h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Has anyone considered that the Conspiracy Theorists are themselves THE CONSPIRACY?

You just have to look at the evidence:

1) They are a group of people who know too much and yet they are allowed to live. Surely anyone with the level of knowledge of what is really going on would be killed by the Industrial Military complex as soon as they opened their mouths (after all they killed JFK and Diana).

2) They all say that they are unrelated but all the arguments seem to have the same threads. Almost as if they are taken out of some government hand book and also points to some kind of standardized training.

3) You never know who they really are they are just a face in the crowd, a voice at the end of a phone line or a posting under a pseudonym on the internet. This also points to fact that they have been trained by the government to be grey men like the CIA, MI6 etc.

4) Another pointer to the training is they can all argue that Black is White when the contrary is obviously true.

5) They seem to have no ego. Let's face it who in their right mind would day in day out put themselves up to ridicule, with out it being a part of some larger master plan.


There is plenty more evidence if you stop and think about it. I believe that these Conspiracy Theorists are working for some Black Op's department reporting to a world shadow government (the real government). Their mission is to spread disinformation to the world so that the little people do not notice that in fact the world is run by a complete lot of idiots who have no clue what they are doing besides lining their own pockets...

Sir Bedevere

Interesting hypothesis. Is Sir Bedevere an Arthurian or a Python reference?

Now you'll have to wonder if we're going to go after you next, ever thought of that one? And arent you just trying to claim the title "conspiracist" (sp?) for yourself by suggesting such a thing? Does that make you a hippocrate? hmmm...i wonder, i'll let you decide though

Python

Oh no no, what an insult "conspiracist" - have you ever noticed that quite a few bad words end in "ist" (racist, sexist, fatist, etc.)?

It was just a case of a good scientist looking at the evidence and drawing a hypothesis.

Any way I haven't had the traiing or access to handbook yet, but I do hear you can downlaod a copy from www.looniesandcrackpotswithtomuchfreetime.com.

what about socialists? And naturists, and indeed naturalists. And flute players (sp?), and pretty much any musiscian infact (pianist, trombonist, percussionist, etc.). Loads of good "ists".

wide

You were looking for "flutist" I believe.

You were looking for "flutist" I believe.

oh, It's just pronounced funny then.

wide

Anybody ever notice how at the same time Jim Henson "died", the Queen Mum started looking even ropier than usuall?
I keep looking for the strings.

wide

Acutally, I'm not quite sure how to pronounce it. I'm a musician myself, and I had always thought that it was pronounced "floutist," with the "ou" acting like the "ou" in "out." But, before I typed that up I looked the word up in my dictionary to check spelling, and the pronunciation guide said that it should be pronounced like the word "flute," just regular, with the "ist" put on the end. Mind you, I'm an American, using an American English dictionary, so perhaps in other parts of the English-speaking world it is indeed pronounced "floutist."

It's actually 'flautist' - pronounced 'flawtist.' I looked it up.

But it can also be 'flutist.'

So there.

Isn't a 'hippocrate' simply a very large wooden box?

Not sure I can put this right this quickly but bear with me a moment.

The world is run by a certain type of person. Usually they crave power and wealth, and believe wholly in their right to make the world a considerably worse place for other people in order to make it a little better for them. Never are they people who represent the wishes of others in society except for those who are exactly like them, although democracy leads to an illusory stab at representation, a choice between the lesser of evils. As far as its's possible to tell never are they particularly thoughtful or introsppective and rarely are they wise. The are generally technocrats, good at playing the system. They are not there because we have decided that they are good at making decisions on our behalf, they are there because they have the attributes and drives of successful politicians or opinion makers.

These people represent a strain of humanity that is proving 'fitter' in evolutionary terms. Theirs are the attributes that will win the day in the end. We, our children, will all be like them. Chasing economic growth through ever increasing population levels, driving social change as we compete for power, measuring our success in terms of money and the ownership of things, driven by the unpleasantness of the lives we create to overconsume the few shallow and meaningless pleasures we can get.

No conspiracy is needed. These people do not need to work together. The evolutionary mechanism will ensure that the race will simply become more and more like them, that our children will inherit their values, beliefs and goals. Of course they will. Try watching TV for any two hour period and extracting the fundamental messages.

We shouldn't be fighting phantom conspiracies, we should be guarding ourselves against successful strains of humans, types of people, who by their beliefs and behaviour are creating a world in which few thoughtful people will want to live. A world of work, consumption and desperately pursued hedonism.

Yuppies will inherit the Earth. They may have done so already. This is because the attributes of the Yuppie are increasingly the attributes that allow people to achieve power, the ability to make decisions on our behalf, and, most crucially, to detirmine the aspirations of the next generation.

Ask yourself - are there any policies on the political agendas of our main 'democratic' parties which do other than support perpetual economic growth, the accelerated consumption of resources, the destruction of countryside and environment, the steady accumulation of power by the State? Who needs a conspiracy? Never mind what is right or wrong - people who would like to vote on these issues, would like to change the agenda, don't have a vote. There is no one to vote for. Democracy in England is the illusion of choice, a choice of only in which way do we want to do what the type of people who become politicians are going to make us do anyway.

There is no significant conspiracy among those with power and money. The achieve their effect on the world by who they are, by their evolutionary consequences, not according to some intentional plan.

OK - was that a rant or not?!

It's got 'rant' written right through it in small red sticky letters arranged in a circle.

It's also rather good.

But the yuppies are an evolutionary dead-end. Rather like dinosaurs. Politicians are not to be worried about, though - it's the permanent staff in Whitehall that hold the real power. After all, without them the politicians can't make the changes they want to make and if the permanent staff don't like the changes they've only got to stall for four years or so and the politicians go away.

Think about it...

Ah! but by thinking that he is a conspirist for uncovering a conspiracy then you yourself are a conspirist and therefore so am I. oh wait... thats not my point. err... wait a moment. Ok so three guys go and eat lunch. it cost 30 dollars. so they all pay ten each. the owner then tells the waiter to give 5 dollars back to the guys. but the waiter keeps 2 dollars. and gives one to each of the three men. so each only paid 9 dollars. 9 * 3 = 27 27 + 2(what the waiter kept) = 29. so where is the missing dollar? Now if you can solve that conspiracy then you can solve any mystery on the planet

BZZZT! Invalid comparison alert. The waiter's money he kept is from the original $30 the men paid for lunch, not their net cost of lunch. Gotta keep them beans in the same piles or they start disappearing. In this case, the beans can be thought of as the debt incurred by the men who ate lunch, or the beans can be thought of from the point of view of the restaurant, or of a debt paid. The error in the seemingly simple and unsolvable delimma you stated arose from the comparison of the single debt the men incurred ($27) with a portion of the income to the restaurant (the $2 kept by the waiter). It becomes obvious if the proper comparison is made - a $27 debt paid by the men, and a $27 income to the restaurant was made ($25 to the owner, and $2 to the waiter). So, no missing dollars - just sneaky and inappropriate comparison of payments, kinda like what many people try to fool the government with.

Sorry, don't ask how I came across this forum, though I did really enjoy the original article. Kudos to the author, and thanks for the brain teaser.

You know, sounds like Bistromatics...that branch of mathematics on the bills in small Italian bistros...oh, just go read The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

I've seen the problem before. It's a fun one.