Yeah that's also the problem with conspiracy theories in general. The more you prod them the larger and larger the conspiracy has to get (more people & resources). Meanwhile the larger a conspiracy gets, the less likely it is to remain a conspiracy, because there are more people and more opportunities for them to make mistakes.
I find myself inclined to agree. I don't have the confidence
in my reading or first-hand experiences, either one, to
belay a reasonable fear that such might not be possible,
however.
And since ALL intents, and ALL purposes, I presume, are
immeasurable by ANY ONE individual: generalizing about
any group of people, a couple of sisters, brothers,
huntas, cartels or committees or even nations . . .
presumes quite a large scope of personal
knowing to enable such summation.
We say 'world', but that must be a summation of all
the special interests that are going on based mostly on
families, then cultures, then nations and so on.
'Conspiracy' is amongst the most common thing going on
in every day life. What is rare, it seems to me, is
awareness of such special interests, and finding some
inroad for communication with regard to kindred intents:
that all shall get on, do well, and not suffer.
While fighting and 'eracing' supposed oppositions is deemed
rational, will they not go on doing what is 'rational'?
We need to look anew at strategies and tactics with
kindness as the better part of wisdom. Where a form of
living doesn't infringe, doesn't lease, doesn't lien,
doesn't take but instead presses out only about the
beauty of personal culture where any might receive it.
If none receive it: it will die out by non-purchase,
non-acceptance.
No doubt, in the throes of death, maybe the last gasp of
life of any group will resort to propoganda, influence of
image, thought, prevelance of images preferential to
the otherwise already dead way of life.
Some may buy it, go along with it, give it fresh life.
Maybe like a herd of panicked animals rushing blindly towards
a precipice.
Who decides what a 'precipice' is?
Some see a 'precipice' in any number of things.
They agree in their fears, and so they act together to
'prevent' the 'doom'.
That is a 'conspiracy'.
What's the difference between a cooperation and a
conspiracy?
Who writes the history, who defines the 'good', who defines
the 'bad'?
Generation after generation we see changes of opinion.
Fortunes change for lineages, very few remember distinctly
personal stories of much beyond the second generation
before.
A sense of things, attitudes, I believe, are passed on
way beyond third, fourth and fifth generations.
Which I would call 'conceits' or 'tendancies'.
Some kind, some not so kind.
I prefer to think the 'not so kind' are dying out.
As to the fundemental things, outside all intellectual
forces, they will be the things deep thought shall
shape out better and better.
Not doubt we are not yet there, nor can we ever be 'there'
in any final way, as learning is a continuous thing.
We 'suss' out laws, we perfect means of extraction of
energy from nature so that more can have more and equality
alters perceived need for 'policing' of objection to
extremes of having and not having.
During the interim, either part can have perceived need
to 'conspire'.
Conspiracy is part and parcel of changes of state of
the generality of mankind while catching up to the
generality of knowledge and understanding of things.
Information is king, knowledge is power. As power becomes
more and more general, less and less shall special interests,
it seems to me, be deemed necessary. Mutual harmony. Non
trespass, generally assumed.
Mutual respect, general kindness. Recognition of abundance.
All space tells us this. Nature practically shouts: no
lack. *(no review, no spell check. All errors mine alone).
