Quote:
phew...to quote another character: 'anything else you might be wantin'?'
i'm not the one whose virtually every other sentence either contains or implies the word 'conspiracy'
you forgot one thing: you were the one who introduced the term 'big conspiracy', so its rather pointless that someone else attempts to define it without knowing exactly what is to be considered by it - as for the rest and my comments in general its all 'imo' (as expected) with a suitable level of explanations involved
I'm starting to get bored as i don't see we're getting anywhere from this debate since you're determined not to define your terms, provide names and evidence.
Quote:
take best-selling book authors of mainstream vs. best-sellers from a conspiracy-related area: for recent books its around 20-80 million (see under 1.) copies vs. hundreds of thousands up to a million (marrs, icke,...), ie. somewhere around a 100-fold difference, for book-series or a career total the differences are even greater:
According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Christie is the best-selling writer of books of all time and, with William Shakespeare, the best-selling author of any kind. Only the Bible has sold more than her roughly four billion copies of novels
Are you kidding?
you're comparing literature to political books!
Compare it to the same-genre, take for example the The Da Vinci Code novel:
Quote:
The book is a worldwide bestseller that sold 80 million copies as of 2009[update][1] and has been translated into 44 languages. This makes it, as of 2010, the best selling English language novel of the 21st century and the 2nd biggest selling novel of the 21st century in any language. Combining the detective, thriller, and conspiracy fiction genres, it is Brown's second novel to include the character Robert Langdon, the first being his 2000 novel Angels & Demons. In November 2004, Random House published a Special Illustrated Edition with 160 illustrations. In 2006, a film adaptation was released by Sony's Columbia Pictures.
Quote:
take china for example, a comparison between high-selling (recent) books, the difference is also around 100-fold:
China?
Not related to our subject but anyway, notice that Wolf Totem is a novel:
Quote:
Wolf Totem is narrated by protagonist Chen Zhen, a young man in his 20s who, like the author, left his native Beijing to work in Inner Mongolia during the cultural revolution.[3] Through descriptions of folk traditions, rituals, and life on the steppe, Wolf Totem compares the culture of the ethnic Mongolian nomads and the Han Chinese farmers who settle in their territory, praising the "freedom, independence, respect, unyielding before hardship, teamwork and competition" of the former and criticising the "autocratic, sheeplike" nature of the latter.[1] The book condemns the agricultural collectivisation imposed on the nomads by the settlers, and the ecological disasters it caused, and ends with a 60-page "call to action" disconnected from the main thread of the novel. The author states that he was inspired to begin writing Wolf Totem by an accident: he ignored the advice of the clan chief of the group of nomads with whom he was staying, and accidentally stumbled across a pack of wolves. Terrified, he watched as the wolves chased a herd of sheep off a cliff, then dragged their corpses into a cave. From then on, fascinated by the wolves, he began to study them and their relationship with the nomads more closely, and even attempted to domesticate one
while the Currency Wars on Asia Crisis & Rothschild control of US is fulled of conspiracy related information i suppose and yet sold 200,000 copies, with an estimated 400,000 extra pirated copies, i'm surprised.
Quote:
in addition, one should consider that the mainstream is likewise populated with much more authors than other fields, has an officially sponsored promotional machinery behind it, isn't frowned upon as long as the themes remain within expected boundaries, brings larger profits/attention/recognition/audience and thus remains more desirable and socially safer/approved area to work in, whereas conspiracy-related work (and i'm not talking about fiction writers) is like walking on thin ice, the audience is much sharper, recycling is difficult, profits are much lower and it takes a lot of time/patience to dig through obscure material & connect the dots into a meaningful end-result, so its definitely not a 'walk in the park' kind of thing
the proper terminology would likely be related-to instead of dedicated-to and the number likely concerns the cumulative number of pages (not sites) - even so, if we consider 'conspiracy' to be a 'field of activity', 3 billion divided by 186,600 gives approximately 16,000 other fields, which shows how its not that big after all - the same can be said by comparing the number of related amazon books to their multi-million total number of books, this field is simply not mainstream (with a few exceptions) thus its logical to expect everything else other than 'huge' sales
again, you're comparing conspiracy theories related business to other fields which have nothing to do with politics but rather entertainment...
compare it to their fellow workers in the same field and you'll see how much it's big, you don't have to be a skilled writer nor an expert in your field but rather a researcher whose sources are usually urban myths playing on the public fears and ignorance, misinterpreting major political events, revolving around lies & misquotations, distorting history, twisting science to serve his purpose usually smth similar to voodoo and benefiting from the process through selling million of copies of self made documentaries, DVDs , books , TV shows ...etc.
Quote:
so we're back to the real big-business which again dwarfs all the traditional conspiracy-related researchers & their talk-shows, dvds & other profit-making video material with a single blockbuster movie, let alone their related catalogue
Don't you think that these movies gave them more advertising and publicity more than they ever dreamed of?
Btw, if you want to end this debate here, it's ok as i don't see we aren't getting anyway near an agreement.