I was researching the Illuminati and NWO a while back (still do from time to time), one commentator said something interesting, how the word "conspiracy" have become the Achilles' heel to critical thinking and analysis. Mention that word, and people tense up. He mentioned how we refuse to believe that people in all black suits (he was being comedic of course) meet up and plan things with only their interest in mind. This ultimately sparked another thought; during my research, I thought "there's nothing conclusive here". I then asked myself what would be conclusive to me, and my answers were to hear it from the mouths of these so called conspirators. And while I'm certainly not saying the stuff about Illuminati is true, I realized I was applying a dangerous logic. If a detective was told there's been a murder at a certain residence, it'd be wise for him to survey the scene for signs of a murder, not just abandon it because there's no body to be found. If the only evidence that would convince me is to hear it from the mouths of the perpetrators, then I'm not doing myself any favors in determining if a crime took place.
Show documentation of a planned conspiracy? "There's a chance that the documents was manipulated or taken out of context."
Events that benefited a certain group? "Depending on the event, there's a chance that the benefits were inadvertent or that group simply seized an opportunity."
Public officials making overt and distinct hand-signs? Well, maybe they're all into Naruto. Seriously though, "That doesn't mean they're planning a global conspiracy."
I had an epiphany on how much it'd take to actually persuade me. And not just me, entire populations.
True, something like a global conspiracy would require more evidence than your typical murder investigation (and even in murder investigations, there are people who wouldn't believe the conclusion despite the evidence, after all). In fact, I'd say the self-defeating logic is more of an inherent issue. If you'd like to call it an issue, after all, we wouldn't want riots and civil wars over a few speculations. There's an upside and a downside I guess. The downside is that meticulous and malevolent minds has a tremendous amount of room to operate, and by the time something is staring us in our faces, we'd be on our backs, breathing our last breath.
I'm a very skeptical person, so as I said before, I'm a researcher rather than a believer. It's just that during that research, I realized how pointless it was due to the logic I was using subconsciously (and the nature of the theory; though I understood that beforehand). To be honest, this is more about said logic than the Illuminati being real, as this can apply to any conspiracy (with or without merit).
Now, the Illuminati conspiracy can extend into pretty retarded territory. With all these new theories popping up, sometimes I wonder if I'm looking at something that once made a lot of sense. It can be quite hard to take serious when everyone with a keyboard can augment it.
Maybe that's what I'll do if I ever come up with grand conspiracy, anonymously put it on the internet. In a few years, so many theories will surface, people will think it's all a joke.
^That brings up another interesting point, this "secret" organization is definitely not a secret. I wonder though, if a government would behave like a serial killer, or a serial criminal for that matter. Sometimes, these criminals gets bold and even taunt their pursuers (i.e. police). Just look at the Unabobmer's manifesto, or the Zodiac killers letters to the newspapers, or the Hillside Stranglers taunt of leaving their victims' bodies near police stations. I do wonder if our people in office or power, would be as egotistical as to make their "secret" so obvious. It's not something we usually think about when it comes to a government or sovereign.
Anyways, just food for thought, and maybe drinks for discussion.
