Antieverything

I like conspiracies, so let's get a bit practical now.



I want to suggest a possible improvement for the people in charge-dictators, Illuminati, governments, kings and so on.
The idea isn't particularly new, I thought of it recently, but I've read it at least once few years ago in Orwell's 1984.

My advice for the rulers is to start their own opposition! On the one hand, it seems stupid, but now that I mentioned it I guess you can already see the other hand.
First of all, you can obviously control the opposition. Not only you are the one spreading the information about your own "conspiracy", which is immensely helpful, but you can also track the progress of the rebel group itself. With this simple act you can make sure that your enemies are unable to harm you, or to do anything actually.
Second, you have all the information you need about the conspiring people-what more do you want? I wouldn't suggest punishing or killing them right away or all at once. Just keep them working and hoping, but helpless.
Third, most rulers now try infiltrate their enemies and then destroy them. That is backward thinking! (I only assume that this is the current view, but I might be wrong. A bit more on that later on.) By inventing your own enemy you disperse the power of the people, who oppose you. Sure, by starting one revolting group (well, why stop at one, right? You can be all your enemies if you want), you might not get all the people who disagree with you, but you definitely attract some. Suddenly, a certain potentially dangerous people are under your control. And I repeat that you can gather as many people as you like just by fabricating several factions with slightly different plans. With this you not only gather bigger crowd, but also separate the rebels from each other, so they can't form a single plan to conspire against you.

There are risks of course. You need to make sure of several things before even thinking about this. Probably most important are the people in charge of these disruptive parties. They need to be truly loyal. Doing such a task requires big amount of responsibility, and someone who can not be trusted, someone who plays both sides, but is in fact trying to take you down is someone you can't afford to have. This is more dangerous than any revolting groups on their own.

Another concern is hiding the truth. Good thing about this is that once someone finds out the whole truth, it will be very hard to convince others. I mean, what would you think of a person, who's trying to explain that the evil government is actually conspiring againt itself? Silly, right? But you still need to be very careful about anyone finding about this. Only a few people can know and they all need to be loyal and trustworthy.
The antigovernment group is not a short term solution to find the ones who oppose. It is a long, continuing process of keeping the people under your control. Yes, arrests and killing are very likely, and in some cases recommended, but it has to fit the whole story. For example, how did they (=you-the ruler) found out about those arrested people? Who leaked the information? Why? What is the official reason for killing or arresting these people? I could keep going, but I think you get the point: it all has to fit!

There is a lot to cover, but I'm not (yet?) in the position to apply this, so there's no need to do it. I assume that by the time you can use this information you can think of all the possible options and risks. This is really no easy task, but the reward can be huge if done right. If you're in a situation this could be useful, don't hesitate to ask for advice though! ;)

I'd be very curious how many people in history had the same idea, and how many subversive factions were in fact useless, because of this. North Korea nowadays? Anti-communist or anti-fascist resistance in Europe in the 20th centuty? And if Illuminati exist, and are as powerful as some people claim, can you really trust those who say so? Wouldn't it be the best decoy for a group like this to be in charge of their own opposition?

I mentioned this idea in relation to ruling, but there might be other uses as well. If you know what you're doing is controversial, why not start the controversy right away under your rules? Religion could be one example. Just think about your life. Think if there's really nothing you could get from this article except, hopefully, entertainment.


And to top it up, we can go even deeper. This is going to be really meta, but let's take a look at some other examples in real life in which this idea can be (is?) used. There are plenty of stories about terrorists, who were hired or supported by the US government, and 9/11 was the result. Wouldn't it make perfect sense now?
Or how about the view that the US has on Russia? Couldn't Russia, and specifically Putin, be the "good guys" used as a distraction?
Or the wair against drugs? It is completely useless! Yet, we still continue. What if the drugs are actually used as an enemy to distract us from other more serious topics? Or what if the war on drugs is just money and employment making machine?
Maybe this is the real reason why the world seems to be doing worse in many things, even though most people agree with change. Environment and global warming could be one example.

Just think about the world around you with a bit more skepticism. There might be no, or little, truth to all this (except that war on drugs, at least in the way it's done now, is completely useless! That is a simple fact), but what if not?
World is unbelievably complicated and people are making it more complicated every day, and we can never have all the information we should have. Therefore a bit of doubt can only be good.