¶ 1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 I explore alternative frames/contexts for the world of humans beyond real-time perception. I can’t go into all the different avenues of exploration at this time. Briefly (and hopefully comprehensible) the societal world of local to global “institutions”, entities beyond perception, are phantoms (Latour). What “exists” in the societal domain may have a weirdness analog to Quantum Weirdness (but not necessarily the same weirdness). Societal reality need not follow the same laws governing material reality.
¶ 2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 I define a “gang” as a social grouping that has perceptual coherence, that “exists” in the reality of mutual perceptions. Whole tribes ,before civilization, were large gangs. The environment (resources and dangers) for tribal gangs was their biome which included other tribal gangs engaging in tentative interaction. In civilization, the useful environment for a gang is the larger society. This is exemplified by urban gangs who prey on their city environments. So-called “terrorists” are new tribal gangs preying on the institutions and peoples of civilizations.
¶ 3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 One model for comprehending human civilization is to view their “institutions” as comprised of an ecology of “conspiratorial gangs” (c-gangs). This is the at the level of tangible observation, all the rest is implied abstraction. “Conspiracy” simply means that some gang activities are secret to within the gang. A few gangs may sit around a large table, plotting, but that is only one, rare variant. Secrecy is simply not informing their environment of their intentions.
¶ 4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 Many decisions/actions we attribute for formal orgs or agencies are actually engineered by c-gangs within the agencies. C-gangs can also overlap agencies. Most c-gangs are temporary. There can be temporary federations of c-gangs. Some c-gangs have access to wealth and levers of power.
- ¶ 5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0
- In my analysis, the 911 attack AND coverup was the grand-daddy of all conspiratorial federations. As it emerged, more and more c-gangs got on board.
- The world scene today may be viewed as a battle between many federated conspiratorial gangs.
- This view was catalyzed by Peter Dale Scott’s views on Deep Politics. “Deep State” is now a popular term with many meanings.
¶ 6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 We all participate in small social networks; most of which are not conspiratorial – indeed, dangerously open. This “local” (including online buddies), perceptual reality is dominant in our lives. Yet, it can be strongly influenced by interference patterns from interacting conspiratorial gangs playing in the imagined societal structures of humankind.
¶ 7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 The more powerful c-gangs push to discredit “conspiratorial thinking”, by publishing frequent attacks and my supporting a flood of crazy conspiracies to mask the authentic conspiracies – many which are later historically confirmed. Alex Jones’s Prison Planet (InfoWars) may actually be a CIA-type Agency plant to discredit ALL conspiracy thinking, by parading so many truly crazy ideas. Our MSM frequently points to 911TRUTH and the Kennedy assassinations as exemplars of crazy conspiracy theories, while they may be the few “real” conspiracies Alex Jones is trying to mask. This is, or course, a conspiracy theory.
¶ 8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0 Some adventurers explore the potentials of “collective intelligence”, hopefully to be applied among those working for a better life. We need to also consider the power of “collective intelligence” among the c-gangs engaging in primitive ways, blindly bringing down humankind and scaring Gaia. Yet, the realities of our local, perceptual realities must be considered in our design of a scaffolding to seaf the emergence of HUMANITY.
¶ 9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0 Conspiracy, as defined here, is basic to human nature, and not necessarily negative. Why should a group always to totally transparent? Transparency and privacy are both important. This relates to the hypotheses that the detection of deception (not necessarily intentional) was instrumental in the evolution of human language development.