Last updated on 2008-05-25.
One of the main problems with our civilization is that words have lost their meaning. A few months ago Chris Matthews had to explain to Kevin James what the word "appease" meant. Unfortunately for Mr. James, this didn’t occur in private but live on MSNBC’s Hardball.
In spoken languages, the tone of a word can be used to make inferences that may be completely unrelated to the meaning of the word. This is specially true when dealing with propaganda. When certain people or organizations want to dismiss an argument, they tend to phrase words in such a way that makes them appear illogical or treacherous if given credence.
One of these words is “conspiracy”, and when put together with the word “theory” it becomes the infamous phrase “Conspiracy Theory”. Lets take a look at the definition of these two words and try to figure out why they have been used to discredit not only people, but history, data and facts.
The legal definition of conspiracy is “an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal or unlawful act, or to achieve a legal act but by illegal or unlawful means.” A theory is “a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.”
So a conspiracy theory is a conjecture that two or more people may have planned an unlawful act, and if certain facts are proven to be true, then the conspiracy theory becomes reality.
As we all know, throughout history our governments and politicians have done exactly what the above states. They have conspired to obtain power, to overthrow governments, to destroy their political rivals, and to make money. Politics is littered with conspiracies but the mainstream media treats this word with contempt. Have we forgotten Watergate, Tonkin, Iran-Contra, Basra, Pinochet, Mohammed Mosaddeq, Reichstag, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, COINTELPRO, Oswald, Northwoods, JFK, 911, and much more.
So in the phrase conspiracy theory, it is not the conspiracy that needs to be scrutinized, but the data on which the theory is based on. And this is where the problem lies. Neither the mainstream media nor those in power have any desire to investigate the theory behind the argument. If they did, many questions could arise from the investigation which in turn could be devastating for the status quo.
As Chris Matthews stated, many supporters of those in power “don’t know what (they) are talking about”, they are “people with blank slates in terms of history”. And as Mark Green pointed out, the only thing these people are interested in is “rhetoric and not reality.”
So next time the phrase “conspiracy theory” is used to discredit someone, just point out that the conspiracy is not in question, but rather the data being presented from the theory. And then ask them what part of the argument they disagree with. You’ll most likely find out that they know less about the theory behind the conspiracy, than Mr. James knows about appease or history.
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
