the Truth about conspiracy theories: either i’m right or i’m right but i can’t be wrong
either i’m right or i’m right but i can’t be wrong
If ever there was a case in which a conspiracy theory should have been once and for all put to rest in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary it is none other than the infamous fabrication The Protocols of the Elders of Zion which was exposed as having plagiarized, often directly, from the satirical work Dialogues in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu by Maurice Joly. Given that this was revealed in 1921 one wouldn’t expect to see anyone else defend that work. How could they after all? While different people would give different answers to this the obvious way to do so—well obvious to those who already believed in a global Jewish conspiracy—is to take the path of Lord Alfred Douglas and claim that Joly himself was a Jew and that therefore the Dialogues were really just a precursor to the Protocols. Nevermind the fact there was no evidence for this and in fact strong evidence he was a strict Catholic.
To an outsider this may seem like outright defiance of the evidence but to a believer it’s hardly noteworthy to add another individual to an international conspiracy involving some of the world’s wealthiest, powerful and evil inhabitants. Once you accept a far reaching conspiracy it’s nothing to add onto that a single person within that conspiracy attempt to suppress belief in it. What this often means is even directly contradictory evidence can be meaningless but this is merely an example of a postdiction which explains a problem. What is particularly troubling is that these types of ad hoc explanations are often accompanied by predictions impossible to falsify.
Speaking of the yearly meeting of international power figures known as the Bilderberg Group conspiracist Daniel Estulin, who believes the members to be nefariously and secretly controlling international affairs, seemingly innocently said of the events “we don’t know what they are talking about but we are definitely going to feel the consequences of these decisions over the next twelve months when events apparently by accident seem to happen.”
Because he doesn’t know what’s actually happening inside the meeting, there isn’t even evidence that the group makes decisions of any kind, any and all events in the coming year will confirm the conspiracy. Whether gas prices spike or plummet or a war begins or ends, any event that happens will seem to him to further confirm he is correct. Still surely someone who worked at the hotel would speak up so what would he say to the skeptic who asks why the staff at the hotel the meeting is at doesn’t ever come forward with what would literally be the story of the century? He claims they’ve been threatened with never being able to find a job in the field so naturally no one comes forward.
So if anyone comes forward with any information of what he believes to be happening at the meeting, whether or not that information can be confirmed, it confirms the theory, maybe they are a brave soul, but if no one comes forward this too confirms the theory, surely getting fired is the least of their worries with a group as powerful as the people at Bilderberg. Just as with international events he can’t lose with the staff but as the logical positivists might say such a claim is “not even wrong.” Nothing would falsify Estulin’s claims and if there is no possible evidence that proves this theory wrong then no evidence actually confirms it either. It’s easy to see how this type of thinking would apply to other conspiracy theories.
Skeptic: If Princess Diana was killed to prevent her from having a Muslim baby why didn’t the autopsy reveal the pregnancy?
Believer: The coroner was in on it too.
Skeptic: If explosives were used to bring down the Twin Towers why was there no evidence of explosives?
Believer: Undetectable nano-thermite was used.
Skeptic: I thought paper covered rock?
Believer: No rock flies right through paper.
Skeptic: Well what beats rock?
Believer: Nothing beats rock!
Often times conspiracy theorists claim to be just asking questions but the question they should ask themselves is “What would definitely prove this theory wrong?” It’s obvious that many of these alternative histories, specifically the global conspiracies, can’t be falsified and as such all debate of details is useless. The only option left to someone outside this type of belief system is to point this out and hope it gets through.
