I'm new here, but one thing that has struck me here and on other fora is the continual appearance of people expounding conspiracy theories of one kind or another, from local to global. I can't help wondering WHY it's so common? Is it Hollywood? The Media? Generalised paranoia?
I know there have been, and are, various "conspiracies" in some areas, but they tend to be brief, and almost inevitably self-destruct, due to the human tendency among the powerful to greater and greater greed.
Why are so many so keen to see them everywhere?

Maximillion,

Could you please be specific, and post links to three posts on OLO that each propound what is, in your view, a different conspiracy theory?

Just in case (being new to this forum) you do not know how to post a link to a specific post, you click the last icon in the row of icons beneath the timestamp on each post. A mouse-over of this icon brings up 'Copy comment URL to clipboard'. A left-click does it when your browser is Internet Explorer. If using Firefox, right-click the icon and choose 'Copy link location': return to your text editor, place the cursor where you want the link, then click 'paste'. (The same goes for using the OLO posting pane direct. Its just that there's a risk of your post evaporating to cyberspace while using the posting pane if you take too long in composition.)

The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is bandied around a bit by some who are simply too intellectually lazy, ignorant, or possessed of a propensity for an almost reflexive destructiveness of discussion, in order to disguise what is in reality 'argument by abuse'. Some OLO users are getting very sick of such tactics.

It could be an interesting and productive discussion.

The world seems to be divided evenly into two main groups. There are those who try to control their own destiny. They tend to be pragmatic, realistic, accept responsibility for themselves and their own actions. They demonstrate a balanced and healthy scepticism; focus most of their energy, love and compassion on those closest to them, they typically don’t see themselves as victims and are not vulnerable to the fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) to which we are all exposed on a daily basis.

The other group see “others” as responsible for their destiny, they tend not to be pragmatic, even developing a comfort zone out of pseudo-realism and do not accept responsibility for their own actions, it’s always someone else’s fault. They demonstrate a very unhealthy scepticism which is normally focused upon some “authority” or what they see as overly powerful institutions, thus feeding their sense of helplessness.

They also feed off and react irrationally and emotionally to external stimulations (external because this from where they see the threat) at the expense of their immediate issues or relationships. Typically they see themselves as the worlds “victims” and, as a direct consequence, they are highly vulnerable to one or more of the institutionalized FUD generators, Politics, Religion, Society and most of all, the Media and Entertainment industries.

Intelligence in the academic sense has little to do with it. In fact many highly intelligent people use their intelligence to justify the pseudo-reality they have created, by generating what the first group might see as horrendously complex ideologies. One of the enduring frustrations for such people is that the first group intuitively knows pseudo-reality when they see it and cannot be influenced by it.

Oddly enough, the pseudo-reality evangelists have become part of the same FUD generation industry that stimulated them in the first place which, even more sadly, has made their frustration self perpetuating.

Conspiracy theories are simply a manifestation of that frustration, an ever louder shout to get the attention they desperately need. What they are actually shouting is “see, I told you it wasn’t my fault!”

FG, I have seen these comments and fears spread across a variety of threads, especially those relating to money, Gov' et.al. I don't propose to go back and re-read them all to satisfy your not-unreasonable request, sorry, but I feel that you can either take my question at face value, you must have seen them too, or you can deny it, that's your right.
I haven't used any abusive tactics here, as you suggest some do, it's not my way, I prefer reasoned discussion, though I accept you may be right in some cases.
I'm hoping you, and others, will enjoy this topic, and participate, that's why I asked in the first place.
I found Spindoc's post quite good, and to the point, but it still begs the question, why, or is it, seeming to be becoming so very common?
Is it just my perception, or not?

I don't think it's becoming "more common", perhaps just more obvious.

With the speed and breadth of modern communications - free from censorship - people are hearing and seeing a lot more about everything. Much of it is demonstrably false and prejudicial but a lot of it isn't.

Reading about an event overseas is not quite the same as seeing immediate video and hearing multiple first-hand accounts.

I think everybody can safely assume that politicians and the media sometimes lie and that the history we are being presented with is littered with half-truths and gaping holes.

You can "join-the-dots" and create your own alternative version of reality or can simply treat a lot of things with a healthy dose of scepticism.

The alternative is to believe only what one source tells you, be silent and question nothing.

I have a theory about conspiracy theories, and conspiracy theorists, that involves a conspiracy theory in a theoretical way that could be conspiratorial.

The term conspiracy theory is a conspiracy used by opponents of conspiracy theories to invent a conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories and alleged conspiracy theorists.

My conspiracy theory is that such non-conspiracy theorists are all right, left, middle, Christian, non-Christian and all other people who deliberately are conspiring to create their conspiracy theories and non-conspiracy theories to make us worry more about conspiracy theories.

I hope that makes sense!

you are 99% correct Opinionated

to put in modern terms Politically Correct people [used to be called I'm all right Jack] have their greatest fear that they might be forced to THINK, and God Forbid, DO something about it. They use the derogatory term CT as they invent/use terms such as dole bludgers, dead beat dads, whatever to simply "get with the strength", which as we see by this forum alone is 95% of Australia [and heading for the 98% in USA]

the best example is Nam and Iraq, both "wars" based upon instilling fear that we would get our throats cut at the backyard BBQ.

even though the WMD excuse had less credibility than for Nam, not one lousy Uni Student protested, as opposed to the millions in the streets for Nam

so to take a global on this, I would say PC has all but killed off CT

You obviously weren't in Sydney just before the invasion DD.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/feb/17/politics.uk
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/20/1047749872793.html

Most of you don't make much sense, which leads me to believe that you are actually a part of a larger conspiracy. You know, the one that is supposed to be deliberately making us stupid.

Dear Max,

No, I don't think you're imagining things at all.
There have been threads on OLO expounding conspiracy
theories. Subjects have ranged from powerful global
conglomerates such as the International Monetary Fund,
World Bank, to multi-nationals, and the oil companies
that control American politics.

John Pilger even wrote a book entitled, "The New Rulers
of the World." And, its one of many on that
subject.

The more you delve into certain areas, the more
frightening its going to become when you begin to
realise just how little the public is aware of
what goes on around them.

What were Australians told about the testing that
went on in Maralinga - at the time?

What do we really know about what goes on in the
American bases on Australian soil?

What were we told about our involvement in the
war in Iraq?

Make a list, then ask yourself again about
"conspiracy theories?"

Foxy, there I suppose it depends on your own definition of what constitutes a conspiracy. Governments keeping military secrets is a conspiracy of sorts, but it's not really what I was raising.
I think Wobbles has a very good point, the more "dots" we get, the more permutations are possible. I was just wondering why so many enjoy joining the dots to make things like The Illuminati appear, I suppose it makes life a little more exciting for them?
I even liked Op2's effort, lol.
As I said in my initial post, yes, they do actually happen, but only in limited areas, for limited times, at least that's my reading of history anyway. Most of the examples you quote are hardly secret, they are just the same old Gov'/military "need to know" rubbish.
If "the grey men" really had had such power and control for so long, we'd be living in a very different world, wouldn't we?

Only the small secrets need to be hidden.The really big secrets are not because they are repressed by our incredulity.

Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 4:54:48 PM:

"Only the small secrets need to be hidden.The really big secrets are not because they are repressed by our incredulity."

Quite the most succinct and penetrative observation I have yet seen on OLO!

Dear Max,

Conspiracy theories are as old as time - and
either you're one of those people who believes
in them or you're not.

The two biggest proponents that come to mine
and who my father spoke of were I guess
Stalin and Hitler - agreeing in a secret pact
(Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty of 1939) to divide
Eastern Europe and allow the advances of the
Wehrmacht and the Red Army for the purpose of
dividing the hapless Balts, Poles, and others,
which led to the World War. Stalin and Hitler
were allies against the free people of Europe.

Of course you get the conspiracy theories of
1) The assasination of JF Kennedy.
2) The death of Princess Diana and Dodi.
3) 9/11
4) The death of Marilyn Monroe
5) Extra-Terrestrials.
6) Lone Pine
7) CIA
8) MI5
9) Mafia
10) KGB

And the list goes on...

Ah, where to begin.

"You obviously weren't in Sydney just before the invasion DD."
--

no I was not, but I was IN the lousy conscription for Nam and IN the protests of that time

You highlight [same as Foxy] RED HERRING CTs and [PC] protests [which lasted a weekend like march over bridge to "sorry" and now back to business as usual

The OP [or rather his MINDERS] are concerned with far more in yer face CT than "CIA/JFK" harmless junk.

THAT [ie legal ramifications] is the reason the OP was not "allowed" to give any actual INSTANCES of CT, but just waffled on, leaving it up to the Forum Faithfull to "do the hard yards"

and as we will see for next 4 days, you WILL do so

There are some conspiracy theories that are not backed by much evidence,however there are a few like the assassination of JFK that do carry a lot of credence.For anyone who has studied the JFK killing,there is no way Lee Harvey Oswald did it.It was not a single gunman and the evidence points to an inside Govt job.Kennedy was expected to tow the line but he made the mistake of being a man with a conscience and principle.He wanted to end the monopoly powers of Fed Res and bring the CIA into line.He had no chance against such an all powerful force.

All presidents since Kennedy now know their place and this includes Obama.

Arjay:"Only the small secrets need to be hidden.The really big secrets are not because they are repressed by our incredulity."

Jawohl, herr Goebbels. The "big lie" is a well-used tactic, honed to perfection by the Liberal Party under Howard and Crosby.

"Only the small secrets need to be hidden.The really big secrets are not because they are repressed by our incredulity."

Ahhh, The Hitch-hikers guide to the Galaxy invisibility principle , S.E.P.
IMO that one died with the birth of the Internet, no lie is big enough anymore.

Max,
Foxy makes a relevant point. That the subject matter is irrelevant the true issue is WHAT makes people dream up conspiracy theories.
Objectively four things.
• Ignorance
• Fear
• A need to ‘understand’ things in terms that the can emotionally accept.
• Self interest.
e.g. Take a primitive in PNG in the 30’s - 70’s
Strange white men arrived in the 30’s were they gods? No they went to the toilet and bonked our women some of whom had babies like us so what were they?
Later they came in planes with amazing weapons and ‘cargo’. White men always had ‘cargo’ and we have none why?
Their answer was that the heaven we talked about was above Sydney with a connecting ladder down which Jesus “Crise” sent all the cargo.
And the white man was greedy and with held the cargo from. (Grand conspiracy) in their case they imposed their experience of local disputes on the situation.

One enterprising local stole Geese eggs to hatch out American soldiers to get their share.

Today many people neither fully understand government nor economics (business) and therefore are subject to” the enemy de jure” manipulation etc. These people tend to project their limited level of control and therefore believe that mass evil must be an all encompassing conspiracy to get them and by way of empathy seeking others. This is indicated by the evangelistic need to attract others thereby justifying their fears and understanding in their terms.

The Iraq WMD had more to do with the flaws in neocon ideology and subsequent paranoia.
Anybody that pays attention would know that business that supported Bush etc did so because it would favour them. Was it an organized conspiracy by interested parties? Hell no. In reality most couldn’t agree on the weather let alone some convoluted plot.
Even Aussie box conspiracy between TWO groups self interest blew it out of the water. Is there self interested agreement between players yes but by nature they are limited. In truth Occam’s razor rules.

Exxy, I wasn't disagreeing with Foxy, and she does indeed make a valid point, just as I think you have answered my q well, thankyou, you've more or less agreed with me, I think?

Posted by Maximillion, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 9:34:00 AM, in response to Arjay's succinct and penetrative observation earlier:

"... that one died with the birth of the Internet, no lie is big enough anymore."

Maximillion is beginning to answer his own question. An implication of 'no lie being big enough any more' is that the prospect of a person, or persons, becoming cognisant of something 'not adding up' in respect to the 'received wisdom' in which any lie may be dressed, is magnified. It is natural that observant and thoughtful persons theorise in order to make sense out of the available evidence, especially where inconsistencies can be seen in 'official' explanations relating to the same evidence or the event to which it is linked. The internet, through fora such as OLO, has enabled such persons as never before in history: 'editorial lines' are now much more difficult to impose in order to 'kill stories'.

Of course, the internet has in the process equally enabled the bigoted, the uneducated, those with an already set agenda, to also 'theorise' upon the inconsistencies (that have generally been discovered by others) and evidence (again generally discovered by others), and especially so if they can see in so theorising a way to advance their own causes. Such are often distinguished by the absence of references or links, and the presence of assertions, in their posts. They have to be accepted as the freeloading static-generators that they are, part of the price for greater transparency, or disclosure of impropriety, that this new (<20 year old) forum potentially provides.

Divorce Doctor pretty much nailed the connotation of the term 'conspiracy theory' in his post of Tuesday, 24 March 2009 1:23:47 at PM with this:

"... to put [it] in modern terms Politically Correct people (used to be called I'm all right Jack) have their greatest fear that they might be forced to THINK, and God Forbid, DO something about it. They use the derogatory term CT ..... to simply 'get with the strength' ....."

The thread is indeed getting interesting.

Closer to home, perhaps?

I want you all to go to youtube and view the multitude of video and commentary on the destruction of building 7 during 9/11.Building 7 housed both the CIA and FBI offices.The small buildings directly below the towers only partially collapsed,while building 7 well away from the towers went down like a classic controlled implosion.

Building 7 was not included in the official enquiry.Experts have no other explanation other than controlled demolition.Who did it and why?

Forrest
Let me know when you get back your last post sounds like me after the second bottle of wine. Can you rewrite what you said more sucinctly as it seem turgid to me. Sorry

Max
I didn't say you disagreed with foxy merely acknoweldged her point.
I agree in essence we agree.

Man made global warming seems to be the most popular conspiracy theory of late. It is a faith based theory that many have cashed in on. The gullible claim the science is settled and happily label disbelievers who demand scientific proof as denialist. It has the gullible full of fear and 'righteous' indignation. With so many swallowing the hopelessly flawed evolution myths it is no wonder people swallow this theory with little questioning. Funny but very sad.

any discussion on this Weasel Word expression of CT MUST interface into Rumsfeld dribble - but just WHERE does it slot in

Here is Donald:

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know."

Is a CT an unknown unknown or higher up the food chain

So "please explain", you PC Droogs that invented/use/abuse the term CT.

Like Donald it is "always interesting to me" to delve into just how our NGOs milk so many billions from the public purse, for so little return to society

guess that is a CT, huh?

I have been complimented before for the opacity of some of my posts, examinator, (compliments which, by the way, I have deeply appreciated, coming as they have from one of the best in the business of articulate expression on OLO) so rest assured it is deliberate. I try to craft my posts much as the scribes who drew up the (I think, five) original copies of the Magna Carta. You know, right hand justification of text, virtual elimination of blank space on the parchment, full use of the 350 word allowance (in the modern context), and such like. All to guard against guess what? Falsification of the original wording and meaning.

So no, I cannot rewrite it just because you may not yet have had your second bottle of wine. (Gosh, I haven't had my second bottle yet!) But (and there is always a 'but', isn't there?) perhaps we can get at an elucidation from a different angle. Given that Maximillion is unwilling/unable to post links to specific posts illustrating 'conspiracy theory', perhaps we can explore the 'theory' using sterile, uncontaminated, raw material that is not presently part of any known 'conspiracy theory'.

Let's use the statement from your own post in this thread as at Wednesday, 25 March 2009 11:11:34 AM that ".... Even Aussie box conspiracy between TWO groups [-] self interest blew it out of the water.", as a starter.

I assume you are referring to the admitted cartel behaviour of Amcor (the self-confessed initiator of the alleged agreement) and Visy, or more correctly, that alleged of Richard Pratt, the principal of that company, in your reference. Your statement is an assertion. I am most interested to know whose self-interest you see as having 'blown [the alleged conspiracy] out of the water'.

I'll be the conspiracy theorist. You just tell me whose you think the self-interest was that blew this 'conspiracy' out of the water, and we'll go from there. In the process we might just test out the 'dot theory', the one that says the more dots ...

Two observations -

The word "conspiracy" means to plot something that is illegal.

Not every underhanded scheme undertaken by the authorities (for example) is necessarily illegal, therefore no technical conspiracy may exist.

Also, I have a theory that one day I will win the lottery. If I never buy a ticket, the idea remains nothing more than a theory.

Once I buy a ticket, it is no longer a theory but becomes a real possibility, no matter how remote.

When evidence of a conspiracy is ignored or cannot be satisfactorily explained, the ideas stay alive.

While truth can be stranger than fiction it does not necessarily follow that something that might be possible is also probable or likely.

Like anything else we mere mortals have only our common sense to steer us - to weigh up probabilities based on opportunity, motive, logistics etal.

Equally to consider is that the existence of motive and opportunity does not always a crime or conspiracy make.

Test this one out for conspiracy.3 times I've tried to post on my own topic "Obama" on this very sight,ie general discussions.Twice last night and once just now.All have failed.Would someone try to post a comment and let me know if you have tried and failed.

"Given that Maximillion is unwilling/unable to post links to specific posts illustrating 'conspiracy theory', perhaps we can explore the 'theory' using sterile, uncontaminated, raw material that is not presently part of any known 'conspiracy theory'."

no need my friend

this "new glove puppet" has been inserted because I mention CT in the Centrelink Chapter of my book, ie the book that was pirated by the brother/sister [to THIS Forum] Cash for Comment droogs at familylawwebguide.com

and THAT topic [we can't afford to pay the Old Age Pension] has been required to raise its ugly head again in this forum on same day as this thread.

so because I am just a nice guy, I will repeat from other thread

"So, because of all the confusion, I have decided to release the CentreLink Chapter of my book free. After all your Cash for Comment brothers [and sisters] under Howard instuctions pirated the book, so it IS out there in the public domaim, albeit illegally [and still facing a million dollar lawsuit]

so goto http://www.ablokesguide.com to read it.

And you will note the reason for the conjunctive thread on Conspiracy Theories"

Arjay: << Test this one out for conspiracy.3 times I've tried to post on my own topic "Obama" on this very sight,ie general discussions.Twice last night and once just now.All have failed.Would someone try to post a comment and let me know if you have tried and failed. >>

It's there, Arjay, with 6 posts including yours.

I think that, like most "conspiracies", it's in the mind of the incompetent, paranoid or overimaginative observer.

CJMorgan has been a little premature in equating Arjay's concerns as to posting problems seemingly associated with the 'Obama' topic, of which Arjay is the opening poster, with being symptomatic of 'conspiracy theory' in its derogatory sense.

It seems there have been technical problems, in outline similar to Arjay's claimed one that he felt was only related to the 'Obama' topic, being experienced by other OLO users. I have reposted what I think to be a similar test post to Arjay's second post in the 'Obama' thread, a post by bushbred in the comments thread to the article 'How our political system fails us', in the technical support thread 'OLO Index Page Display Problems', here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2608#59225

And wouldn't you know it, on the first attempt at posting that very comment in which I had said I had not experienced any problem posting, I got a 'Server error' message. My second attempt, made immediately after, succeeded. I also note Sancho's technical support topic 'Forum defaults-page display' which, whilst it does not expressly mention slowness of the OLO site to load pages, you would have to think has been to some extent prompted by slowness of response. So something seems not quite right in relation to OLO, and its not just in Arjay's 'overimaginative' mind.

In bringing up this topic, 'Conspiracy theory', after having had to move (oh so slowly) between various OLO pages whilst compiling this post (at around 4:00 AM EDST, not exactly OLO's busiest time) in order to finally be able to post it, I encountered four successive 'Server error' messages before I was finally able to access the last page of the thread. They were incidents numbered 459-2103, 551-2203, 620-2303, and 735-2603 respectively.

Perhaps its lack of information where one might otherwise expect it that stimulates 'conspiracy theories'?

I don't want to put words in examinator's mouth, so I am still waiting for a suggestion as to whose self-interest unraveled the 'box conspiracy'.

What a shame this thread has stalled. There are other OLO users out there who have not posted yet, but have been following with some degree of interest. It would be a pity to disappoint them.

OLO userID Agronomist was going to offer the '9/11 Truth' thread (opened by daggett on Monday, 22 September 2008 at 4:29:43 PM) as an example of 'conspiracy theory' but seemingly refrained, saying "At that point I realised Forest would be sufficiently immersed in conspiracy theories for me [not] to bother pointing one out." (I do hope the conventionally bracketed insertion of 'not' for sense was correctly positioned.) See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#59335 Be aware that clicking this link, although it will take you direct to this comment, will result in loading the whole now very long 487 post thread. You can find Agronomist's post at the top of the page in this link, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=82 , which only requires the loading of but one page.

Whilst I may be honoured to be considered 'immersed in conspiracy theories' as a consequence of having posted in that thread, I feel Agronomist has wielded too broad a brush in implicitly suggesting the whole thread, when the suggested requirement was for a post (in fact three posts) illustrating the claimed phenomenon. Had Agronomist offered daggett's opening post, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166#45945 , that may have been revealing. Had he offered the post of mine but four posts after the opening post he may have offered even more insight into the mind of a 'conspiracy theorist'. On page 3 of that thread, http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=3 , another post of mine may have helped even further.

But what about the 'box conspiracy'? Any takers?

Full credit to examinator if he is being cautious in pursuing any assertion as to anyone's self-interest having blown the 'box conspiracy' out of the water without being able to provide a reference.

The article 'Richard Pratt and the ACCC - Criminal sanctions through the back door?' on the law firm Mallesons Stephen Jacques website, http://www.mallesons.com/publications/2008/Sep/9586437w.htm , is a useful summary of some of the legal issues seen to be arising from the alleged 'box conspiracy' , a claimed cartel involving Amcor and Visy.

Another article published in The Australian newspaper on 10 December 2007, titled 'Amcor scammer still on payroll', can be viewed here: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22896882-601,00.html . A most interesting claim in this article is that ".... Amcor was given immunity from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for reporting the cartel after learning of the existence of the Hodgson tapes." The claim is most interesting because, if true, that would mean the ACCC had given an immunity to Amcor expressly forbidden by the relevant legislation as being able to be offered to a ringleader in a cartel, which just such ringleader in this case Amcor self-confessedly was.

Yet another article published in The Age newspaper on 13 December 2008, titled 'Watchdog feels weight of Pratt's fall', can be viewed here: http://business.theage.com.au/business/watchdog-feels-weight-of-pratts-fall-20081212-6xlv.html?page=-1 . This article poses a most interesting question in its last three paragraphs. My answer to it is that there had been a change of government, and that it was seen by some as an opportune time to throw legal propriety to the wolves in order to mount a malicious prosecution.

Now for some 'conspiracy theory'.

What if the very creation of the cartel was itself part of a 'set-up' of Visy and Richard Pratt? It was Amcor that proposed it to Visy, not the other way around.

What if interests within Amcor deliberately arranged for the bringing into being of taped recordings of incriminating conversations between certain of its own executives, conversations conducted with utter sincerity by those party to them, and thereby coming to constitute in due course 'evidence' implicating Visy?

Too far fetched?

Forrest, attributing a technical server glitch at OLO to some kind of conspiracy against an individual user seems just a tad paranoid to me.

CJMorgan says:

"Forrest, attributing a technical server glitch at OLO to some kind of conspiracy against an individual user seems just a tad paranoid to me."

I couldn't agree more CJ. That's why I posted that bushbred had seemed to have experienced a similar problem to Arjay. I hadn't thought of it in that way, but I've now mentioned it on the technical support thread here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2637#59398 , and thanked you for the idea there.

Back to the 'box conspiracy', and the search for the self-interest that blew it out of the water.

An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 September 2008, titled 'Ex-Amcor boss tells of blackmail bid' may provide a clue. See: http://business.smh.com.au/business/examcor-boss-tells-of-blackmail-bid-20080912-4fgl.html . An Age article on the same day is even more explicit. See: http://business.theage.com.au/business/how-a-cartels-wheels-fell-off-20080912-4fl7.html?page=-1 . Interestingly, each article is by the same correspondent, Leonie Wood.

The incredible immediate recommendation by the regulator, the ACCC, that Amcor NOT advise the Australian Stock Exchanges of the discovery of Amcor being in breach of the law with respect to engaging in cartel conduct, when the law required that it DID, is most revealing. It could be interpreted as indicating the ACCC already knew there would be no adverse affect on the Amcor share value because it (the ACCC) ALREADY had an intention of providing immunity, an intention that could seemingly only have been formed if the ACCC had been already considering cartel conduct also involving Visy BEFORE Amcor reported it. An already-formed intention to provide immunity could only indicate a prior acknowledgement somewhere within the ACCC that Amcor would NEED it: that interests within Amcor had deliberately involved Visy in a cartel in the very first place, acting as agents provocateur of the very conduct itself, not the mere subsequent entrapment of Richard Pratt with respect to later sworn testimony!

Let's see whether Maximillion is likely to be getting much insight into 'conspiracy theory' from this thread. I'll try and summarize some of the pithiest observations in this post.

spindoc, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 9:27:32 AM:

"The world seems to be divided evenly into two main groups .... those who try to control their own destiny .... [who] typically don’t see themselves as victims and are not vulnerable to the fear, uncertainty and doubt .... The other group see “others” as responsible for their destiny .... demonstrat[ing] a very unhealthy scepticism which is normally focused upon some “authority” or what they see as overly powerful institutions, thus feeding their sense of helplessness. Conspiracy theories are simply a manifestation of that frustration, ...."

wobbles, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 12:28:02 PM:

"With the speed and breadth of modern communications - free from censorship - people are hearing and seeing a lot more about everything. Much of it is demonstrably false and prejudicial but a lot of it isn't."

Divorce Doctor, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 1:23:47 PM:

"Politically Correct people ... have their greatest fear that they might be forced to THINK, and God Forbid, DO something about it ... [and] use the derogatory term CT ... to simply "get with the strength", ..."

Arjay, Tuesday, 24 March 2009 4:54:48 PM:

"Only the small secrets need to be hidden.The really big secrets are not because they are repressed by our incredulity."

Maximillion, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 9:34:00 AM:

"... no lie is big enough anymore."

rache, Wednesday, 25 March 2009 10:14:09 PM:

"When evidence of a conspiracy is ignored or cannot be satisfactorily explained, the ideas stay alive."

Forrest Gumpp, Friday, 27 March 2009 3:59:56 AM:

"Perhaps its lack of information where one might otherwise expect it that stimulates 'conspiracy theories'?"

Maximillion says, elsewhere, "... I don't often need to re-read the entire thread, ...". See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2637#59386 . Maximillion must be blessed with total recall. For those of us who are not, this summary.

Eyes wired shut?

Maximillion says, elsewhere, "... I don't often need to re-read the entire thread, ...". See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2637#59386 . Maximillion must be blessed with total recall. For those of us who are not, this summary.

Just a tad acerbic there FG, in my version of the English language not often does not mean never.
And you "assume" I wouldn't do just that in a thread I started?. When I was at school a standard mnemonic was that "to assume makes an ASS of U and ME", and I feel that applies here.
You're summary is selective, but not unfair, it would be difficult to be otherwise without repeating it all. Interesting concept though, are you going to be doing this to other threads, or is it a conspiracy against me? I have seen the vans, ya can't fool me, but you'll never take me, I've got my alfoil cap on, hah hah, and the taps are running too!
In truth, I've found the discussion quite interesting, and informative, and have appreciated the input from all posters, including yourself.

What? Me, Forrest Gumpp, acerbic? I've been called pompous, but acerbity is something to which I had never thought to attain. Thank you, Maximillion, for the compliment! Thank you for the even greater compliment that my summary is "... selective, but not unfair ...". I apologize to those I left out, but the word limit, you know.

You ask: "Are you going to be doing this [summarizing] to other threads?". I have done it occasionally in the past, just to try to be helpful to viewers who may not have followed the discussion from the outset, in threads that particularly interested me. I feel that it builds, rather than kills, interest among viewers of any topic. Nobody is obliged to accept any such summary as accurate or fair on face value: they can check for themselves; perhaps summarizing acts as a challenge to some, who may not have followed it from the start, to read the whole thread, or the full context of quotes.

As to my having assumed you would not be re-reading the thread, perish the thought. To the contrary, I was depending upon your doing exactly that! And you were. I will admit to having used your statement "... I don't often need to re-read the entire thread, ..." in your post to the topic 'Forum defaults - page display' for an ulterior purpose. I wanted an excuse for viewers to see some of the technical background that may have provoked the conspiracy paranoia referred to above in CJMorgan's brief post. Your statement provided the perfect excuse.

I also admit to having been a bit provocative. I was running low on posts available at the time, and I wanted to keep the topic up within the default OLO index display for 'last post'. The provocation worked. You posted. Your topic remained up in the default display for the rest of the day, and until this morning. I'm in full agreement with you that this is a most interesting and informative discussion. Does that go for our little 'test conspiracy' - the alleged box cartel? Very strange, that.

Sorry, you lost me there. Care to elucidate? The box cartel was a standard group price-fixing scam, it happens regularly, take a look at the airlines pricing structures, or truck- haulage, or fishing quotas, the trick is proving it in court. The "Boxing Ring" came unstuck when one of them was investigated by the ATO, I seem to recall, he went belly-up, and gave up the rest for a level of immunity, not total though.
I look forward to your reply.
Oh, and I like provocative posts, as long as they're sane and not Ideological, it keeps it fun. Yours was certainly THAT!

It may be that we are getting somewhere in the search for self-interest as having been an important factor in the 'box cartel' having come to light. Maximillion's suggestion, based upon his recollection, that an ATO investigation had been the trigger in causing a participant in the 'box conspiracy' to have 'gone belly-up' and denounced the other participants in exchange for some form of limited immunity against prosecution, is news to me. It would be good to have a reference.

What we do have a reference for is that Amcor conceivably stood to gain immunity if it was the first entity to confess to the regulator, the ACCC, that it had been party to cartel activity. That reference is here: http://business.smh.com.au/business/examcor-boss-tells-of-blackmail-bid-20080912-4fgl.html . An excerpt from it says:

"The Herald has obtained documents from the Federal Court, ....

The court documents also reveal how on November 22, straight after Amcor told the commission about the cartel, the government regulator strongly urged Amcor not to tell the stock exchange. A company must warn the ASX of any material developments that could affect its share price, but the commission argued that it did not believe it was an issue that needed to be revealed to shareholders. It threatened to deny Amcor immunity from prosecution if it went public."

There you have immunity mentioned, in the last sentence of the excerpt. I commend the reading of the whole article. I also commend the re-reading of my post of Saturday, 28 March 2009 at 5:44:05 PM.

As a footnote to the previous matter of acerbity, I should remark that if viewers want acerbity, Divorce Doctor's post of Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 7:12:02 PM contains a link to a page from which you can download the 'Centrelink' chapter of his book 'A Bloke's Guide to Family Law and Child Support': in that PDF (file title: centre.pdf), in 21 pages of large easy to read text, you will find plenty of acerbity.

OK, I stand corrected, my recall was faulty, you have my abject apologies. But, please explain the "very strange, that"?
I can see that "pomposity" whereof you speak, you certainly come across that way, don't you? I try to type exactly as if I was standing in front of others in a conversation, perhaps you do too, but we just have different conversational styles. Whatever, I still enjoy the discourse.

Arjay, you go for the 9/11 conspiracy AND the Kennedy conspiracy?

No comment.

Anyhow, I think spindoc's summed it up well, but there's a little more to the situation.

Someone I know very well who has an interest in the accountability of those involved in our legal system, has been following the Einfeld case for quite some time.

He's not prone to conspiracy theories, but a few years ago (maybe 18 months, I'm not entirely sure) it seemed to him that the case was dead in the water. He made enquiries, though the DPP didn't seem to be pursuing it vigorously. I'm glad to say that they did pursue the case.

I know a few who dismissed his certainty that the Einfeld case needed to see the light of day, claiming it was a conspiracy theory.

Sure, some matters demand further investigation.

I view conspiracy theories as a matter of 'how many people are involved and how far-fetched is it?'

Take the 9/11 conspiracies... the bombers were really acting on behalf of the US? How many people would need to know? How would such a thing be carried out?

These theories tend to come from people with little or no practical experience of politics or even corporate manoeuvring. They're fanciful, because they imagine people meeting in dark rooms discussing grand plans that are incredibly intricate in their scope.

It's bull.

It all comes back to the intricacy of the conspiracy, how many people needed to keep it secret, and the scale of the plan.

Any one of these things can scuttle such an operation before it happens, and they're damn certain to be found out afterward and yes - displayed on the media.

Of course, making the media a co-conspirator (even News Ltd, everyone's favourite bogeyman isn't some monolithic entity, people talk, it's that simple) allows people to circumvent this reality.

Maximillion:

"Please explain the 'very strange, that'."

The whole ACCC-Amcor-Visy saga is strange.

An article headed 'ANZ director defends payments' published on 22 November 2007 in the Business Spectator, here: http://eureka03.eurekareport.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/ANZ-director-defends-payments-96RKQ?OpenDocument , stated, inter alia, the following:

"In a 1996 letter to Amcor, Mr Hancock [a former, until 1993, senior Visy executive] sought compensation for unpaid paper rebates and indicated that the rebates were part of a wider collusive arrangement between Amcor and Visy, ...

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigated Mr Hancock's allegations at the time and took no action."

The article '$1.5bn in cartel fix since '89: Visy exec' of 13 October 2007 in The Australian: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22576744-643,00.html says:

"A former senior Visy executive has accused packaging magnate Richard Pratt of funding his offshore expansion with $1.5 billion of super-profits from a cardboard box industry cartel dating back to the late 1980s. Alan Hancock, ............ said the benefits of the cartel began to flow into Mr Pratt's coffers in 1989."

What if the ACCC, in or shortly after 1996, contrary to the report in the Business Spectator quoted above, in fact continued an investigation undercover within Amcor to gather evidence against Visy? Would that not have constituted an entrapment scenario, especially if it was arguable that Visy was likely the underdog in any such cartel situation? This seems to be a view supported by the Mallesons Stephen Jacques commentary:

"The defence also called into question the ACCC’s ..................... willingness to overlook Amcor’s role in the cartel. As the defence put it, “as soon as Jones came in and at the first mention of Visy and Pratt, all the light bulbs went on and … the decision was … made, let’s go get him”. In doing so, the ACCC had abused its own process and guidelines which indicate leniency would not be available to a cartel ringleader."

Had Richard Pratt been a target since 1989?

TBC

Continued

Hang about a bit. Alan Hancock had left Visy in 1993. For Alan Hancock to have demanded, and received, payment from Amcor in 1996 for unpaid paper rebates indicated as being due under collusive agreements involving Amcor and Visy, must mean that he was involved with a SEPARATE business entity to those of Amcor and Visy that was ALSO part of the cartel arrangements. That would make Alan Hancock, or the business entity with which he was associated, the whistleblower.

Under the ACCC's own guidelines, it would have been Alan Hancock's business entity that qualified for immunity! Amcor and Visy BOTH would have been left to face the music was sufficient evidence to have been gathered subsequently for a successful prosecution for cartel conduct.

Could it have been considered by some in 1996 that Alan Hancock was not a big enough loser to be deserving of immunity? That an immunity for the first whistleblower in respect to the very cartel conduct the ACCC now contends to be proven, would in effect be 'wasted' on such small fry? That an immunity, if only it could be somehow conferred upon Amcor, would enable a no-holds-barred pursuit of Visy and Richard Pratt, whilst preserving that significant public company from penalty?

Should such a scenario have in fact applied, would it not have amounted to selective application of the law by the ACCC, to Amcor's great advantage, and Visy's great disadvantage? With Amcor immune, why have not charges been laid against Hancock by the ACCC? The documented payments made to him in 1996 for rebates due under collusive arrangements in what the ACCC contends is now a proven case of cartel conduct seemingly must involve Hancock as a party to the cartel. Failure to charge him seems equally selective an application of the law.

At this point, for the purposes of our 'test conspiracy', Maximillion, it should be evident that if there was to have been a conspiracy to preserve Amcor from prosecution, only a very small number of persons need have been in on it.

TBC

I would need to accept a premise of malice in the ACCC to go with this scenario, possible, but not likely, to me anyway.
Perhaps it's more down to a comfortable, "Sir Humphrey Applegate" level of bureaucratic incompetence, that would seem far more likely.
That, and budgetary restraints.
It's entirely likely, to me, that there was a level of collusion in the final outcome, it's the way such cases are handled these days regularly, but as to an overarching conspiracy, however small?
Possible, but not likely.
I may well be wrong, but if so, it's also unlikely we'll ever find out, isn't it?

Continued

Revisiting the quotation from the Mallesons Stephen Jacques commentary on this prosecution, in my post of Wednesday, 1 April 2009 at 9:30:21 AM, assuming the (Pratt) defence account contained therein to be accurate, an explanation exists for the speed with which "all the light bulbs went on and … the decision was … made, let’s go get him", meaning Pratt. That explanation could be that the ACCC was expecting to be possibly contacted by representatives of Amcor because the ACCC knew from an ongoing investigation that Amcor might shortly see it had good cause to do so.

Indeed, the threat by the ACCC to Amcor, made immediately upon Amcor's confession, that Amcor's claim to immunity may be compromised should it inform ASX that it had discovered its own involvement in a cartel, could be taken as indicating that there had in fact been an ACCC investigation in progress at the time Amcor made its confession. That extraordinary attempt by the ACCC to deflect Amcor from discharging its obligation to inform ASX could also be taken as indicating that the ACCC knew, at the time of Amcor's confession, it still did not have enough evidence of cartel conduct by Visy to sustain a conviction in Visy's case.

All of which, to my mind, raises questions as to the propriety with which the ACCC may have been conducting any ongoing investigation, and indeed as to its failure to have taken action over Alan Hancock's 1996 allegations and the implications of his having received payment of outstanding rebates due under a collusive arrangement involving Amcor and Visy back then.

There exists the appearance that the damage alleged to have been done to customers as a consequence of the existence of the cartel between 1999 and 2004 only happened because the ACCC took no action in 1996.

Of course, had the ACCC acted in 1996, it appears Alan Hancock was the person entitled to immunity, and Amcor would have been a co-defendant with Visy. Large institutional investors in Amcor may have faced losses.

Conspiracy motivation?

TBC

Maximillion, Thursday, 2 April 2009 7:19:32 PM:

"It's entirely likely, to me, that there was a level of collusion in the final outcome [of the ACCC Amcor - Visy cartel prosecution], it's the way such cases are handled these days regularly, but as to an overarching conspiracy, however small?
Possible, but not likely.
I may well be wrong, but if so, it's also unlikely we'll ever find out, isn't it?"

I wasn't trying to dodge your question when I posted my continuation post on Sunday 5 April.

Perhaps one of the reasons it may be "unlikely we'll ever find out" with respect to so many suspected cases of malicious prosecution, conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, or simply denial of natural justice, is that those who start querying outcomes seem all too frequently to be shouted down at the outset with cries like the epithet 'conspiracy theorist'.

I believe much of the blame for this being the situation can be laid at the feet of those who promote 'political correctness', who continually push a 'received wisdom', who wish to entrust an electorally unaccountable elite group of so-called experts to do the community's thinking for it. I come back to Divorce Doctor's post in which he said:

"Politically Correct people ... have [as] their greatest fear that they might be forced to THINK, and God Forbid, DO something about it ... [and] use the derogatory term CT ... to simply "get with the strength", ..."

BTW Divorce Doctor,

Further to your post of Thursday, 26 March 2009 at 7:12:02 PM, I tried to find the topic 'We can't afford to pay the Old Age Pension' on familylawwebguide.com via a Google search, in order to assess whether this topic on OLO may have been intended as any kind of 'dog whistle'. I could not find it, due to my unfamiliarity with that other forum. Can you post a link of the type that will come up in an OLO post in gamboge text that will go direct to that discussion?