Conspiracy Corner – Doctor Who

aspen says:

“Is there evid­ence of the Illuminati’s plot in the present­a­tion of Doc­tor Who? I would say no, but why not go and look as Aspen’s argu­ment and decide for your­self. And, while you are at it, why not take a look at the com­ments, because some of them are treas­ures unto themselves.”

Matthew,

Blog it is. Congratulations on earning your title. Now you can follow every missive with Matt, Ph.D., just as Boylan, Ph.D., etc.

As I have already stated, earlier articles, written by me, describe symbolic categories, amongst which is the category of “Distraction Symbol”. This would, at times, be the sort of symbol that you would find “if you are looking for them”.

I noted — correctly, I think — that even Distraction Symbols can be a marker of so-called “Illuminati” involvement.

Pulling back:

Conspiracy Theory is a mode of observation and analysis based upon a single premise:

Rich and powerful people — even people you know and work with, on a more local level — tend towards the formation of conspiratorial groups and networks. The aim of such “conspiracies” is to augment the influence, affluence, and persistence of the members of the conspiring group.

To deny the legitimacy of this understanding of basic Human thought and operation is to label yourself an ass.

Check out my pen-name article at this link: http://www.henrymakow.com/conspiracy.html

Supposing that you choose not to be an ass, the observation and analysis of Conspiratorial Groups generates a body of questions:

1. What are the aims of this Conspiracy?
2. Can we first imagine, and then map, the every possible vector of action that would support such aims? (Because They do.)

Those questions are, obviously, primary.

Residual questions proceed to infinity.

Who are the core members?
How extensive is their influence?
Where and when did the purported Conspiracy originate?
Should we concern ourselves with their conspiracy and stipulated influence?
Etc.

The rest is Event and Detail.

I understand your dismay, even your mockery, with respect to the majority of “conspiracy theorists”. So many are misguided; so many are too excitable.

But what can we say, to the positive, of the majority of the human population in general?

As I wrote,

“It is the human tendency to deny the reality of ‘conspiracy’, even though all of human interaction is by definition a ‘conspiracy’. Conspirators rely on this habit of denial, because it makes their conspiracies possible. As long as people are denying that conspiring is possible, then conspiring is guaranteed to be successful.”

So what of you, and your aggressive, jocular approach to Conspiracy Theory?

Is there a conspiracy to take global control?

Yes.

Do the conspirators have major and central influence in media production?

Yes.

Have certain themes and forms been selected to be presented with regularity in popular media?

Yes.

Are these conspiratorial themes and forms connected to larger programs of political and social dysfunction and reformation?

Yes.

Are you a complete and total dumbfuck if you don’t see this?

Yes.

And we proceed from here.

Let’s get to the details, with which I’m told you are wonderfully familiar.

So are others.

Matthew Dentith says:

07/10/2012 at 12:00 AM

Con­spir­acy The­ory is a mode of obser­va­tion and ana­lysis based upon a single premise:

Rich and power­ful people — even people you know and work with, on a more local level — tend towards the form­a­tion of con­spir­at­orial groups and net­works. The aim of such “con­spir­acies” is to aug­ment the influ­ence, afflu­ence, and per­sist­ence of the mem­bers of the con­spir­ing group.

To deny the legit­im­acy of this under­stand­ing of basic Human thought and oper­a­tion is to label your­self an ass.

See, here we disagree almost immediately; I take it that to theorize about conspiracies is to postulate that some event is explicable with respect to conspiratorial activity. Conspiracy theories are explanatory hypotheses that cite conspiracies as salient causes and, like any explanatory hypothesis, some will be true and some false.

Now, I can agree that people form groups and that some of these groups aim to amass power and that some of these groups will do so in secret (and thus act conspiratorially). That’s by no means a controversial claim. Nixon and the Republicans conspired. Stalin and Krushev conspired. But that doesn’t mean anyone who believes that has to endorse the following claim:

Is there a con­spir­acy to take global control?

Yes.

That claim, being extraordinary, requires extraordinary evidence. All your subsequent claims rest upon this one, and thus, if your argument about signs and symbols in the media, especially signs and symbols in “Doctor Who” (and yes, I am very familiar with the show) is to be taken seriously, you need to show that there really is a conspiracy yo take global control rather than commit an abusive self-sealing fallacy and call me names.

Indeed, the only evidence you present (and you quote yourself, so it’s not exactly an independent source) is:

“It is the human tend­ency to deny the real­ity of ‘con­spir­acy’, even though all of human inter­ac­tion is by defin­i­tion a ‘con­spir­acy’. Con­spir­at­ors rely on this habit of denial, because it makes their con­spir­acies pos­sible. As long as people are deny­ing that con­spir­ing is pos­sible, then con­spir­ing is guar­an­teed to be successful.”

It’s not clear that all human interaction is a conspiracy (for example, conversations with friends are hardly conspiratorial. Neither was my cooking dinner earlier tonight). The next two sentences (“Con­spir­at­ors rely on this habit of denial, because it makes their con­spir­acies pos­sible. As long as people are deny­ing that con­spir­ing is pos­sible, then con­spir­ing is guar­an­teed to be successful.”) are trite; yes, if you define all human activity as conspiratorial (which you have), then a) people will deny it because the aforementioned conspiratorial activity is a form of secretive activity (and thus if everyone is being conspiratorial everyone is going to be trying to keep that activity secret) and b) given that people are constantly doing things, a lot (but not all) such activity will be successful because, under your definition, all activity is, after all, conspiratorial (and some of that activity will be successful). All you’ve done is provide an example of a question-begging fallacy; you’ve just stated something, rather than argued for it.

Now, I accept that conspiracies occur. I’m just not convinced that the kind of mass, New World Order-esque, conspiracy theories you endorse occur (I subscribe to a finessed version of both the Cock-up Theory of History and Noam Chomsky’s Institutional Analysis when it comes to governments and corporates being bad). As such, and given that it is a controversial claim, I’d like evidence and an argument, please.

As for this:

So what of you, and your aggress­ive, joc­u­lar approach to Con­spir­acy Theory?

Frankly, if you took the time to read my dissertation you’d find that I treat the subject of conspiracy theories very seriously. After all, my thesis is called “In defence of conspiracy theories” and I provide an argument as to how you could show that a specific claim of conspiracy was the best explanation of an event. I may well appear to be “jocular” on the radio, but that’s because the radio segment is not meant to be solely academic; it is edutainment.

Aspen says:

CONTINUING THE RESPONSE

You quoted me, “Is there a con­spir­acy to take global control? Yes.”

Then, you said,

“That claim, being extraordin­ary, requires extraordin­ary evid­ence.

“All your sub­sequent claims rest upon this one,

YES

“and thus, if your argu­ment about signs and sym­bols in the media, espe­cially signs and sym­bols in “Doc­tor Who” (and yes, I am very famil­iar with the show) is to be taken ser­i­ously, you need to show that “there really is a con­spir­acy yo [sic] take global con­trol rather than com­mit an [sic] abus­ive self-sealing fal­lacy and call me names.”

I NEVER thought I’d have the chance to use this expression, but finally, I do (like “Allons-y, Alonso!):

You are more fun than a bag of kittens.

First of all, don’t take the name-calling personally. I just enjoy swearing. It’s not personal.

Here is a list of some articles that may be of interest to you.

The Vatican Calls for World Government
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/10/25/the-vatican-calls-for-world-government/

Nigeria: Experts Call for One World Government
http://deadlinelive.info/2012/05/26/nigeria-experts-call-for-one-world-government/

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/

Merkel’s Mantra: One World Government in Europe
http://technorati.com/politics/article/merkels-mantra-one-world-government-in/

World Bank President Admits Agenda For Global Government
http://www.prisonplanet.com/world-bank-president-admits-agenda-for-global-government.html

Brzezinski Decries “Global Political Awakening” During CFR Speech
“Zbigniew Brzezinski warned that a “global political awakening,” in combination with infighting amongst the elite, was threatening to derail the move towards a one world government.”
http://www.educationnews.org/political/91487.html

Institute for OneWorld Health
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_OneWorld_Health

You: Sorry, but that’s not a very good argu­ment. Why? Because noth­ing about my views on Doc­tor Who [or arguments towards One World Government] neces­sar­ily impact my views on other issues. I can quite hap­pily state “‘Doc­tor Who’ is not made accord­ing to a mas­ter­plan” and yet have entirely dif­fer­ent views on the LIBOR scan­dal.

Me: I knew you were going to say this. I guess I’m happy that you’re happy, but not really.

You: If you want to argue that I have to share the same view on two seem­ingly unre­lated sub­jects, you need to provide me with an argu­ment that says the two sub­jects are related in the right way (i.e. the same per­son­nel, shared wants and goals, et cetera).

First point:

What was it that you missed in History Class, you idiot?

Did you not learn of the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Khanate, the USSR, Germany, the United States, and examples ad infinitum? Have you not studied Mergers and Acquisitions? HUMAN HISTORY IS ALL ABOUT CENTRALIZED POWER. At the center of power, all matters are drawn together, and the people who reside at the center DIDN’T GET THERE BY ACCIDENT. The Controlling Elite are very intelligent people, and they bank on the distracting and diffracting energies of self-enforced numbnuts like you.

There are NO TWO UNRELATED SUBJECTS. You think that way? Have you studied Foucault? You want me to give you the bottle? You want me to read you nursery rhymes?

Second point:

Conspiracy structure is always the same. You want to deny that a massive, world-affecting conspiracy in one place provides NO EVIDENCE for a parallel conspiracy structure in another location. Are you retarded? Evidence of massive conspiracies in one place is precisely the sort of evidence that supports claims of conspiracies in other locations. What the fuck is wrong with your brain?

You said:

“Do you not real­ise that it’s claims like this which make the study of con­spir­acy the­or­ies hard for those of us who want to study them ser­i­ously in the aca­demic world? You are defin­ing away a lot of inter­est­ing claims about con­spir­acies which are not neces­sar­ily evid­ence of some cent­ral and ver­tic­ally integ­rated sys­tem of con­trol as not really being proper con­spir­acy the­or­ies.”

Oh, am I making your studies harder to accomplish? Because that’s what you said. It just so happens that I disagree with you. Sorry to ruin your party.

You are not a Conspiracy Theory analyst. Conspiracy Theory operates from a central premise: Power relations and political tendencies, as a matter of HUMAN NATURE, tend towards POWER CONSOLIDATION TO THE MAXIMUM DEGREE. The dedicated adherents to this premise (and they are legion) do not compromise.

Is control and influence in the Dr. Who series as rigid and knowable as the corruption now made evident by the LIBOR scandal?

Yes. What, you think they’re just after money?

They’re going for EVERYTHING.

If you really, really, continue to stand by your half-assed and self-admiring linguistic journey, then there’s nothing I can do to help you.

Matthew Dentith says:

07/13/2012 at 11:49 AM

Okay, so now you’re actually giving some evidence for you thesis, but it’s still not very convincing. Let’s deal with each piece in turn.

1. History: You say:

Did you not learn of the Greek Empire, the Roman Empire, the Khanate, the USSR, Ger­many, the United States, and examples ad infin­itum? Have you not stud­ied Mer­gers and Acquis­i­tions? HUMAN HISTORY IS ALL ABOUT CENTRALIZED POWER. At the cen­ter of power, all mat­ters are drawn together, and the people who reside at the cen­ter DIDN’T GET THERE BY ACCIDENT. The Con­trolling Elite are very intel­li­gent people, and they bank on the dis­tract­ing and dif­fract­ing ener­gies of self-enforced numb­nuts like you.

It’s true that a lot of human history is about the obtaining of power (once again, you seem to go too far with claims like “HUMAN HISTORY IS ALL ABOUT CENTRALIZED POWER;” are you willing to say that the polity structure in ancient South America was all about centralised power? If so, you should go and have a look at their history; that was a societal structure that was predicated on a decentralised network based around temples and trade routes, with no one ruling class common to all the different polities: you seem to be subscribing to a view of political anthropology that was shown to be false in the 1960s).

However, even if we grant the more limited claim that, historically, people in power want to amass more power and there is an identifiable group of power elites (which is a controversial claim; see various revolutions in France, Russia, Cuba, China, et al, for examples of such “elites” being overturned), that doesn’t, by itself, support your conspiratorial view of history. Why? Because a lot of the history you are referring to doesn’t need a conspiratorial analysis to explain how these people came to power and how they kept it. Indeed, this is why so many historians are skeptical of conspiratorial analyses like yours: when you look at human history conspiracies seem relatively uncommon a mode of taking and keeping power (for example, in the late Roman Empire power was established and maintained by the Diocletian Reforms; no conspiracy, just the establishment of a court structure that was highly regimented) and, qua Popper, they also seldom seem to be successful (I have issue with Popper’s claim here; details in my thesis, if you bother actually reading it).

So, get off your high horse; if anyone in this discussion doesn’t understand history, it’s not me.

2. Contemporary politicking: You’re on slightly better ground when it comes to your list of “Comments made by organisations and governments which suggest a NWO plot.” I say “slightly better” here because a lot of the material you’ve put forward has been dissected and disassembled and read and reread that you’re not just arguing with me but you’re also arguing, if you put it forward as evidence of your view, against fellow travellers on your side and fellow travellers on my side of the debate. Some of the material you put forward is just rhetoric which has then been interpreted as evidence for a plot the speaker had no idea about, whilst other bits are sincere utterances that maybe global governance would be a good idea but that doesn’t mean the speaker was talking about an actual plot to bring it about. In Philosophy we often talk about how a speaker can intend to express some sentiment but what they say is interpreted differently by its audience. I’m afraid that, in cases like these, I think people like you often see words like “global” and “unified” and see a dark and malign plot behind those words.

And even if it is true that your so-called “power elites” want power and they want it vertically and centralised, that doesn’t actually mean they’ve got it. All your argument suggests is that they want a one world government. It doesn’t even suggest that all these power elites share a common goal (do the power elites in China, for example, want the same things as the power elites in Germany, given their different cultures and values? If you say yes, why? Is it because you buy into a kind of weird construal that the rich and powerful are the same from culture to culture? Or is it because you buy into some Ickian fantasy that these people aren’t really human?).

But, really, where we strongly disagree is over this:

There are NO TWO UNRELATED SUBJECTS.

Your theory requires that assumption to be true. If it were true, then, yes, “LIBOR” and “Doctor Who” would be linked. That would just be true by stipulation. However, if you, like me, think “Hold on; why would you think that?” then your theory needs more in the way of evidence. Now, you can call me names to your heart’s content and swear (although it seems my moderation filter doesn’t like you doing that; your previous comments didn’t need approval but the last one did) and fulminate, but unless you grapple with the realisation that people are going to disagree with you because you are expecting them to make what seems, on the surface, to be an unreasonable assumption, you are not going to convince anyone.

Especially when you keep saying “You’re not a real conspiracy theory analyst.” Because if I’m not, then you definitely aren’t, either.

Aspen says:

RETRACTIONS AND SOMETHING LIKE AN APOLOGY

Matthew,

I owe you something like an apology. Please allow me to explain.

Over the past couple of days, I’ve been reviewing our exchanges, slowly and carefully. Something struck me as off — I sensed that we were not meeting on the same ground.

What I found is that we are barking at each other from dual sides of the same high wall.

I have been in error, specifically in the way that I have approached and engaged your work. I expect you have also been in error, in the way that you’ve approached and engaged MY work, but I’ll stick to speaking for myself here.

What I see is this:

You are a peacetime theorist. I am a battleground theorist.

In times of peace, wherein and whereupon the mind is free to roam the fields of Philosophy at will, systems of analysis such as yours multiply (that is the ideal, I suggest).

In times of pressing warfare, strictly practical and real-world decisions are the focus.

Individuals such as myself, Makow, and others, have already found ourselves embroiled in an argument that involves an Identified Conspiracy. Much evidence has been gathered. During this time, we match pattern to pattern, in support of the historical and thematic evidence that has revealed the conspiracy. Not every pattern-matching effort is neat and clean. That is how it goes.

What you are doing is — I see this now — much different from that. You are (no offense intended, and no name-calling) the Armchair Analyst, safe in a location distant from the war, free to ask such questions as, “How does defining ‘Conspiracy Theory’ as such-and-such prevent us from both and either recognizing real conspiracies as they properly occur, or else as they could possibly be envisioned?”

I understand your frustration with people like me, who INSIST that what we see is what is really there (actually, we don’t do that, but in the public domain it’s psychologically implied).

AGAIN, RETRACTION

Within the space of what you are doing, I can see now how your ideas and estimations might be theoretically viable. In a time of peace, I might even have been interested in participating in your descriptive and digestive quest.

I can see that you’re not an idiot, given where you are and what you’re going for, what you have produced and what you hope to define.

I wish I lived in a time of peace. I don’t.

In a time of concentrated conflict, such as we know now, I see little of use in your meta-theory. Hence my own jocular attitude and free-loosened name-calling.

Some of us are in the thick of it. Your meta-theories may not be applicable to real-world ‘battleground’ application. Have you considered this?

When you say, “You are just seeing what you want to see,” of course that is an obnoxious statement, (unless you’re speaking of General Stupid People). We are not “seeing what we want to see”. We are describing patterns which match the historical material of the Identified Conspiracy.

Whether you like it or not, we are correct to do so.

Now, the question is, do you want to produce a real-world challenge based on facts, or do you want to continue surfing on Theory?

I can meet you either way.

By the way, again, I JUST ENJOY SWEARING. DON’T TAKE IT PERSONALLY.

Aspen

Matthew Dentith says:

07/18/2012 at 10:37 PM

Hello, again.

I’m not going to give you the link to my dissertation/thesis again; the link is earlier in the comment thread and, I might add, plastered all over the blog in the “About” section and the section devoted to my thesis. I’m sure you can find it without my needing to hold your hand.

I’m not entirely sure what the use of terms like “battleground theorist” and “peacetime theorist” actually do to help elucidate the quite large division in our views. Both terms make pretty big assumptions and I don’t really see why you’d want to buy into them. For one thing, if the kind of conceptual analysis I engage in works, it will work regardless of whether we live in a totally conspired world (which you seem to think we live in) or a moderately conspired world (which is the kind of world I think we live in) or even a completely open society (which some of the successors to Popper seem to think we live in). My thesis is about how can we show specific conspiracy theories to be beliefs rational people should hold (with the caveat that we need good evidence to show both that a conspiracy has occurred and that the conspiracy in question is the best explanation for the event), and the general thrust of the argument works whether conspiracies occur or not. My project is not descriptive; it is not a project in Psychology. Rather, it is normative; it is a project in the ethics of belief, an analysis of the permissibility of particular kinds of beliefs that are assumed to be bunk.

Now, the problem we are facing in this argument is that the first part of the warrant for the specific conspiracy theory you hold, the claim that there is a vertically integrated, blah blah blah conspiracy in operation here and now is a claim I just don’t think is warranted given the evidence (especially not the “Doctor Who” evidence) and the theory I have produced. I accept conspiracies occur (which politically and historically literate person doesn’t?), but a single, masterplan? There are more prosaic explanations for just how terribly corrupt and unfair our world is which might reference some amount of conspiratorial behaviour without having to invoke a single conspiracy which explains it all.

As for your challenge, I worry about this whole “based on facts” claim. “Fact” is such a misunderstood and misused piece of terminology across the board. What you appear to offer are interpretations of particular types and kinds of evidence, and these interpretations can be challenged (and are). The “facts” you speak of are not pieces of self-evident data that clearly suggest one and only one way of looking at them. They are complexes of assumptions, attitudinal responses to sources of institutional knowledge, conjectures and many other things rolled into an assertion. This is in no way meant to be an attack on your beliefs. Everyone has these kinds of assumptions operating in the background, informing their justification for other beliefs and giving them reasons as to why they will accept one claim and reject another. But don’t be surprised if you start loading me with “facts” only to find me going “Hold on; why would you interpret such a complex issue in that way?”

Finally, I don’t actually mind the name-calling; I’ve been called worse by 9/11 Truthers, chemtrail theorists and fans of David Icke. However, if you want me to take your position seriously, don’t engage in abusive ad hominem arguments or self-sealing fallacies. They might be useful rhetorical moves in some circles but it just makes you look like the stereotypical conspiracy theorist who shouts of profanities rather than gives arguments when someone dares to see the world in a differently conspired way.

aspen says:

Dentith:

SWEARING

The use of profanity is an old-school spook tactic, in up-close encounters, used primarily for two purposes, the first being reconnaissance and the second being engagement.

Similar tactics involve sexuality and humor.

Any given individual’s response to the delivery of “bad words” is revealing.

For example, I twice — not once, but twice — stated directly, and at least once in LARGE LETTERS, that I was using profanity in a manner not targeted at you or anyone else specifically. And yet, you STILL came back with “I don’t mind the name-calling. I’ve been called worse.”

Not only that, but when I politely requested a re-sending of your dissertation URL, you responded with a kind of 3rd-grade-level tit-for-tat tenor. I’ll leave it to your readers, and you, to digest what this means about who you are and how you think.

Check yourself.

MOVING ON: Battleground Methods

Contrary to what you have suggested, I do not collect “evidence” towards proof of a centralized and vertically-integrated conspiracy. I have stated, “Much evidence has been collected” — but I have never stated that I have collected evidence of that, or that I am collecting such evidence.

Critical evidence has been collected by others. Henry Makow has organized and presented a great body of evidence. That’s why I allow him to publish my own observations.

I supply pattern-recognition queries. This means that I observe and collate periods of striking patterns which appear to be similar to, or else consistent or in tandem with, patterns earlier remarked upon and given for review in public discursive venues. These patterns possibly but not necessarily support the evidence gathered by more vested researchers.

I will later describe and detail the Battleground Ethics of my procedure. It’s involved, and before I get into all of that, I’d like to respond to some of your statements in recent postings. This will take some time.

PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EMOTIONAL CONTEXT:

You have suggested that I envision the influence of “dark and malign” forces in such reports as Merkel’s mention of a “one-world Europe”, and per the so-called “Illuminati” in general, etc.

Your assumptions and projections are understandable. Many “Illuminati” researchers DO envision dark and evil forces at work. Many “Illuminati” researchers are highly religious, I will add.

I am not operating from a stream of Belief. I do not care about what the Illuminati do, except insofar as it may or may not have an effect on the outplay of my personal life plan. I am not fighting the so-called “Illuminati” and nowhere in my published writings will you find ANY evidence of either a judgmental attitude or a spiritual or religious agenda. Nor a personal agenda — there is no “Visit our Store!” button on my website.

I do not see the Controlling Elite as “evil” and I have not presented myself as their opponent.

I have merely presented observations of matching patterns — that is, patterns bearing cross-temporal point-specific semiotic significance. There are also cross-point temporal-specific significant semiotics. I imagine there might even be — brace yourself — clear, simple patterns.

IS THERE A MASTER PLAN?

There is.

I’ll get to your objections with respect to this. It will take a bit of time. I’ve a lot happening. Dealing with the outplay of the Master Plan is only second on my list of things to do.

Matthew Dentith says:

07/21/2012 at 2:25 PM

I am not oper­at­ing from a stream of Belief. I do not care about what the Illu­minati do, except inso­far as it may or may not have an effect on the out­play of my per­sonal life plan. I am not fight­ing the so-called “Illu­minati” and nowhere in my pub­lished writ­ings will you find ANY evid­ence of either a judg­mental atti­tude or a spir­itual or reli­gious agenda. Nor a per­sonal agenda — there is no “Visit our Store!” but­ton on my website.

I do not see the Con­trolling Elite as “evil” and I have not presen­ted myself as their opponent.

Well, then, that makes your “Battleground Theorist” name a little weird, don’t you think? If you are not at battle with the large-scale conspiracy you claim to be able to infer the existence of whilst doing your armchair analysis, why call yourself a “battleground theorist?” Why make a distinction between what you do and what it is you think I do?

Con­trary to what you have sug­ges­ted, I do not col­lect “evid­ence” towards proof of a cent­ral­ized and vertically-integrated con­spir­acy. I have stated, “Much evid­ence has been col­lec­ted” — but I have never stated that I have col­lec­ted evid­ence of that, or that I am col­lect­ing such evidence.

Crit­ical evid­ence has been col­lec­ted by oth­ers. Henry Makow has organ­ized and presen­ted a great body of evid­ence. That’s why I allow him to pub­lish my own observations.

I sup­ply pattern-recognition quer­ies.

If all you do is interpret and analyse the evidence of others (unless you mean something else by “I sup­ply pattern-recognition quer­ies;” we don’t seem to share common definitions of terms), then, for your subsequent analysis to work, you need an argument as to why the sources you use are suitably authoritative.

Still, perhaps “collect” is the wrong word: you marshall evidence for your view (I actually do collect evidence. I talk to members of governments and government organisations. I’ve spoken with people accused of terrorist activities. Whilst my PhD thesis is a work of Philosophy — and thus, arguably, armchair analysis — my interest in investigating which conspiracy theories are warranted and which are not requires me to get out of the armchair and actually be an active researcher). Which means you are likely sorting between bits of information which you think support some previously made inference; bits of information which, when taken in conjunction with a previous inference, support some new inference and bits of information which do not support your view.

So, really, to be able to appreciate whether what you are doing is what I call “vapid conspiracy theorising” (seeing a conspiracy where there is none, a version of the inference to any old explanation) and inferring the existence of a very real conspiracy and then showing that said conspiracy explains some set of events in the world (because there could be a conspiracy in existence that is achieving virtually nothing) it’s be great to see an example of how you do this. It would be even better if you could demonstrate this with respect to the only reason I find your particular brand of conspiracy theorising interesting, which are your claims about “Doctor Who.” It would be even better still if you could actually answer what I think is the biggest question mark against your view, which is “How do you reconcile your view with the much more prosaic explanation of the apparent signs and symbols in ‘Doctor Who,’ which is that the show, being nearly 50 years old, has covered a lot of topics and has been produced by actors, writers, producers, script editors, art designers and directors who had their own interests but no shared (or imposed) view and where also known to be, in many cases explicitly hostile to one another?”

Because it seems that the greatest issue with your view on “Doctor Who” is that it ignores the very well-documented history of the making of that show.

Aspen says:

BATTLEGROUND METHODS

Before we get to Dr. Who, I will finish my explication of approach and method.

A man in the field — the battlefield — is faced with a choice: assume everything; or die.

Consider field operation rule #7, offered by Damian Ross, former U.S. Marine and current self-defense master instructor:

1. You must prepare for every possible environment.

This is how we proper “Conspiracy Theorists” operate. It’s not paranoia. It’s battleground observation and tactical common sense.

If there is a shadow that could be an enemy hiding in wait, that needs to be checked out. If there is a noise of indeterminate nature, it needs to be checked out. Assume the ‘enemy’ is everywhere: at your back, under your feet, one meter in front of you, around the corner, dangling from the ceiling, even your best friend.

This is not paranoia. It’s battleground awareness.

In battle, those who dismiss “battleground awareness” as a hyper-paranoid way to live are usually the ones who end up dead. They are fools not fit for duty. In fact they are a danger to others.

We can’t just say, “Cheerio”, to this lot because when fools get involved, they tend to take others — better men — with them, when they hit the trip-wire.

OVERKILL?

Consider my review of the film “The Avengers”.

I suggested that the label “Chitauri” was a deliberate combination of terms, gathered from the very successful and popular Sci-Fi series STARGATE in conjunction with an element of Mandarin Chinese.

That was a stretch, but not entirely implausible. Still, it was a pretty broad stretch.

It doesn’t matter that it was a stretch, because I put it out there, for consideration and review. It was a shadow, projected from a backlit doorway, and it needed to be checked out. This is battleground philosophy: suggestion, review, response.

The sad truth is that, amongst active and publishing Conspiracy Theorists, and so-called ‘theorists’, the peer-review pool tends to be vapid. But then again, that is true of nearly every venue of Human action. Conspiracy Theory suffers from the same pervasive mediocrity and the same tendency towards egoistic mis-aim as the rest of it.

MISSING FACTS

I asked you if you wanted to continue to ‘surf philosophy’, or move on to develop an understanding and a method based on “facts”.

I was speaking of a category of fact, the which you habitually ignore: Statistical Psychology — that is, “understanding who and what people really are and why they do what they do”.

Proper battleground ‘Conspiracy Theory’ operates from a central core of principle psychological assumptions — extant human truths, really — which the light-hearted, weak-minded, and small-dicked amongst us label “cynical”, while in reality they are simply realistic.

Here’s the basic list:

1. Give a man $10, and he’ll dream of being given $50.

2. If a man earns $100 million, he’ll aim to earn $1 billion.

3. There is no atrocity that can be imagined, which no one will attempt to perpetrate.

4. If it can be conceived of by The Human Mind, it will be pursued by The Human Person.

5. The quest for ultimate power never loses momentum.

6. Those in pursuit of money, power, and control, depend on the everyday naivety of the commoner, in order to conceal their operations under the cover of “implausible human behavior”.

It is not uncommon, during my discussions of world news and events with adult students (I’m a teacher), for one of my students to offer some such statement as, “I wouldn’t do THAT; my relatives wouldn’t do THAT; no one I know would do THAT; therefore, it’s impossible that ANYONE would do THAT [bad thing].”

Then, we have reports of a highly intelligent post-doc dropout who walks into a cinema and shoots 70 unarmed filmgoers, and his home apartment is loaded with incendiaries.

“It’s IMPOSSIBLE that ANYONE would do THAT.”

1. The Controlling Elite will do whatever is necessary, whatever is conceivable, in order to consolidate ultimate and complete control of our species and this planet.

Have you forgotten WWII? Aside from ONLY the ‘Holocaust’, I mean.

Human behavior is psychologically obvious, and statistically predictable. If you can’t perceive this, then you’re just one more cow.

The difference between intelligent Conspiracy Theorists, and the rest of humanity, is that Conspiracy Theorists have a better chance of not living as mediocre of lives as the rest of humanity. Just as the more “paranoid” soldier has a much better chance of survival than an unfortunately tactically lazy battlefield comrade.

NOT FIGHTING THE ‘ILLUMINATI’

I’m not in a fight with the so-called “Illuminati”. I here use the term “battleground philosophy” because my take on reality comprises militaristic components which are both necessary and productive, as a matter of perspective and approach. The name of the ‘enemy’ is not relevant. Going into the fray, which is life in general, is what it is. It doesn’t matter if it’s the Illuminati, You, Aliens, or anyone or anything.

Perspicacity and circumspection are definitive of realistic attitudes.

DR. WHO, AND YOU

Sifting through your prolific disgorgements is painful. You are so emotionally de-centralized that you might as well be screaming for attention. I see who you are. It’s painful. Have a drink, Dentith.

Let me pose a question:

Is Dr. Who (especially the renewed series) an Illuminati announcement vehicle?

Yes.

Another:

Is there a Master Plan?

Yes.

Another:

Why am I answering you?

Because I have been directed to do so.

Matthew Dentith says:

07/23/2012 at 4:18 PM

Why am I answer­ing you?

Because I have been dir­ec­ted to do so.

Was that meant to sound ominous? It reads as if you are trying, once again, to wield power in this discussion. Stick to the point. Leave the dramatics out. I’ve lost count of the times I’ve been told by one conspiracy theorist or another that I’m being watched, et cetera et cetera.

As for this:

Con­sider field oper­a­tion rule #7, offered by Damian Ross, former U.S. Mar­ine and cur­rent self-defense mas­ter instructor:

7. You must pre­pare for every pos­sible environment.

This is how we proper “Con­spir­acy The­or­ists” oper­ate. It’s not para­noia. It’s battle­ground obser­va­tion and tac­tical com­mon sense.

If there is a shadow that could be an enemy hid­ing in wait, that needs to be checked out. If there is a noise of inde­term­in­ate nature, it needs to be checked out. Assume the ‘enemy’ is every­where: at your back, under your feet, one meter in front of you, around the corner, dangling from the ceil­ing, even your best friend.

This is not para­noia. It’s battle­ground awareness.

Sorry, but that just reads like a post facto justification for a kind of paranoia. If it’s an argument for your particular construal of what the proper study of conspiracy theories consists of, it’s only as good as the argument for the view that we should treat existence in general (the problem with war analogies is that, well, war is an special kind of activity, so for the analogy to work you need to show that war and non-war existence/activities/et al are relevant in the right ways so as to draw the same conclusion about both) as some kind of battle. You have a very Hobbesian view, which is borne out by your claims about “statistical psychology” (which, I might add, are quite controversial claims about fundamental human nature, despite your assertions to the contrary; you had better have some psychological literature at hand to back these claims up, preferably literature which makes claims which aren’t the vague-cum-vacuous claims you made here).