pass
January 28th, 2015
Jesus & Mo is licensed under a Creative Commons License:
Feel free to copy for noncommercial purposes, under the same license.
Please provide a link back to jesusandmo.net
Hosted by the amazing NearlyFreeSpeech.NET
Protected by the mighty CloudFlare
-
What they're saying...
Jesus & Mo (the characters) are absurd, blinkered, and oddly very sweet. J&M (the cartoon) is brilliant: sharp, delicious, irresistible.
Salman Rushdie
Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true.
Richard Dawkins
Jesus and Mo make the world a better place, bless their little hearts.
Ophelia Benson
In a world defined by outrage and offence and liberal spinelessness, Jesus and Mo is a treasure, whose value we should never fail to recognize. Read them. Laugh. And think.
Kenan Malik
...a philosophical confrère.
Jerry Coyne
The brilliant, celebrated, freaking hilarious atheist comic strip ...
Greta Christina
...rays of sanity in a befuddled world.
Keri Hulme
The liveliest depictions of Muhammad currently available...
Malise Ruthven
J & Mo is the funniest and most consistently thought-provoking cartoon strip on the Net. In a saner world, it would run in a major newspaper.
Nelson Jones, Heresy Corner
Consistently amusing, frequently thought-provoking and often heart-warming.
New Humanist
Jesus & Mo is one of the most wonderful things on the internet..
JT Eberhard
Wittily captures much of the absurdity of religious apologetics.
Mano Singham
...wonderfully brilliant and witty.
Miranda Celeste Hale
Too good for words.
Maryam Namazie
The Eric and Ernie of monotheism.
Tom Holland
The most impious double act since Sodom and Gomorrah.
Andrew Copson, Chief Executive, BHA
I love jesusandmo.net cartoons - witty and sharp!
Katha Pollitt
Often hilarious, frequently wry, these cartoons do what all the best cartoons do: they tell the truth through humour.
Terry Sanderson, NSS President
...a wonderfully acid British cartoonist...
Nick Cohen
I love the scrappy mockery of Jesus and Mo. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to mock any person, any thing, any activity, and any belief -- and J&M stands up for this unflinchingly
Richard Stallman
...empowering, important and deeply progressive, not to mention hilarious...
Council of Ex-Muslims
Jesus & Mo is my go to example of how to do tasteful, beautiful religious satire.
Eiynah, Polite Conversations
...humor is humor and this cartoonist doesn't have it. Karl Giberson
- Akimbo Comics
- Ape, not Monkey
- Creationist Zoo Keeper
- Dinosaur Comics
- E-merl
- Flea Snobbery
- J&M – in Portuguese
- J&M – in Russian
- Medium Large
- Pictorial Theology
- SMBC
- The Atheist Pig
- Bad Science
- Butterflies & Wheels
- CEMB
- EXMNA
- RichardDawkins.Net
- The Freethinker
- The Rationalizer
- Why Evolution is True
Comix
Other places
Latest book…
The J&M Top Ten
Random oldie…
September 28, 2022Weekly email...
Get an email every time J&M updates. (No spam)-
- NICE T-SHIRT (Thank you for not provoking my uncontrollable lust). Currently unavailable.
Technically it’s still defamatory if it’s true. However, the defamation is justified and thus not actionable.
Pedantry aside, great cartoon, Author.
There is a massive difference in what the West sees as slander, and what counts as slander under Sharia law.
A defence against a slander accusation in the West is to prove that the claim is true.
Under Sharia, it is an offence if the accusing party is offended by the claim, regardless of whether the claim itself is true or not.
The master race running the united nations
Are now Muslims, with no hesitations
To maim and to kill
To force their will
On the world, with no reservations.
And, it’s still true that Christians are deluded! It’s just that Muslims are, too, and so are any who believe in the gods they psychologically project into existence, whether indoctrinated into making that projection or not.
As a member of the One True Church of Moloch, I approve this proposal. For too long, we members of the Church of Moloch have been persecuted for our peace-loving, baby-sacrificing ways. It is sheer racism and bigotry to attack our deeply held convictions. etc etc
I find it ironic that the sentiment behind “Love me or die!” is also the reason why I’m divorced!
Shut up!
That pretty much sums up all religion.
*depressed* I know why this is really funny when you live in the UK, or Germany, or Norway, or even Romania… Here it’s just… not a joke. Well, the idea the UN could criminalise anything, or force any Western county to criminalise something is pretty funny, in a way… But given how blasphemy and offending public sensibilities is used for example in Egypt to incarcerate gay men for private parties, even though officially homosexuality and gay sex are legal, or how in Turkey recently simple mixed gender student housing gets criminalised using vague, religiously inspired “indecency” laws, it’s just… a depressing fact of life.
FreeFox, “depressing” sums up my reaction to most of the news these days. It’s just overwhelming. With ISIL, Boko Haram. Gamergate, gun fetishists, MRA anti-feminists, homophobic evangelists, blatant racists, those morons who don’t know the difference between “your” and “you’re”… the list goes on. And on. It’s enough to make me run off into the woods to live on nuts and berries and avoid all contact with humanity. But then I’d have to give up Jesus and Mo. And the grand kids. It’s all too much. There’s no way out.
I used to support the idea of laws against hate speech. No more. Laws against any ideas or speech are too easy to use to control what I think or say. Trying to protect the little darlings from hurt feelings, or incitement to genocide, just isn’t possible. I hope the UN agrees.
Thanks again for keeping these depressing issues on our minds, Author. Well done as usual.
I did a blog post about this last week. It’s especially nice that the president of this group of Islamic “scholars” is Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.
P.S. I particularly like the Telegraph front page. Pope Fluffy says the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists had it coming; nice.
Equal opportunity slanderers. Love it.
@ Darwin Harmless, well said. I couldn’t agree more.
Why are they openly worshipping the prophet instead of the diety he was supposedly speaking for?
http://news.yahoo.com/top-muslim-body-french-cartoons-stir-hatred-211710993.html
“It is neither reasonable, nor logical, nor wise to publish drawings and films offensive or attacking the prophet of Islam,” the International Union of Muslim Scholars, based in Qatar and headed by preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi, said in a lengthy statement.
…
It added that the images would further “stir up hatred, extremism and tension”.
But only, he should have added, after we do our job of rousing the rabble. After all it was took 4 months after the Danish cartoons were published before we garnared the outrage of our mobs. We in the fore-front of Islamic political action must resolve to do better in the future.
Plainsuch, that last paragraph is missing a little salient information.
“It took four months after publication of the Danish cartoons and the addition of a few extra-offensive ones that we had to sorce from elsewhere because the Danish ones were actually not overly offensive before we garnered the outrage……” should cover it.
The Bible has similar things to say about unbelievers:
In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. -2nd Corinthians 4:4
Where is the line between “Free Speech” and yelling fire in a crowded theater? More troubling yet is, “Who gets to make the decision?”
criminalising contempt of religions to protect them from slander?
Satanism/worship of our divine saviour lord Satan [PBUH] is also a certified religion
and xians/muslims slander it all the time -will they now be prevented from doing so by the UN?
Will muslims also be prevented from virulent anti-semitic vitriol against judaism?
perhaps now is also the time to make atheism an official religion that may not be slandered
That’s it, White squirrel, I think you have solved it.
This whole thing is a cunning plan to have atheism declared a religion so that they all together can say “We told you so!”
(I did have some useful thing to say but it all disappeared while I visited another tab. Grrrr.)
Lewis+R. Lowden “Where is the line between “Free Speech” and yelling fire in a crowded theater? More troubling yet is, “Who gets to make the decision?””
Not this argument again. I think there’s a pretty clear difference between inciting violence and sounding a false alarm. The former can be ignored or refuted and any resulting violence can be dealt with like any other crime. The latter causes an immediate reaction before there is time for an intervention. Yelling fire in a crowded theatre is covered under public mischief. It has no relationship to freedom of speech.
As plainsuch said, elaborated by Acolyte of Sagan, the Danish cartoon was not the cause of the violence and bloodshed. That was caused by the Imams who whipped their followers into a frenzy. So they are the ones who should be held responsible, not the cartoonist. As ISIL seems bent on proving, banning depictions of Mohammed will only make the Imams seek another excuse for whipping the followers into a frenzy. Raising pigeons or watching football on television will suffice apparently, since both resulted in executions.
If I’m ever in a theatre and notice a fire, I guess I should just quietly walk out. What else could I do: Ladies and gentlemen, please do not panic and crush the weaker among you at the exits but remain calm and exit this theatre in an orderly fashion. Apparently there is a fire. It’s not a life threatening fire. A small fire, really. Now, please don’t panic. I’d suggest leaving by row, starting at the back.
Yeah. I’m sure that’s going to work.
have the ones demanding this actually thought it through?
ALL religions would be barred from criticising ANY other religion
if they cannot see how much this would restrict there own favourite religion then they are pretty blind -becuse all the main stream religions state they are the ‘one true faith’ but any religion that does so immediately slanders all others
ultimately this will lead to loss of all freedom of religious expression conerning other religions- its not just the quran that would be subject to censorship but all ‘holy’ books that disparage another religion – the bible for example slanders many religions which have probably been revived by at least one pagan
Raising pigeons or watching football on television will suffice apparently, since both resulted in executions.
also -smoking, drinking , singing , dancing , women who wear clothes that ‘rustle’ cosmetics, claiming the world is not flat, etc ad nauseum
there was even an imam who claimed that wearing a burka was not enough -as a woman showing both eyes was an incitement to ‘lust’
the more ground they are given the more they will further demand
try these for slander
Science proves your favourite ‘holy book is in error
I stand up to your favourite ‘prophet’ as their moral superior and I refuse to shake their hand
I kick your favourite ‘holy’ text into the gutter and trample on it
your favourite ‘god’ does not exist
I’m still using the tablet so my legendary lack of computer skills is hampered even further to the extent that I can’t copy a URL to paste here, so this is a request for a little help.
Could one of you lovely miscreants please find a YouTube clip from the Fawlty Towers episode in which Basil raises the alarm for a fire in the kitchen?
I think that Darwin would enjoy it greatly.
Thanks.
AoS, is this the one?:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn15BUFBvu8
On the subject of the way that ‘outrage’ was drummed up about the cartoons, here’s what Mo had to say about this kind of behaviour:
———
The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, “Do you know what calumny is?” They said, “No, Allah and His Messenger know best.” He said, “Telling people what other people have said in order to create dissension between them.”
http://quranx.com/Hadith/Adab/Book-1/Hadith-425/
———
(Thanks to your link, Author, I’m now mooching around QuranX instead of going out to garden in the sun. Curse you.)
FreeFox, being new I’m wondering where your ‘here’ is …
Just wondering if HackneyMartian might have a problem with fundies. Bringing up a page of the Koran from the web, then shooting it into the cybervoid might be blasphemy akin to burning the damn thing 🙂
It’s cool, JohnM – it’s a hadith.
Help … I’m becoming a theologian …
HackneyMartian, if you go back four comics to nous (8th Jan), FreeFox talks about his current whereabouts. Speaking of which, if you’re talking of gardening in the sun, I’m guessing that you are either not in Hackney, or Hackney is experiencing weather that that the rest of the country has missed. 😉
Welcome to the Cock & Bull by the way. You have chanced upon the rarest of beasts here; a website where the standard rule of the internet – never read the comments – does not apply.
Oh, and I’m forgetting my manners. Yes, that is the Fawlty Towers clip.
Thank you.
AoS
Thanks for the addendum. Thanks also for editing out the extra word that wasn’t there until after I clicked [Submit]. ( I swear on a stack of Holy BS )
Plainsuch, and I swear on the same stack that ‘source’ was spelt correctly when it left here. 🙂
It’s those miniature people who live in our devices (that is how computers work, right?) having a laugh I reckon.
As Darwin Harmless alluded, if the fire in the theatre is so small that nobody else has noticed it there’s no need to scream, just pour somebodies drink on it. Buy them another drink. End of problem. OTOH why can’t I scream if the theatre is being engulfed in flames, the rest of the panicking crowd probably is.
A little closer to the point in the modern USA is the question; Should I scream “He’s loading the gun!” as I drag my children towards the nearest exit? Thereby possibly drawing fire. Or, just quietly take care of my own and leave the rest of the crowd to fend for themselves?
Does the Freedom of Speech imply any Obligation of Speech? Obligation to Speak the (perceived) Truth? It does seem to imply an Obligation of Tolerance.
AoS … yes, I see, Turkey. Cripes. And yes with a ladder and some glasses I could see to Hackney Marshes. The sun came out for an hour & the very pretty garding was rebuking me for the unpruned apple tree.
Plainsuch, there is a legal obligation of speech of sorts whereby if one has knowledge of a crime, whether already committed or in the planning stages, and doesn’t report it to the police, thewithholding of information leaves one liable to prosecution for aiding and abetting that crime.
Your gun scenario falls more into the moral or ethical side of things where there is no definitive right or wrong response, and allows for the individual to decide where their priorities lie.
Personally I’ve always considered that type of question impossible to answer, even hypothetically. There are too many variables in a situation such as the shooter in the theatre scenario, so the same person might use different strategies depending on how those variables play out.
The only way to know for sure would be.to experience it, but I’m not so desperate to find out that I’d go round looking for armed nutjobs in crowded places.
Does blowing up ancient statues of the Buddha (in Afganistan say) count as contempt of religion? Just a thought
A little closer to the point in the modern USA is the question; Should I scream “He’s loading the gun!” as I drag my children towards the nearest exit? Thereby possibly drawing fire. Or, just quietly take care of my own and leave the rest of the crowd to fend for themselves?
That whole… thought… makes me so… I dunno… what the fuck is wrong with you? That is NOT a thing! That isn’t a thing here, or in Egypt, or in bloody Iraq, and it certainly isn’t a thing in the USA or the UK or anywhere else in the world. Your little son (why do people always drag their kids into it when they want to defame someone, the FBI and TOR, sheesh…) your son is more likely to get infected with some strain of antibiotics-resistant strep bacteria or measels from some new age idiot parent’s kid, or get run over crossing the street on the way to the theatre, or, if you are in the US and need to bring guns into this, get shot by some rozzer for having eaten his sandwich into the shape of a pistol. Less people die of terrorist attacks than of bee stings or, I dunno, falling into open sewer manholes!!! Terrorists ARE NOT A DANGER!!!
Even IF you are in a crowded theatre with a crazy gunman, which is a chance so miniscule it really isn’t worth even talking about, you are still so much more than likely going away with nothing worse than somebody else’s blood splattered on your coat. You can walk across active battlefields, and as long as you are not specifically a person of interest, you are more likely going to be fine. Look at the percentages of soldiers (not just hyper-armoured American soldiers, but any soldiers, returning with only light or no wounds from combat as compared to those who die of actual enemy violence. Guns may seem scary, but it is really hard to actually hit someone badly enough to kill, unless you are both close and have only one opponent. It’s only once you are approaching machine gun nests on open ground that the odds begin to get truly grim.
And really, if there arereligious fundamentalists that are a danger to your children, they aren’t even muslims. Though really, I can’t blame it on them. If two guys can legally pay more money to politicians in the next US Presitential Election than any party raised last time, you KNOW who is making the policies. I don’t even have to carefully evaluate the individual ballots of representatives – because I know the Koch’s staff has done that long ago and decided that this would a good investment… so, how much do they need to get MORE out of the American people by buying their politicians than they would make with any other president, for them to make this a sound investment?
Walter, you asked me a couple of weeks ago how I drew a link between the mess in Syria and Iraq and the kind of Oligarchy-style capitalism that we’re seeing in the West these days. I don’t have a bunch of links for you, but most of this isn’t hard to google up if you really are interested. Elements of my theory are that literally all successfull extremist muslim regimes have been financed and supplied with weapons by the West during their rise. Then they seemingly went rogue. And thirty, fourty years ago, maybe the CIA and DGES and the like really hadn’t figured it out (though really, the Brits had already made that experience over a hundred years ago). But after it happened time and again, it cannot be just bumbling anymore. There must be method to the madness.
The other thing is – am I the only one or are you really not seeing how the middle class in the West is getting screwed over so hard that the “Koch” family name is a pretty bad pun, actually… I am not just blaming them, they are just amongst the most blatant. But where a generation ago, one person could with a normal job provide for a family, now it takes two people with 3 jobs amidst them and teenage kids jobbing to afford stuff beyond food and clothes. Our planet is dying, and you are being sold the tale it’s because you aren’t turning off the lights in empty rooms, leave your computer on standby and don’t recycle your glass bottles – while Fracking companies are legally destroying the ground water during the greatest draught in the American Southwest since anyone has been recording.
But what keeps dominating the headlines and gives the governments that have been bought by corporations and banks the pretext to spy on dissdents, shut down WikiLeaks, and arm their police to the teeth? “Islamic Terrorists” And what do you need to keep a steady supply of those? (As I said, really, they aren’t even a danger. In Iraq and Syria more people die of dysentery, and in the West more die of obesity than of terrorism, but still you need those pictures to keep everyone feeling scared.) You need an impoverished, uneducated population that is weakened enough to fall prey to religious extremism.
And so those bought Western leaders pay their due respect to a theocratic murderer like King Abdullah and deal with insane dictators in the making like President Erdogan, while snubbing the only non-religious, non-extremist fighting force down here, the Kurds, at their big IS crisis conference.
So, yeah, I am pretty certain that the West is allowing quite intentionally for the madness to continue hereabouts. They use it to keep local powers from getting too big and independent enough to actually claim the oil for themselves (there is a study that shows that countries with civil wars and oil are 100 times more like to be “rescued” by militery intervention than those only with civil wars, but no oil). But they are also using to keep everyone scared and looking at the evil savages, so nobody looks at how they are robbing the world blind.
Does that answer your question?
And really… I would be completely hijacking this board if I really went into it, but really, the list is so long. If the West really wanted to rescue Africans, it wouldn’t send military operations after Boko Haram, if would send mosquito nets. Very cheap. For the price of a few of those missiles shot by the West at Lybia to support the rebels, you could provide everyone in central Africa with a mosquito net. Because Malaria, not Ebola or terrorists, is killing millions of people every year. But what is the West sending instead? Billionair-financed christian religious missionaries working tirelessly to suppress condoms, so that AIDS can flourish on top of Malaria, and that gays can be murdered to add to the pile of corpses and the misery. But effectice and cheap insect killers like DDT, that could have given large stretches of Africa enough respite to help the population have the resources and energy to educate themselves and start building up their own middle class got prohibited internationally by the UN on spurious environmental grounds. By the same people that now won’t stop climate change because “it must be God’s will”.
Why? Well, an African middle class clamouring for real democracy would ruin the profit of those mining corporations sucking all the wealth out of Africa.
No, it’s better to talk about abducted children and the evil Boko Haram terrorists.
(Don’t get me wrong: They are evil. They are just the far lesser evil in Africa than British Petrol, or the other Western interests .)
FreeFox, it’s painful to read what you write, but it’s the obvious truth. Hijack the thread any time, my friend. Remind us of what is important, and what we should pay attention to.
When the new Pope, the smiling PR guy telling us that our dogs can go to heaven and that atheists are not all evil, telling us exactly what everybody wants to hear from him like he just spoke to god on the red telephone, gets around to telling Africans that condoms are a good thing and telling his bishops to get the fuck out of the hospitals, I’ll start to think there’s been a change.
There are people resisting, even among the 1%, but in the words of Bob Dylan, money doesn’t talk, it swears.
Free Fox, hear, hear!
Hey FreeFox, thanks for that – it was well worth the wait.
It was not that I could not see the link myself so much as that I was fascinated to read how you might put it. And you do write it brilliantly, if you don’t mind me saying so.
Is it ironic that the Koch’s interventions are themselves examples of free speech in action?
As a populace we have been so consistently distracted by the kak of celebrity, roused by red herrings and undermined by outright disinformation proffered by almost all media that our collective will to question has been eroded and our power to intercede has been decimated. Obscene wealth has become honourable and extreme poverty has become, well, collateral damage. The lies of progress and prosperity are the emperor’s new clothes. A war on anything cannot fail to help that agenda.
At times it is crystal clear to me but I can’t often see it as a conspiracy – I tend to think it is all some inevitable consequence of the celebration of greed that is simply out of control. But when one observes it over decades and weighs it on planetary scales it can be easy to believe they literally look down on us from Davos and wonder which war we will wage for them next.
Somehow I am strangely heartened by the election that just happened in Queensland.
“enough respite to help the population have the resources and energy to educate themselves and start building up their own middle class got prohibited internationally by the UN on spurious environmental grounds. By the same people that now won’t stop climate change because “it must be God’s will”.
Why? Well, an African middle class clamouring for real democracy would …”
Once bitten, twice shy, Free Fox.
It’s exactly what happened in the course toward decolonisation: the build-up of a local middle class that went clamouring for freedom ad democracy. Then in Asia after decolonisation they shook up the inherited political system and infrastructure to fit themselves and carried on successfully. To the profit of both Asian and Western enterprises and economies: India, Malaya, Indonesia, Philippines to name a few.
Contrariwise in Africa the local middle class that wanted ‘us’ out found itself plundered, murdered and kicked out in the process of sorting out all kinds of tribalities while the system and infrastructure were demolished. Aside from a few exceptions. If someone didn’t notice: BP and western interest usually prosper best in those post-colonial real democracies and not in high risk African areas.
And now ‘we’ should revive Kipling’s ‘white mans burden’ and establish some sort of neo-colonialism to build them another middle class… for without, they apparently cannot and want not, buying weaponry rather than mosquito nets. We’ll be dammed if we do, we’re damned if we don’t. So why bother and not safe us the toil and sweat (money not being an issue) creating a bunch of ungrateful?
Yes, I’m being cynic. Shoot me.
With about as much respect as is deserved, FreeFox, I thoroughly disagree with just about everything you suggest. Your analysis is deeply flawed and childish.
Were the rich so united in a conspiracy of wealth and power against the peons, they would have pushed NASA into building Skylabs by the dozen, O’Neill cylinders by the hundred, cities on Luna and Mars and a variety of other sources of vastly more wealth than one tiny planet could ever provide.
You are postulating a conspiracy of Moriartys and Luthors who are undefeatable and who were given “The Prince” and “The Art of War” as their first books yet who killed their own futures. An oligarchy of supreme power who are so stupid and short-sighted that they have ignored a hundred years of solar physics and have missed the fact that this world is doomed to be pasteurised. A vast totalitarian behemoth of an Illuminati-driven Plan that has ignored the most obvious fact of the demise of our civilisation when the oil runs out.
You are suggesting that the very beings who have controlled every event in the entire world for the last couple of centuries, who can plan in terms of millennia and entire continents and races in intricate, infinite detail can’t even notice that their cars need filled.
It is a ridiculous and childish bogeyman of a horror story. It is the Rotarians, Freemasons and Illuminati writ large and projected onto coincidence and incompetence.
It is nonsense.
Humans are just not that good at planning. Politicians very much less so.
Were they, the Romans would have landed on Mars. They had centuries and just about the right technological base. They could have done it in not much more than a generation. America managed the Moon in one lifespan, from wood and wire flying toys to Saturn V’s. If humans were really good at conspiracies and wealth-conservation and manipulating every detail of a global society for millennia there would be Acropoli on Titan.
The world is, in reality, in the mess it currently enjoys because humans are completely incapable of planning. They have the attention span of a distracted goldfish and all the long-term thinking ability of a cactus.
Which is why ISIS, ISIL or whatever they are this month exist. The almost-people in that evil sump of vileness are not great thinkers and their owners and drivers are even less capable. The wealthy sponsors of the vermin are short-term thinkers par-excellence and think only of their next meal and the evil sods killing, raping and yelling about their idiotic fairytales don’t even manage that much. Can’t even manage that much.
It’s not the Atlantean priest-God-Kings running the world, it’s merely a bunch of greedy bankers with no idea what reality is and who are incapable of ever seeing or understanding the Big Picture. They are not invulnerable demi-gods with The Plan, they are mere prats making it all up as they go along.
Just like the rest of us.
And that is why we could win. We won’t, but we could. It doesn’t take that much effort to out-think a worm with a gun. All it would need is a little co-operation between the various “islamophobes” and we could vanish that fraudulent pack of lies and hatred, then we could start on all the rest of them. It won’t happen because humans have the attention span of a mayfly but it so easily could.
Anyone (even me) who could type pages of delusional screed that totally ignores reality could also focus for ten minutes and create a movement that could push the world into reason and The Light. I’m not going to do it because I am comfortable, callous and uncaring and I have that wonderful gift of selective inattention that allows me to ignore the millions who are suffering. I read about them, weep a bit then switch off that humane, human, compassionate part of me and wander off to cook lunch. I’m a selfish, hard-hearted bastard and lazier than any cat, to boot.
What’s everyone else’s excuse?
$1 billion – how many mosquito nets would that buy? How much DDT-like bug killers? How good health care service?
Yet the Nigerian government alone is spending that amount rather to military purposes. Angola: $ 6 billion. Algeria: $10 billion. And African defense expenditures are booming:
http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21633901-continents-armies-are-going-spending-spree-arms-and-african
If you must generate tin-foil hat theories, here’s a starting point: there could be a conspiracy to kill us all and destroy civilisation when the oil runs out. And perhaps this gentle, sweet, calming voice is the comedy side-kick distraction?
Yes, it’s nuts to think so, but is it any more nuts than a vast Instrumentality running both the oil wealth and the zealots?
If you must invent gigantic, A.I.M., Hydra, SPECTRE and THRUSH secret societies to explain what is more rationally explained by sheer ineptitude and stupidity, you have to wonder why people like the Gateses and the Buffets, the Mormon and Catholic churches and many others don’t eliminate the risk to themselves and their heirs of ebola by simply flooding Africa with new hospitals, research centres and staff, as they could easily afford, and why Microsoft hasn’t built Tycho City – where there would be no laws against total monopolies. Among other obvious – and quite cheap – moves towards empires. Why, Apple’s cash fund alone could buy several hundred hospitals, a city on Mars and a couple of O’Neill city-farms, out of all of which they’d probably make even bigger piles of loose cash.
The world is not run by genius overlords. The world is not really run at all. It lurches along like a village football match where everyone is his own team and the goals are mobile, elastic, a matter of opinion and unreachable.
The world needs a Machiavellian genius overlord but, as I said, I’m too lazy, comfortable and selfish to bother and too callous to care.
Any volunteers?
Shaun, a simple but obvious point, if I may?
If you don’t have an army with big guns and the guys next door do then the border between you evaporates and you become them.
See 20th Century Soviet expansions for details.
Or China.
The only way to eliminate wars between the states is to make the states one single state. See the Soviet Republic, Europe, China and USA as examples.
To eliminate defence spending completely, oe must only remove all local government and create a single global government.
As the Islamics are trying to do. (Back on topic.) When they win, we won’t need an army, just an internal heavily-armed policing force. To cope with the odd infidel, heretic and blasphemer.
We’ll then have lots of money for hospitals.
So maybe we’re all wrong? Maybe they are right? Maybe we should be encouraging the universal Caliphate? Maybe peace would ensue? Apart, of course from a few stonings and such, which may be a price worth paying?
Perhaps we should let them win?
Maybe it’s our Destiny?
A galactic Caliphate, peace be upon it?
I need a beer.
Have a beer, LongLifeBeer.
I do not doubt the necessity of adequate defense spendings. But I do doubt the adequacy and necessity of those mentioned – as do the Economists authors. And then, if health care and education and food production for their people are not their priority why should we make it ours? We’d be merely facilitating and rewarding their military efforts.
LongLifeBeer, that you consider FreeFox’s ideas to be deeply flawed and childish suggests to me that your own knowledge of the subject is far more superficial than you obviously think it is, and your ensuing words do nothing to alter that impression.
Acolyte, thanks. You reassure me.
I was wondering if I might have been a little harsh on our foxy friend. I’m pleased to see that I wasn’t.
And I am glad I am so very much appreciated.
I think I’ll take Shaun’s most sage advice and have many beers.
Acolyte, please don’t discourage LongLifeBeer. He’s making some good points. I’m glad to see a balance to the point of view expressed by FreeFox because I can clearly see both sides.
I’ve watched enough TED talks to believe that rich and powerful people really are interested in solving the world’s problems. It’s just that the world’s problems are not all that freaking’ simple. I don’t believe there is any big conspiracy by the wealthy. I think they are generally just as lost and terrified as the rest of us. Maybe more so, because they have the opportunities to learn about stuff that is hidden from most of us. Of course, some are just plain evil sociopathic bastards. It’s really easy to be critical of America or China. But governing either of those countries is not a task I’d relish were I given supreme authority over this world. No doubt there’s be much blood flowing if I were in charge.
Mr. Harmless, may I call you Darwin? Thank you for the supporting words but it is rather too late to ride to my defence.
Acolyte was right.
I’m a miserable, unthinking, nye-kulturny blemish and I apologise for polluting the gentle atmosphere of the ‘Bull.
I’ve left a virtual tab for FreeFox’s next few imaginary beers with the gracious and lovely barmaid as a token of my unworthiness.
I am now going to run away to the circus. If they’ll have me …
I suspect freefox has it alt least half right, in that there all any number of obnoxious corperate motives for the third-world hell holes, but to his naysayers, there is hardly a grand master plan or coordinated cabal behind it. Rather it is a gaggle of independent greed heads following similar trends and tricks. And most of them could hardly care about the long term concequences, assuming they’ll be gone or have so much money/power as to insulate/buy themselves out of any pickle. If any of these corporate overlords have any far-sighted plans, they are by and large simply those of grabbing more money/power in an ultimate zero-sum game.
Ophelia+Benson
I particularly like the name Pope Fluffy. Would his evil twin be callled be Pope Vlad?
I don’t think the legal obligation to inform on a crime can be considered any aspect of Free Speech. Coerced Speech and Coerced Silence are two faces of the same disease and can lead to one of those dilemma’s you mention. e.g. Is it better to risk prosecution by the legal system for aiding and abetting a crime vs. risking the illegal retribution of the local gang-lord. Or, in another example that *might* be different, is Edward Snowden a true patriot who placed his country before himself, or a treasonous weasel?
Acolyte of Sagan,
May I kindly point to the fact that what LifeLongBeer is doing, to “consider FreeFox’s ideas to be deeply flawed and childish ” is what we are emphatically are invited by Author to do here freely: among other things to “ridicule the sincerely held beliefs of millions.” (See the Note under this section!)
Alas for FreeFoxes sincere and deeply held belief – being a guest of this House does not immunize.
LLB: “Were the rich so united in a conspiracy of wealth and power against the peons, they would have pushed NASA into building Skylabs by the dozen, O’Neill cylinders by the hundred, cities on Luna and Mars and a variety of other sources of vastly more wealth than one tiny planet could ever provide.”
My own take on the motivations of many of the super rich is that they have a ‘scrooge syndrome’ They get turned on by the numbers rather than the objects. To them an exquisite Goya hanging on the wall of the living room, or a Jackson Pollock that they wouldn’t fathom out given a zillion years to do so, represent the same thing as a string of noughts obtained by rounding up their bank deposit balances. So an infra-structure project that is unlikely to return a profit in their lifetime is of no value to them.
That the same short-termism is overt in politics everyone agrees. Yet most continue to vote for candidates and parties that are pretty much totally blatant about it. Indeed, the links between the two groups are far from clear cut. Many politicians line their pockets while in office, then spend their retirement adding to that wealth.
And now for something completely different…
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/11/censor-michelangelo-spoof-advert-disbelief-sistine-atheism
I’ve left a virtual tab for FreeFox’s next few imaginary beers with the gracious and lovely barmaid as a token of my unworthiness.
I am now going to run away to the circus. If they’ll have me …
Please don’t do that. If I wanted to sit around with a bunch of people nodding and agreeing with each other, I would be down at the rec room with the Faux News fans, or join a church – much the same thing. I’m at the Cock and Bull waiting for you to defend your assertion.
If you want some fodder for conspiracy mongering check this article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friends_of_the_Earth
& then click on the name of the guy who funded the organization to see where he got his money.
LongLifeBeer, my comment to you wasn’t meant as a ‘shut up!’, and if that’s how it came across then I apologise.
Were I not having to use this annoying little tablet I would have spent an hour or so answering your post point by point, but on this damned gadget (not that I don’t appreciate the gift) it would take me the better part of a lifetime to do so.
All that one has to do is read up on what has happened and continues to happen in South America due to U.S. interests to recognise the same pattern replaying globally.
The subject requires book-length treatment to fully do it justice, but I doubt that Author would be happy about me doing that here, even if there were time enough for me to do so on this machine.
I said:A little closer to the point in the modern USA is the question; Should I scream…
FreeFox said:That whole… thought… makes me so… I dunno… what the fuck is wrong with you? That is NOT a thing!
I completely agree with what you said about the actual danger from Terrorists. A friend of mine calls it ‘Waveland’; That strange alternate world that you see through TV and video screens. Waveland is a scary place full of Muslim terrorists and Liberal Agendas that want to take away your assault rifles. A place where It’s also place where happiness comes only from acquisition, your identity comes from the possessions you haven’t yet discarded and your personal worth is measured by your wealth.
I dislike the saying that Freedom of Speech doesn’t extend to shouting Fire in a crowded theatre. It has a certain folksy truthiness to it but it doesn’t logical make sense. In practical terms it just means you only have Freedom of Speech as long as you don’t say anything inconvenient. I was trying to keep the theatre but keep the fire in some way that made some sort of sense.
The debate above could be summarised simply as; cock-up versus conspiracy.
I tend towards the cock up end of the spectrum, there just seems to be so much more actual evidence for that.
JohnM says:
February 2, 2015 at 12:18 pm
I second what he said. Our shadowy overlords are just as organized, but more dangerous, than a school of sharks.
JohnM and all interested,
Regarding the motivations of the wealthy, it is worthwhile to consider the works of Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929), The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. Written in 1899 it predicted the behavour of the new rich (and old money) around 1999 and inbetween. His magnum opus is public domain http://www.gutenberg.org/files/833/833-h/833-h.htm
Briefly summarized: the new rich go after status and its symbols (cars, hunting, golf), thus vulgarizing these very symbols. Those who had them, seek newer, more exclusivesymbols to show off their wealth to each other. Until the new rich discover that and … etc etc.
So this world will never get Abe Maslows final stage. The rich are on their way to space through ‘commercial’ space enterprises. In due course.
Plainsuch: hear, hear – especially because the dangerous sharks do not swim in schools. They are solitary.
I like your subtility!
Laxeyman, I would think that the current concentration of global wealth is unlikely to be the result of cock-ups.
Why would you think so?
The alternative, conspiracy, requires such an amount of infallible foresight that all goof-ups would have been impossible.
Wealth attracts wealth and there is little more needed to accumulate wealth than that old mechanism. In due time all wealth will be concentrated on only a few places. If you ever played Monopoly, you know that.
Resource curse
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The resource curse, also known as the paradox of plenty, refers to the paradox that countries and regions with an abundance of natural resources, specifically point-source non-renewable resources like minerals and fuels, tend to have less economic growth and worse development outcomes than countries with fewer natural resources.
…yadda, yadda, much complex intellectualization
See also: Rentier state
A resource-rich country’s government and elites may adopt a dismissive or even hostile attitude towards the general population because they do not rely on the general public for tax revenues…. As a result, citizens are often poorly served by their rulers,[21] and if the citizens complain, money from the natural resources enables governments to pay for armed forces to keep the citizens in check. …
Corrupt members of national governments may collude with resource extraction companies to override their own laws and ignore objections made by indigenous inhabitants.[23] The United States Senate Foreign Relations Committee report entitled “Petroleum and Poverty Paradox” states that “too often, oil money that should go to a nation’s poor ends up in the pockets of the rich, or it may be squandered on grand palaces and massive showcase projects instead of being invested productively”.[24]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse#Rentier_States
There are conspiracies of course. But, they are driven by the global flow of wealth and power and the conspirators are whoever is in position to seize opportunities as they arise. It doesn’t matter which ppsychopathic thug gets control of a countries resources. It doesn’t matter which resource extraction corporation pays them off for access to cheap resources. It doesn’t matter how the thug’s minions travel to The School of the Americas to learn how to properly torture and oppress. The bottom line is that the opportunity for the flow of wealth put brought this particular group of conspirators together. I doubt if any of them thought about anything more than their immediate gain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse#Rentier_States
Curse the little people that live in the intertubes. That second link wasn’t there a second ago.
Methinks, Plainsuch, that you are using the words conspiracy and conspirator in a very broad sense. Too broad to make sense, maybe.
Your bottom line is that going with the flow brings golddiggers and fortuneseekers together by chance. That is sheer luck rather than conspiracy, and then sticking together per se in not a conspiracy either. Only cunning planning for future goals would make it a conspiracy; and a bunch of hoboes planning for future wealth – is that a conspiracy? I think not, it is just planning for their better future. So the difference doils down to wealth – if you have it and plan to get wealthier, it’s conspiracy; if you do the same not being wealthy to become wealthier, it is not a conspiracy…
Interesting thought. Didn’t Karl Marx think along that line?
Contrariwise, Shaughn, you are using the words conspiracy and conspirator in such a narrow sense that they nearly disappear. If the one armed man was seen on the grassy knoll with a lead pipe AND Sgt Scarlet was declared Missing In Action in The Bahamas, then you’ve gone down the rabbit-hole to find a twisty maze of dead ends.
As you said, “Wealth attracts wealth and there is little more needed to accumulate wealth than that old mechanism“. Having power makes it easier to get more power and, to a certain extent, insider knowledge brings more insider knowledge. For lack of a better metaphor think of the global plutarchs as a group of Mafia families. If you stumble on a couple billion dollars and try to get in the game, they will happily take time out from ruthless competition to take you back out.
Marx? Sorry, I’m ignorant on the subject of 19th Century philosophers.
I think I use these words in rather common sense; no need for me to twist words to fit my thoughts.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conspiracy says:
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
“He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.”
As for that – I even accept the conspiring in your use not to be secret – these conspiracies seem to be common knowledge among the believers.
A metaphore is nice, but it is not an argument. The richest 1% of humanity does not equal a few maffia families. Proof of which: mr gates and his kind of ‘new money’ these days, oil tycoons mid 20th century and the old nobility have been merging, instead of eliminating the newcomers.
May I enlighten you on Marx: if a capitalist does something, it is wrong. If a poor does the same, it is right. It’s the core of communism, leninism and nowadays korean communism. I don’t think the argument is valid. Not in communist economic theory, not in conspiracy theory.
Somewhat returning to a previous subject, Africa and the role of the west:
Around 1400 CE Western Europe was a most unlikely candidate for world dominance. Poor, its population devastated by plague epidemics, lacking social and political coherence, technologically backward and unaware of gunpowder – southeast Asia and Africa’s west coast were the likeliest candidates: well developed, rich, powerful, leading in technology and gunpowder. Only at the end of the 16th century power was just beginning to shift from these regions to Western Europe that from there on only began to build up richness and power to gain world power by 1700 CE. How this very unlikely scenario could happen is still subject to debate.
Yet it is unlikely that there was a deliberate, long term conspiracy. None of the powers that were then, still exist. World dominance has shifted from Western to Eastern Europe and the US of A and lately to the US of A. The next shift is probably to China. None of the trade companies or their leading families that were in charge around 1500 are still in those positions (or even were in 1700 CE) which makes them very poor conspirators. Actually, most of them did not last longer than 3 or 4 generations. As usual: the first generation toils and collects capital, second and (at best) third generation keeps the capital and the third (or at best) 4th generation spoils capital. Again, poor conspiracy, methinks. Only crowned heads stayed longer – but their powers shifted from monarchism to parliamentary democracies. So far for their conspirational power. It just seems that conspiracies are useless against the all too common everyday political and economic cycli in rise and fall of dominance. Of course, conspiracy theories provide an easy explanation (and scapegoats) for an otherwise seemingly chaotic and uncertain world. Which is what religion did before.
Recommended reading:
William H McNeill – the pursuit of power; William A Bernstein:- How trade shaped the world; Victor Davis Hanson – Why the west has won; David Aaronovitch – Voodoo histories: the role of conspiracy theories in shaping modern history.
No words were harmed in the making of my comments. I believe I use the word conspiracy as most people do in American English. I found this link containing an explanation of conspiracy in American Legalese, the way it would be used in the news.
http://www.michigan-drug-attorney.com/conspiracy-to-distribute.html
If two hoboes have a plan, say one will distract the clerk while the other stuffs whiskey and cigarettes into his coat pockets, it is a conspiracy.
As I understand it, your argument seems to be that
1) if a poor person did it – it’s not a conspiracy.
2) if a rich person does it – it might be a conspiracy, but only if there is evidence of a millennia old secret Order of Illuminati
3) but, existent or fictional, the Illuminati are too clever and ruthless to leave any evidence
4)* if you think there are conspiracies you are a crazy communist
Therefore there are no conspiracies.
* note:
So the difference boils down to wealth – if you have it and plan to get wealthier, it’s conspiracy; if you do the same not being wealthy to become wealthier, it is not a conspiracy…
May I enlighten you on Marx: if a capitalist does something, it is wrong. If a poor does the same, it is right. It’s the core of communism, leninism and nowadays korean communism. I don’t think the argument is valid. Not in communist economic theory, not in conspiracy theory.
2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot.
3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose:
“He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government.”
As for that – I even accept the conspiring in your use not to be secret – these conspiracies seem to be common knowledge among the believers.
It is very gracious of you to provide and acknowledge definition number three, but you needn’t condescend. I am a Conspiracy Theory Agnostic rather than a believer. I am also sceptical of amazing coincidences. As FreeFox pointed out, nearly everything the US has touched in the Middle East lately has gone wrong and, by amazing coincidence, contributed to the spread of the brand of religious extremism favored by the Saudis.
Almost, Plainsuch.
(Apologies for using capitals hereunder – no intention to shout but I haven’t found the way to emphasize by bold or italics. Please, enlighten me!)
My analysis of YOUR argument is that YOUR argument is that if very rich persons do something to accumulate weatlth and power, that is a conspiracy. That is the core of conspiracy theory.
My counter argument is that by the same standards, do something to accumulate wealth and power, however tiny, the poor are conspiring too. You’re condemning, or at least do not approve, what the rich do but not what the poor do on a daily basis. The only difference between the two is wealth/power.
So I have to conclude: in conspiracy theorists view, that difference is decisive to condemn the rich as evil, but not the poor.
And that view equals marxist-leninist anticapitalist propaganda.
Which says nothing about the existence of conspiracies, except that IF the rich are conspiring by trying to accumulate wealth, the poor are too, c.q. that if the poor are not by trying to do the same, the rich are neither.
So either all, or none at all, are conspiring if you define conspiring as ‘planning to accumulate wealth/power’.
In my opinion, this conspiracy thinking is the agnost’s equivalent of (pseudo)religious ‘intelligent design’ thinking. Both cannot understand that a few simple mechanisms in due course of time can lead to highly complex results. To them, the result ‘proves’ the cause, which is highly illogical. Whereas those who understand it, see the previous process of trial and error, messing up, goof-ups as a proof that there is no intelligent design or intelligent conspiracy. Otherwise there wouldn’t have been all that blundering about.
Wealth and power accumulate. But the partakers who profit from it will vary. Usually gradually, sometimes through revolution. You don’t need conspiracy theory to reach the nowadays results. It’s superfluous theory, just as ‘god’ is a superfluous hypothesis (remember Laplace!)
No intention to be condescend, Plainsuch, just trying to agree on the meaning of a word. That’s a necessity for a fair discussion, isn’t it? 😀
“nearly everything the US has touched in the Middle East lately has gone wrong and, by amazing coincidence, contributed to the spread of the brand of religious extremism favored by the Saudis.”
What is the coincidence? It’s causality, being the US strategy a wrong one, causing these effects to the benefit of, for the time being, the Saudi’s. US government has been warned for it.
Unless a war is swift, decisive and having irreversible results, it will be protracted, at least unproductive and in the long run be counterproductive. Since US warfare on terrorism is neither decisive or irreversible it is counterproductive.
Can I just clarity that neither FreeFox nor myself were talking about conspiracy theories, much less about complex plans for world domination going back centuries. They are red herrings introduced by others into the conversation by those who didn’t understand the points being made.
Can I suggest that those mocking what they see as conspiracy theories get that idea out of their heads and go back and re-read FreeFox’s comments?
The very simple root of this is that certain corporations and individuals have become so powerful that they are able to greatly influence governmental home and foreign policies to their own advantage, and never mind the consequences for those harmed by those policies.
Indeed, FreeFox’ remark, January 30, 2015 at 3:19 pm: “So, yeah, I am pretty certain that the West is allowing quite intentionally for the madness to continue hereabouts. They use it to keep local powers from getting too big and independent enough […] they are also using to keep everyone scared and looking at the evil savages, so nobody looks at how they are robbing the world blind.” is of course not even close to a conspiracy theory.
It’s LongLifeBeer who says February 1, 2015 at 11:51 am:
“Were the rich so united in a conspiracy of wealth and power against the peons, they would have […]” where the conspiracy is actually mentioned.
Acolyte of Sagan, your rejection February 2, 2015 at 6:30 pm of laxeyman : “Laxeyman, I would think that the current concentration of global wealth is unlikely to be the result of cock-ups.” suggest your going for the conspiracy end of the spectrum. May I suppose now you meant to take a position inbetween?
All in all, can we agree that there is no conspiracy and the situation in Africa now is due to the usual short-sighted blundering around by politicians and businesses alike, including the African ones?
To my mind the crux of FreFox’s narrative is that whatever dangers fanatical Islamists might present they are nothing when compared to those threats to our livelihood and ways of life by the likes of the TTIP and it’s ilk. I don’t know if those count as conspiracies but they are certainly being negotiated in secret around the world.
And if one concurs with the idea that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results then surely we must conclude that the wars in the Middle East are indeed deliberate.
Whatever the statistical likelihood of becoming a victim of religious fanaticism the perpetrators have certainly messed with my ability to travel the globe and to surf the web and I loathe them all for that.
Coo. I go away for a few days and it all gets interesting. ‘Scuse me while I catch up.
LongLifeBeer, at the risk of kicking off something even more volcanic, can I mention that the Greek plural of acropolis is probably acropolei (polis, city -> poleis, cities)?
I know, I’m just a trivial irritating pedant …
Sorry, Acropoleis. So much for clever-dickery.
, can we agree that there is no conspiracy
No.
Can we agree that wealth begets wealth and power brings power?
Can we agree that those are both positive feed backs and any system with unchecked positive feed backs will oscillate out of control? (Or, ‘will accelerate towards extreme states’, however you prefer to phrase it)
I haven’t found the way to emphasize by bold or italics. Please, enlighten me!
There are probably better ways, but the only way I know is to just type in the HTML tags as I go.
test italics
OK. That didn’t work.
<i> example text </i>
I think I have it now.
<i> example text </i> i for italics
<b> example text </b> b for bold
Type the less than symbol, the letter and the greater than symbol at the beginning of the text you want to mark. After the text type the same symbols plus a slash before the letter. The second string of symbols is most important because after you tell a computer to do something, it won’t stop until you tell it to.
Thank you, Plainsuch, that’s most helpful.
As for you saying
“Can we agree that wealth begets wealth and power brings power?
Can we agree that those are both positive feed backs and any system with unchecked positive feed backs will oscillate out of control? (Or, ‘will accelerate towards extreme states’, however you prefer to phrase it)” – of course we can. It’s just what I said before to AoS (February 2, 2015 at 7:21 pm)
Wealth attracts wealth and there is little more needed to accumulate wealth than that old mechanism. In due time all wealth will be concentrated on only a few places. If you ever played Monopoly, you know that. For wealth, read power if need be.
You don’t agree to use Occams Razor to the superfluous conspiracy theory. Why?
May the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster–Reason is his name–poop on everyone’s head–that they may find enlightenment in the humanities, humor in daily life, and absurdity in religion.
Where the choice is either cock-up or conspiracy theory I vote none of the above. The defining feature of conspiracy theories is secrecy, and what we are discussing is no more secret than any other business dealings.
These corporations are simply working to successful business plans. They may be ruthlessly efficient, are certainly morally reprehensible, and their methods often legally dubious to say the least, but for all of that they are just businesses doing what businesses do.
Amen to that, AoS.
You don’t agree to use Occams Razor to the superfluous conspiracy theory. Why?
Do you prefer the word the word “collusion” rather than conspiracy? The meaning of the word seems to be our greatest disagreement.
I find Grand Unified Conspiracies that would have been planning the aftermath of WWII before WWI even began to be nonsensical. And many lesser conspiracies would, metaphorically, be filed under : If You Read This I Have To Kill You. So there won’t be any books written about them, meaning that any books written are less likely to be factual.
How do yo suppose wealth brings more wealth? I believe it takes more than a multi-million line of credit.
As AoS says: “The defining feature of conspiracy theories is secrecy” which goes for collusion also. I agree with AoS that these conspiracies/collusions lack that feature. You deemed that narrowing to such a narrow sense that they nearly disappear. (Feb 2 8:58 pm). Even if I concede to your broadening to all more or less deliberate planning (which I think makes it to broad to make sense anymore, Feb 2, 7:53 pm), there are no such schemes as the “ Grand Unified Conspiracies that would have been planning the aftermath of WWII before WWI” or “If You Read This I Have To Kill You.” I agree on that also.
So I use Occams razor and discard these ‘theories’as unnecessary assumptions, no matter the definition. You don’t, apparently. And you didn’t answer the question why.
To answer your question:
Wealth brings more wealth by making profit of investments. That’s the core of capitalist economics. There is only one limit and other necessity: the availability of yet uncollected wealth.
So I use Occams razor and discard these ‘theories’ as unnecessary assumptions, no matter the definition. You don’t, apparently
Because they factually exist. see also: Wikileaks, Watergate, Edward Snowden…
Governments spend huge sums on ‘intelligence’ which could be defined as official conspiracies to find out others conspiracyies.
Wealth brings more wealth by making profit of investments. That’s the core of capitalist economics.
So do other petty plots, to rob banks or malevolently hack sites etcetera. But these are not discussed above. Above are discussed what you called the “ Grand Unified Conspiracies that would have been planning the aftermath of WWII before WWI” or “If You Read This I Have To Kill You.” conspiracies.
I think you can safely discard conspiracy theory on that level. It does not imply discarding it on the petty crime level.
Metaphorically: you can safely discard “there are zeppelinsize bumlebee-theory” whilst acknowledging the factual existence of insectsize bumblebees.
continued next thread–>