a necessary prerequisite for participation in such a sub-group.
Yet notions of a secret society that somehow exists "outside" of mainstream human activities; that is not a product of one of the Big Three; that is sufficiently long-established to span generations; and that harbours intentions for an ongoing infiltration of mainstream activities — well, this has rather more of the taint of delusional fantasy about it than hard fact.
Alas, it tends to find favour with many conspiracy theorists for no other reason than that its almost impossible to conclusively refute — in the same sense that in an earlier stage of human history it would've been impossible to persuade the ardent Jew-hater that Jews didn't actually eat babies!
The principal flaw in the theme though is that it offends against principles discussed right at the very beginning — it presupposes certain qualities that us humans simply don't possess! Not least of which is the ability to infiltrate and integrate with a given section of the community for an extended period yet somehow remain consciously apart from the community without revealing one's true loyalties.
Not impossible, certainly (its been achieved to a limited extent in the past with the "sleepers" of the Intelligence Community), but nowhere near as easy as may be commonly supposed. And, in the absence of fairly specialised training and a really deep-rooted motivation, the natural tendency would be to become completely absorbed by the surrounding community, fully taking on their values and standards. Either that, or eventually fall victim to all manner of stress-related maladies that will impact upon subsequent efficiency.
Moreover, for such infiltration to span generations simply beggars belief.
