Re-evaluating Conspiracies

 Brent - Good post. This is challenging material. I think it's so hard to keep realistic proportions in our seeing of corruption, subterfuge and conspiracy. 

I like how you are re-assessing your assumptions and mental trajectories and taking more time for surer knowledge - not easy for us. You have done so much research. Wow.

Thanks for the apology - though not necessary, a little extra gift for us.

What I want to know is who keeps changing the proportion of Brazil nuts in the Trader Joe mix - any leads?

Hi Brent,

I think one thing we would want to add to all this are the developmental perspectives we get from Spiral Dynamics, AQAL, and other integral sources. Once we do that I think a lot of this stuff will look less like a conspiracy and more like what people tend to do at certain waves of development.

For example, a lot of people think there is a conspiracy to control information in the media, and I think there is some of that, but mostly I think it is Amber sources giving an Amber interpretation of the facts, Orange sources giving Orange interpretations of the facts, Green sources giving Green interpretations of the facts.

In my experience, Green, for example, seems to see a conspiracy in Amber and Orange news sources because they aren't interpretating things as Green does and in some cases aren't even presenting facts that Green finds very important--but in most cases I don't think there is any conspiracy as such; I just think those Amber and Orange sources aren't seeing beyond what they are doing and are promoting what they think is important (Amber: the national or religious interest; Orange: materialistic interests, free-market economics).

For example, Green cares deeply about people all around the world, all cultures, all ethnicities--Amber doesn't care that much about them; it just tends to care about its own ethnicity or at least its own religion, and Orange doesn't care all that much more: According to Orange the world is there to exploit for profit, including all minerals, animals, and people. So saying they are "conspiring" to exploit people in other countries and of other ethnicities is kind of like saying the sharks are conspiring to exploit the smaller fish in the ocean and the bears are conspiring to exploit the salmon--it's just the nature of people at those waves of development to have values that don't include everyone's interests.

Amber and Orange sources will tend to hire Amber and Orange reporters and writers--no big conspiracy there; it's just that Amber and Orange think Green is nuts and integral not too far behind. During times of stress--such as an election year or war--there seems to be a regression all around, and the manipulations can get more pronounced, but we can see that simply as human behavior at certain waves under times of stress, not "conspiracy" as such.

There surely are "conspiracies" here and there, but it's hard to tell sometimes whether something is a "conspiracy" or whether it is simply natural behavior for people at certain waves (and I'm not quite sure how we define "conspiracy" from an integral perspective yet other than something that is against the law). From an Orange perspective, the way Bush administration officials (allegedly) fired attorneys who didn't share their views was a "conspiracy" (because it was a coordinated illegal action according to Orange laws), but we can also see that these were people who simply couldn't do any better; they were people who were not stable yet in Orange values.

In the Shock Doctrine Naomi Klein makes a villain out of Milton Friedman, but Milton Friedman felt he would be helping people by instituting free-market policies--he thought that was the way to wealth and prosperity, and that economic philosophy is something we see at that wave of development (Orange), though it looks selfish from a Green perspective and partial from an integral perspective. [1] 

Best,

David

I am not going to watch "fabled enemies" but I watched "loose change"  a couple years ago and it made me angry.  Not because I believed the film, but because the filmaker is such a jack_ss for making it.

He is not interested in truth. He is interested in entertainment, fear and decieving the gullible.  Watch the film closely and notice his MO.  He presents questions, provides no answers, and slyly implies that something is amiss. All with spooky music. 

I have noticed the alternative media has become ripe with this stuff, including authors writing articles with such sensationalism that you would think that alone would be an indicator that it nothing more than people trying to make money by fooling other people, ironically, "with the truth".

9/11? It would take hundreds of people with no morals/ethics and they would all have to have kept it quiet.  Simply impossible.

The only "theory" that I would not be surprised to see true is extraterrestrial life. The fact that so many credible people with nothing to gain( unlike Bermas) have reported sightings leads me to not discount the possibility. 

When I first saw a picture of Wilber I thought I had a sighting...seriously, some alien DNA in there?

--

"This too shall pass"

I'm glad this thread finally got up and going - thanks to Brent and Brian for starting it and Corey for pushing it even further and wider -

all of you bring up great points and perspectives -

David - your run down the spiral really clarified a few observations that I have been unable to quite put together until now. Thank you.

--

∞ 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 ∞ 

I have to say that the really big problems with conspiracy theories is that the 1st tier really doesn't have the impulse to be objective.  Fear is such a motivator in the first tier and so the theories become such a source of terror that objectively looking at the atmosphere in and around the theories to really get to the bottom of the theories simply does not exist.  Also, there are the pathological turquoise thinkers that have a egocentric center of gravity (Carl Rove) that can and do muddy the perceptions surrounding the issues and turn them into conspiracy theories. 

The bottom line is that there really isn't enough integral consciousness to responsibly look at the issues that are under conspiracy theories.  In the first tier fear and manipulation are rampant while responsible objectively is flushed down the toilet of the first tier valves. 

I think integral has begun the process of clearing up some conspiracy theories.  How about the conspiracy theory of the elite of the world are poisening the public by processing it's food supply.  Maybe I am wrong but I think most people who are into Integral life know how 90% of the food in the average grocery store is garbage.  You really are what you eat.  (If you are lagging behind check out the movie in theaters right now Food Inc.)  I think the Integral Life practice starter kit does a good job of outlining how to choose healthy carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.  I don't think that it goes nearly far enough but it is a start.  I know that at an upcoming integral conference Dr. Gabriel Cousens will be speaking about the raw food diet and it's incredible potential for aiding in liberation.  I have heard Ken speak about the merits of eating raw organic fruits, vegetables, nuts, and seeds.  These are directional moving toward tactics, in my opinion, that don't attack the theory(which is really no conspiracy theory at all) but just show what is more helpful for your consciousness.  And that seems to be the Integral way at this point in its evolution.  Don't draw attention by taking a moral stance, simply point out a better way. 

What are the issues that underly the conspiracy theories?

How about Federal Reserve?  Is it a federal institution or a corporation?  You know what?  That is a real issue that needs to be addressed because all the CONSPIRACY THEORISTS are saying is that we've given the right to print currency over to a corporation that charges us interest.  I have been objective about this.  Part of Ronald Reagan' compaign promises in the 80's was that he would create a commission to investigate the way Americans are taxed.  Here is a link to that very report:  http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/gracecom.htm  Here is the disturbing conclusion of that report "With two-thirds of everyone's personal income taxes wasted or not collected, 100 percent of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal debt and by Federal Government contributions to transfer payments. In other words, all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services which taxpayers expect from their Government."  Essentially what that report says is that as of Jan 12, 1984 100% of the income taxes collected was absorbed by the interest on the National Debt.   That is not a conspiracy theory.  That is a report ordered by the President of the United States.  And understand that they Federal Reserve System is totally unregulated.  That is no conspiracy theory.  Here is a link to Federal reserve chairman Bernanke refusing to disclose how the 2.3 trillion dollars of bailout money (which I thought was only suppose to be 900 billion) was distributed:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCWXrMCGJT4

I have been called a conspiracy theorist by integral people for pointing this information out.  And most people I point this out to get really scared and really upset, so much so that they ask me to change the topic. 

I won't go into the many issues-conspiracy theories out there.  One of the validity claims in the upper left quadrant is TRUTHFULNESS.  In regards to the issue of the income tax-federal I have listened to the expressions of those in charge of the income tax and federal reserve.  Part of what you honor the integral impulse is to ask the people involve and do your best to discern whether they are being truthful.  Here is a link with just such an expression by a former IRS commissioner:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbZgh-EYngw&feature=related And don't forget what Fed Chairman Bernanke when question about how the Fed distributes the bailout money. 

In closing, I would just like to add that in essence the conspiracy theory issue really is about two people that simply are not connecting in the lower left quadrant.  Understanding another person is, as Ken has described, an  intellectual endeavor.   To understand someone else you have to think about what they are saying.  I think a very substantial amount of the "CONSPIRACY THEORISTS" out there have really done their homework.  They really do invite the intellectual effort needed for the magic of what is called MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING.   At the heart of the conspiracy theorist label is lack of effort in trying to understand what someone else is trying to express.  If you do not try to understand what someone else is saying then that person is nothing but an IT to you.  That's a pretty big problem.  You know what happens when we label something a conspiracy theorist without looking at the facts?

NOTHING.