What is your argument against conspiracy theorists?

Question

What are your arguments against conspiracy theorists?
I am a conspiracy theorist

- and proud of it.

I read many of the anti-conspiracy theory arguments, and every so often, I come across a well written argument which causes me to think about my position.
There is an anti-conspiracy theory on almost every subject, but when we try to put these anti-theories together, there is no coherence. We end up with many disjointed events with no real meaning or significance.
When one understands just how big the conspiracy is, then almost all world events can be understood as a part of a complete world take-over. The big picture is coherent, and fits like a glove to the conspirators MO.

I am trying to find an anti-conspiracy theory which ties together the following world events.

- 9/11
- The Iraq war
- 7/7 - the London bombings
- The Madrid train bombing
- The Bali bombing
- The Lockerbie air disaster
- Private ownership of the Federal Reserve
- The illegal IRS in America
more to come

- The manipulation and restriction in the health industry
- The illegality of marijuana
- The flouridation of water
- The proliferation of vaccinations
- The manipulation of the mass media
- Electronic voting machine fraud
- The war on Terror
- The new concentration camps in America
- The North American Union
- The Franklin Cover-up
- The use of depleted uranium
- MK-Ultra
- Chemtrails.
- Micro-chip identification.
- The disappearance of microbiologists.
- The massive increase in cancer Aids and diabetes.
- The ignominious continued use of the internal combustion engine.
- The lack of research into alternative energy.
- The lack of interest in global warming
- The insistence on corporate matters and globalisation
- The suppression of alternative medicine.
- The lack of meaningful education in schools and universities.

and a host of others.

In the anti-conspiracy theory there is no corelation between the above events, which means that the number of people manipulating the world must be in the thousands, with no relationship to each other.
This makes no sense at all.
By considering the known agenda of the New World Order, all of the above fall under the same umbrella, givng a coherent understanding of world events.
No matter how much I try, I find myself unable to be rid of the idea that the world is controlled by a small bunch of very rich evil families, who are bent on total world dominance, populatioon reduction, and total control of the remaining surviving inhabitants.

I would like anyone who claims that there is no conspiracy to provide a coherent explanation of the above.

Answer 1

yeah i generally agree with you,

i think bush corolates with this. people assume the government is full of idiots and is incompodent. but what if that was opposite.
in order to instate new world order, eventually america must fall. but ya'll don't want that, right? ya'll fight like hell to keep america together.
so how would one get america to give up it's soverenty.
that right there is a long answer.
but i'd say if new world order really was happening american citizens right behind the muslims exteremists would be the top hurdles to overcome.
if your not blind then you should notice america is decaying, slowly but surley.
so really i think we are being destroyed from within without barley even knowing it

Answer 2

you may no longer 'win' an arguement with all human beings. possibly attain an comprehend-how in a communicate. the reason you may not 'win' a controversy is by way of the fact all arguments are emotional and not logical. it relatively is no longer appropriate what you're discussing, in case you permit it get emotional the only effect is frustration on the two sides of the communicate. only take a glance at arguments in relationships, have they have been given a winner? playstation . possibly supply a 2d theory for this conspirarcy theorist, that they may be suitable, and probably, only possibly they're going to do the comparable to you.

Answer 3

OK. I'll give it a try.

First, the odds of a conspiracy go down the more people are needed to execute it and maintain its secrecy, and the longer the conspiracy and secrecy need to be maintained. Why? First, because the more conspirators you need, the harder it is to recuit new members (because recruitment means you have to talk to new people outside the conspiracy, people you can't trust). Second, the bigger the conspiracy, and the bigger the stakes if it is uncovered, then the more extreme have to be the motivations of everybody involved. All conspirators all have to profit from it in a *huge* way order to maintain its secrecy.

Let me give you an example (and this is based on the branch of mathematics called Game Theory ... look up The Prisoner's Dilemma). If two people conspire to rob a store for $1,000 each, that's believable ... they just have to trust each other, and the penalties aren't too high. For 10 people conspire to rob a jewelry store, it's a little harder to find each other, the penalties are bigger if caught, and the risk is higher (because there are 9 co-conspirators who might betray you), so you will want more than $1,000 for the higher risk ... so each one will expect $10,000 ... so the robbery has to net $100,000. To get 100 people to conspiring to rob a bank, not only do they all have to find each other without exposing the conspiracy, but the penalties/risks are much higher for each conspirator, so they will need a million dollars each ... so they need to rob a bank big enough to have $100 million dolllars ... and so the chances of failure have gone up both due to risk of betrayal, and the increased difficulty of robbing a bank with that much money.

See the pattern? If you have 100,000 conspirators, then not only does it make the recruitment efforts impractical, and not only do the chances of discovery go *way* up (it only takes one conspirator to betray the conspiracy), but each member is toing to have to make about a billion dollars each ... you do the math. (Think of Oceans-11 ... Oceans-12 ... Oceans-10,000).

Now, by "profit" I don't necessarily mean cash ... the motivation you suggest is power ... but my point is that it is difficult to distribute power to that many power-hungry people in such a way that nobody is tempted to betray the conspiracy. The risks are just too enormous.

The more events you try to tie together in one theory, the more you need to postulate an *enormous* group of people. This multiplies the longer the conspiracy has to be maintained. To tie all of those things you mention together would require tens of thousands of people, all conspiring, and therefore profiting from it. And to tie in things like the private ownership of the Fed, and the creation of the IRS, you are postulating a conspiracy that is maintained for decades.

So your arguments about "understanding just how big the conspiracy is" works against you. BIG does not make a conspiracy more believable. It makes it LESS believable.

--- {edit} ----

Damn, your 'additional details' contradicted your question by stressing that it is not a big conspiracy, but a "small bunch of very evil families". This is even more unbelievable ... that a small handful of people (50?, 100?) could perpetrate all those unrelated events.

Look, do I believe that 9/11 and the war on Iraq came from a common source? ... yes: racism and fundamentalism gone amuck. But I do not believe that Bush, even aided by everyone in his "family" could be involved in perpetrating 9/11 deliberately without chance of discovery (they can't even keep a secrecy about outing a CIA operative from leaking) ... or that they would collude with the Bin Laden family for some common purpose. That makes the image of 100,000 bank robbers getting together to rob Fort Knox actually sound plausible.

Or to summarize with a very wise aphorism:

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE.

Answer 4

I too believe there are massive conspiracies afoot. But you know, thus far very little expose has ever made any difference beyond a few protesters shelling out money for cardboard, ink and a stick of wood to bob signs up and down.

So I ask - is it even worth our time to shell the facts out to prove or at least capture the public's attention. And what the crap is that behind your back!? An extraterrestrial recording device no doubt, in an effort to capitalize on Earthling weaknesses.. SORRY! But I have on my Aluminum hat sucka! You guys ain't zapping my brain the ol' "zombie the humans brain", trick.
=oO

Answer 5

Primary counter arguement is this. Do you think that the federal government who can't even maintain the country's infrastructure could possibly put the resources together to pull of any of your listed events and keep the conspiracy a secret? We couldn't even keep the atomic bomb a secret!

Answer 6

You want it simple? Ask to people who stood by each other and watched a car accident. See the different stories for the same event. And if given time the stories will change more.

Answer 7

In reality there could be only two avenues Yes or No,Only the logic can show you the truth.The only thing that amaze me is that why it was allowed to go so far by every body not involved.Media and Politicians are absolutely quite,only the victims and intellectuals are talking.

Answer 8

Shucks. You call yourself a conspiracy theorist? You ain't nothing. Nowhere in your list did I see any mention of the Philadelphia Experiment. You suck.

Answer 9

Logic.

Answer 10

If people can PROVE their theories by all means they should let people/press know what they've discovered. If they can't prove their theories they shouldn't say anything.