Conspiracies Central
My Purpose
Conspiracy central aims to collect, rearrange, and store information pertaining to the modern Elite’s power structure and their deeds through the late 19th to 21st century in a broken down and easy to access way. By converging information collected by talented important researchers from a variety of books and documentaries, this website’s ultimate goal is to provide the reader with a holistic bigger picture whilst intricately documenting all the key players of the modern century as well as their impact and philosophy. Contrary to popular belief, good grounded conspiracy theories are not grasping at straws nor do they rely on wild leaps of logic and filling in large blanks. Rather, the real problem is that there is simply so much information that it is overwhelming and challenging to form a clear picture of power interests and their goals; it certainly doesn’t help that information about the Elite is generally disorganised and scattered around all over the internet and obscure books. Conspiracy central will prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that starting at least in the late 19th there is clearly an small oligarchy of individuals with a disproportionate amount of sway over society and that their main goal is obviously what has been denied so commonly by the establishment: the creation of a New World Order under a One World Government.
Short of a few tiny passages here and there, and of course this introductory page, this website isn’t aimed at promoting my own views in anyway. I do not claim that absolutely every on here is 100% correct, I doubt any person or organisation in the world has only ever relayed factually correct information. The aim of this website is to provide information taken from sources focused on conspiracies in a somewhat summarised fashion. That being said, for the sake of transparency; politically I am a Right-wing Anarchist and philosophically I am a presuppositionalist and Rationalist. Whilst I am not against authority, the only forced authority I agree with is humans being bound by logos: natural law.
Merits of
Conspiracy theories
Since the JFK assassination, the establishment has used the term 'conspiracy theory' as a psychological warfare tactic to discredit any and all information or worldview it deems harmful (naturally, to itself). The implication by the use of the term is of course that if something is a 'conspiracy theory' then it must be wrong, which is absurd since to truly believe this one has to believe that people never conspire together; despite the fact that people can and have been criminally prosecuted for conspiracies. But the term is not used in a logical or argumentative way; in fact it is often applied to claims which aren't claims about a conspiracy at all. For instance, believing that a virus isn't serious enough to justify certain restrictions or that people in positions of institutional authority may be dishonest or use a virus to their advantage. Instead, the term is used to provoke a knee-jerk rejection of information in the programmed subject where it pragmatically suits the establishment.
The reality is that everyone is a conspiracy theorist since everyone believes that conspiracies can and do occur. Furthermore, every political worldview is a conspiracy-theory laden one because a political worldview is inherently making claims about the nature of human organisation and what it does or should seek to achieve (thus, a conspiracy!). It could be argued that a claim about the aims of a group must include the group attempting to conceal these aims to make the claim a conspiracy theory. However, those spouting the term never seem to stick to this criteria, and if a person dislikes what you are saying or your claim hasn’t been spoon-fed onto the populace by the majority of the establishment, then it can be interpreted as a conspiracy theory. Why? Simply because if you are stating an opinion which differs from that of the mainstream establishment, then it can be assumed or asserted that the establishment has neglected to or is purposefully covering up your claim should it be the truth. In other words, making any claim other than the mainstream narrative means you inherently believe those in power are doing or promoting an idea which is not the truth; and thus is a conspiracy. Don’t believe in climate change? That can automatically be skewed to make you a ‘conspiracy theorist’ since establishment ‘Scientists’ disagree with you, in fact pretty much any statement can be interpreted to be one about conspiracy.
Somehow when conspiracy theories like 'white privilege' are promoted, the claim that white people conspire consciously or subconsciously to benefit their own race over others, or the Marxist worldview of a conspiring 'bourgeoisie', it is seen as legitimate. Ironically, this is only because people calling themselves 'experts' or an 'official' approve of them. When the establishment makes claims which are undeniably categorically conspiracy theories with no room for interpretation, take the Russian Collusion conspiracy theory which was used against Trump, suddenly it is automatically okay and not a ‘conspiracy theory’. That is why I firmly believe the only correct way to analyse human society is as a conspiracy of control to maintain Statism, a belief in the legitimacy of the State's arbitrary rules and opinions. Society and history is a collection of power structures created by tribes of information which will always be enforced by those with control over the majority (the greatest force), control which is established maintained through cultural manipulation and resource dependence. Therefore this website will attempt to document these conspirators and their projects over the late 19th to 21st century so that people can establish a specific as well as a general philosophical grasp over how society works.
The actual unrealistic worldviews are those which are not holistic and take the pragmatic divide of knowledge as literal truths. This can take the form of having divided epistemology. For instance, thinking that claims have to be logically proven when talking about the world (physics and metaphysics), but somehow when talking about values and morality logic is not seen as the epistemological means of ascertaining truth. The same fragmented thought pattern seems to play out about worldly events in many people's minds; they put people and events into a box with set actors which are seen as being completely isolated from everything else. In reality, everything is connected, people and events do not happen in isolation to everything else; thus it only follows that human action will always be linked to numerous people. People make decisions based on their philosophy and lifestyle, these are informed by and in turn inform the culture they are surrounded by, thus people are really acting within a net or social matrix.
The aim of a 'conspiracy theory' therefore is to grasp the nature of a localized point linking to a person or event on the social matrix and the culture it is facilitating. It is true that a conspiracy theory can be incorrect, but I am not claiming that because society works off conspiracies therefore a given conspiracy must be true. Rather, I am claiming there is always a conspiracy because people do not exist in isolation. Another more accepted term for a ‘conspiracy theory’ would be a ‘social contract’; the conspired agreement between individuals to act within confines to the progression of a collective project. We may not understand how people are related or what they are working towards, but we know individuals work towards thing and can knowingly or otherwise help each other. A racket is only a racket against individuals who chooses to see a given collaboration differently to what it actually is; the open conspiracy is only closed to those who dogmatically believe it isn’t true.
Potential issues with conspiracy theories
The nature of making a claim about a conspiracy means that it will be prone to potential fallacies and pitfalls. The first problem is that what seems like a logical connection may in fact be a ‘coincidence’. To be clear that doesn’t mean two things don’t link, but their relationship may not take the form which one deduced. A billionaire running simulations of world events before they happen multiple times means that there is an undeniable link between the two. However, we cannot be sure exactly what this link is from this information alone. Could the Billionaire be causing the events? Could he have some kind of knowledge enabling him to have insight to be able to predict these events? Could his predictions be somehow leading to the events occurring? Could he just be making lucky guesses? Assuming any of these could lead to false conclusions. With the discussion of conspiracy theories comes the possibility of guilt through association. A relationship between two individuals may be established, but then the nature of their relationship may be assumed and skewed to match the wider theory.
However, as we are creatures with limited sense data, we can only know so many facts about the material world; that being where atoms or the entities they are making up are now, have been, or will end up. Thus, every worldview makes assumptions and is at risk of falling prey to ‘coincidences’. As the reader, you must therefore make up your mind if you want certainty where you draw your line; what your perceived likeliness of an assumption being true has to be before you accept it as truth. But think carefully, are you being more liberal with some sources or worldviews than others in terms of their certainty? And if so, why would you do this? If one seeks truth, then there is nothing to fear about being wrong in a given moment. Equally, you do not need to subscribe to one worldview, it is okay to be uncertain and explore all possibilities, even if you don’t arrive at a certain conclusion. Logic isn’t subject or down to interpretation, so long as you stick to it you can be certain at the very least that you are not wrong about material events though that would leave you with a lacklustre view on history, and certain that you are correct about abstract concepts through meta-logic / presuppositionalism.
There is a bigger problem with conspiracy theories. Simply by looking at a friend of a friend of a friend ect, it is very likely possible to be able to link literally anyone together with enough steps; just like how if you go back far enough you will find that every human on the planet is a relative of each other. Thus, it is questionable where to draw the line between a significant relationship and one that is too indirect, where does the line between those inside a group and those outside of it lie? This may be easy to ‘officially’ establish, based on the groups claims to the public or the State if an organisation becomes incorporated, but there is zero reason to accept this other any other method of establishing who is part of a given group. And what if multiple groups have intersecting parts and people, does that make them part of one larger group? This is essentially the same question facing those trying to define cultures and sub-cultures, what separates one system from another? Perhaps grouping individuals is pragmatic, not a relative social construct but not entirely objective, since it depends which lens one is using.