I am a scientist, both by nature and by training. I would like to conduct an experiment. To perform this experiment, read the following paragraph to yourself or someone else and report the results:
There is a great and horrible conspiracy, of unbelievable scale and organization, to secretly control the whole world's resources. Its organizers manipulate and control all information on television, in schools, in universities, in newspapers, and almost all of the Internet. They control all large corporations. The insiders of this conspiracy control every world government and the wealth of the entire world.Read that paragraph yourself and notice how it makes you feel, or read it to someone else and observe how it makes them react. The reaction you probably have is "This guy is nuts! I don't want to have anything to do with him at all." Most people, when confronted with this topic experience a strong emotional reaction and don't want to talk about it anymore.
If you were organizing a conspiracy to control and manipulate people, isn't that exactly how you would condition people to behave? Doesn't the fact that this paragraph really upsets people actually provide evidence that the conspiracy to which it refers might actually exist?
Whenever there is a suggestion that such a conspiracy exists, the burden of proof is on the person suggesting there is a conspiracy to provide evidence. Since the would-be conspiracy exposer is usually alone, all they have are fragments of circumstantial evidence. Since conspiracy organizers (if there are any) tend to be good at destroying evidence and silencing witnesses, that makes it very difficult to get more than circumstantial evidence.
Further, most of these would-be conspiracy exposers tend to focus on just one single injustice. I'd like to discuss all the interesting topics in the same location in the same context. There are two fundamental injustices that allow all other injustices. They are the Federal Reserve and the income tax. All the other injustices would not be possible without the Federal Reserve and the income tax.
Let's provide a through proof and refutation that no such conspiracy exists at all. If the standard of proof to start an investigation is very high, that makes it extremely difficult to get anything started. Of course, such an investigation could not be conducted by a single person acting alone. It would have to be a collaborative effort involving a lot of people.
I've read a lot of these conspiracy theory websites. Whenever they talk about a subject where I have direct personal experience or knowledge, they tend to be 100% accurate. That makes me really wonder about their other ideas. Their other ideas sound far-out but might be true.
For example, a lot of conspiracy websites have a good section on fractional reserve banking and the Federal Reserve. This information tends to be 100% accurate, and can be confirmed using mainstream information sources and simple Mathematics. This makes me wonder about some of their more far-out ideas. If these websites are 100% accurate on their criticism of the financial industry, doesn't that mean that some of their other theories are worth considering?
I consider that to be a major defect in the high school and university education I received. I consider The Compound Interest Paradox and The Discounted Cashflow Paradox to be required as a part of everyone's eduction. Both ideas are simple enough that they can be taught in an hour or two. The fact that neither of these ideas are taught, even in University-level economics courses, makes me believe that there is an organized and efficient cover-up of this information, along with other things.
Besides, JFK knew about this massive, highly-organized conspiracy. He was trying to leak the information to the general public, and thus he had to be eliminated.
You might wonder how such a conspiracy could be sustained. It's very simple. The rules state that anyone who publicly discloses information is killed or silenced. The mainstream media would never cover a story on someone who tried to expose this conspiracy. The members of the inner circle have known each other since birth. They have a policy of marrying distant cousins to keep power concentrated. Several layers of holding companies can be used to disguise corporate ownership. Similarly, several layers of secret societies hide the power structure. Each layer gets power and privileges denied to lower layers. The members have to follow the rules, because they don't want to be killed or lose their position.
I think that would be a worthwhile exercise. Try to provide a thorough proof that no highly organized worldwide conspiracy exists, or expose its operations. It would result either in exposing the bad things that other people are doing, or it would make the people who read it supremely confident that everything is working out well.
There is one thing that bothers me. Why was the average person allowed to have access to computers? Why was the Internet allowed to exist? Surely this conspiracy is powerful enough to have crushed these technologies before they were introduced to the general public. Why did they allow these technologies to be released? Computers and the Internet are a tool that potentially could defeat them. They're not stupid. What's their purpose?