Too Many People Had to Know!

March 5, 2009

ENRONm Onesheet2q5

A few days ago a watched the Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room. Enron ran a naive and sketchy business, resulting in desperate money-making schemes like flicking power plants on and off. When looking at the big picture, the entire enterprise looks like a legitimate and documented conspiracy. Enron worked congress to get the energy business deregulated, which led to the ability to lie about the company value, which led massive earnings, which brought other banks into their schemes, which resulted in the financial rape of their shareholder, customers, and the general economy.

conspiracy_thinking

As Ashley pointed out to me, a common argument against conspiracy theories is that “too many people would have to know in order to pull it off.” So if we can believe this publicly documented event which involved countless people, then why not believe a faked moon landing, intentional 9/11 strikes, or the NWO?

Forgive the cliché Nazi comparison, but the Nazis too were a large group who ran an unethical operation. We must remember, like the Nazis, Enron was extremely unsuccessful in their big picture goals. These organizations were so large, and their effects were had such an impact, that they did not survive. “All the people who knew” were either out of a job, imprisoned, killed, etc.

nazi_monkey

Enron had countless participants, the Nazis too was a large organization, as in these examples the number of participants alone does not mean that they are incapable of doing harm. It is the scale of an organization, along with diminished individual responsibility that paves the way for potential ruin. What the Enron situation does not have in common with other conspiracy theories, is that it’s members all suffered by everything from job loss, prison time, and suicide, which the media has all documented. All those peope did know, and look what happend to them.

72227382JH004_skilling

For many conspiracy theorists, traditional conspiracy theories by nature can not be disproved because lack of available evidence can be seen as evidence of a cover-up, so no matter what the findings, theorists claim proof of a conspiracy. I guess one could argue that the Enron situation didn’t measure up to the severity of the moon landings or 9/11, so the same level of cover-up wasn’t required. Or maybe, Enron was prosecuted so that the institution could show the people that they don’t cover-up. This way the people will stop looking for the real conspiracies, tricky, tricky!

Not being able to disprove a conspiracy theory, is not supprting evidence for it’s plausability.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: