User:EffK

EffK is known, falsely, as a 'conspiracy theorist' on Wikipedia and the internet. So much so that you will see a follower in the history trying to be-smirch the username( he/she/it comes from the EffK sojourn in nl.wp or Dutch Wikipedia).

Real "Common Plan" Conspiracy, and so called "Theory"
Without desiring to be provocative( I always research verification) I had better give an update on my thinking. Naturally I am digitally exhausted, as anyone who looks for the reason can see, but I do have a conclusion, which is quite(for me) short.

This whole concept of Conspiracy theory is relative, as of course a theory, in science, is something which still remains to be proved. As a form of ad hominem (q.v-meaning look it up) it is useful term of attack, and the reason for the attack will become clear. 'Guys' like this in the page history here, like vandal who wished it to be googled that I am mentally suspect, maybe are bored un-inspired individuals who just get their kicks down in digital 66( a Dylan ref.). or maybe like me they follow hard referencing as a part of a greater..well, let's see- and, back to the subject in hand. The user intro this follower removed, can be removed. The purpose was served. Why there is an attack is more interesting than what was removed, at this stsage.

Such actions could, conceivably, fall into the pattern of internet use which I have been immersed in, using the Wiki software. This makes of the internet a potential battleground of instant publishing, with the former constraints of economics(sales) completely removed. Publish and be damned (the Wellesley quote) now is as simple as press the button.

EffK, the name I sort-of-use to publish the thoughts of others (IE references), is, as the vandal here suggests, becoming well known. I figured that that might be a result, and, it is irrelevant. What is relevant is to as- Jimbo's level of english would put it- speedily inform. If Effk is long winded, well that's factor towards persuasion, ironically. If I tell you 'the conspiracy' like I just spilled coffee over you, and swore,- well, you are hardly going to consider the spiller with much credit. IE, it is better to take the slings and arrows, and write in that which through the centuries has supported us towards the rise of this age of information- precise language. Let those, as another User once said, who detest the language, not read it. There is plenty of blog space, as Jimbo said, for those who like momosyllables.

That which I will say, after this pre-amble, is that the history with which I have so concerned myself, the history of circa 1933, one which at first analysis is internal German history, is it later seems, to me Effk, the last point at which the distinction can be made between actual national (and international) conspiracy and 'conspiracy theory'.

An overview of that which led to the actual categorised Conspiracy (viz the conclusions of the Nuremberg Allied Military Tribunal) is by no means dissociated from previous history. The roots of the conpiracy, apart from the peculiar Hitlerian part, appear to reach, with certain parties (plural, meaning forces of Common Plan) back towards the French Revolution, and contains clear reference to the germanist memories of the Holy Roman Empire. Such elevated or abstruse motivation can be referenced within the highest achieving minds of both german and non-german individuals, whom we call philosophers. Traditions thereby build and minds who were keen to the negative effects of their own statements of thought even foresaw the dreadful consequences of such being administered without their own constraints of civilised thought.

The single factor which drove the modern result of this thinking, was the fear of revolution, of Communism, and this was the factor which drew together disparate forces: the industrial, the political and the philosophical ( which last would include 'religious'). Those who wished above all to avoid the likelihood of this nearby Communist revolution from sweeping their world, and them from their positions of power, joined, as the Tribunal said, in Common Plan or Conspiracy.

Much it has been argued, and on-line against EffK, that this was not only natural but sensible, given the realities of that era and given the apparent failure of Communism in the present. A double hindsight is easily presentable, and the latter adds to the justification of the former's excess. I am not concerned with the advisability or otherwise of the Plan, but I have berated the consequences.

It is perhaps possible, however, to remain within the vaunted encyclopedic, NPOV whilst yet detailing the exact application by the above described forces of their interests. Equally we do not lack for evidence of the results. Both these are verifiable beyond the point of reasonable doubt: Anti-Communism was the single binding force which drove the world, and World war was verifiably the result. That the war that resulted was not anti-communist is an irony of history, which should not blind us all to the verifiability of the cause.

So, the last conspiracy that can be clearly historically seen for what it was, was that which led to WWII, but which is not to say that the world remembers, or that a part does not, or that a part that did remember did remember for some time and then chose to forget. Largely the reality is now forgotten as being in poor taste, as accusation could follow and could destabilise the apparently more civilsed status quo of today. that also does not concern me.

A return to the accusations made against one, like Effk, who tastelessly seeks to build real memory within these wiki-encyclopedias brings me to the conclusion concerning conspiracy and the later, or modern version of conspiracy theory. It appears that the pre-WWII situation of the former can, given the controls of verification and neutrality, be itemised- however, the latter theory appears to be beyond equal capacity. This is not to say that the facts, with lesser degree of verifiblilty, do not exist, or are not crowding digital space. Nor is it to say that the low-level of tne Wiki software social experiment admits either the verifiable reality, or its opposite. That does concern me.

'Conspiracy theory' for the pre-WWII era would exit the known verifiability at the intersection concerning the financial/industrial and the claimed secret masonic or just banking roots of early captalism. Indeed theory exists and discusses these roots, and the verification would appear to be un-avaiailable for all the logic that such theory maintains. 'Conspiracy Theory', however, post WWII, is another matter. The facts appear to be relatively verifiable, and deal- of course- with a simple post-war coninuation of that known pre-WWII conjunct of anti-Communist interests and forces. The internet is already copiously supplied with such 'theory'. and is so complex as to lend itself to early ridicule.

Post WWII you enter at your peril, you enter the era of the immediate Cold-War beside which the term Cold-fascism would be appropriate. The reality of U.S.A adoption of intelligence networks from Hitlerite Germany would appear not to be theory, except that quickly you will find this associated with deep and ghastly theory concerning correlated adoption in the western Hemisphere of large numbers of sundry associated figures. Indeed the adoption is neither post WWII nor during that conflict, but quite inter-twined with it. history, or rather the forces that make history, do not suddenly appear or change, or disappear.

Again, the anti-revolutionary, or that which used to be termed by the Communists as counter-revolutionary, is the glue that binds the forces. EffK is not particlualry interested in the necessitated verification of the post WWII era of counter-revolutionary history, or theory, as it may be. What, nevertheless, appears opportune to state, is of that with which I began. That is, that the circa 1933 real Conspiracy, is, due to its greater capacity for clear and precise verification, of more immediate use to those who would wish to understand our world. It is possible to see the forces of the real Conspiracy in the broad daylight of today, without recourse to wierd and suspect 'masonic' or secret roots. Actual forces, again- as enumerated above- join together under actual people who represent those disparate forces. History clearly details the events and the motivations, and we can dwell still in a world of conclusions and clarity, howsoever tragic were the consequences. We do not need theory, we do not need speculation, but only the will to receive the conclusions which have been abundantly recorded for us, as we are posterity.

It is not that pre- WWWII and post- WWII Conspiracy is any different, but that only from the former may that we even begin to understand the verisimilitude within the latter. And this, I believe, is why you see the vandalism following me onto this very page, because there are indeed unfortunate consequences to be had from such understanding. EffK 18:18, 23 Aug 2006 (EDT)