Friday, December 12, 2014

Rethinking Conspiracy

Here’s an article that you may find of interest. It’s been getting a significant amount of play including:
Frances Shure recommends the article on the AE911Truth web site: (see note #13)
Gregg Roberts (ResearchGuy), Frances Shure in comments section of Foreign Policy Journal version.
A print version will appear in the upcoming issue of New Dawn magazine (Australia).

Initial excerpt:

Rethinking Conspiracy

The terms “conspiracy theorist” and “conspiracy nut” are used frequently to discredit a perceived adversary using emotional rather than logical appeals. It’s important for the sake of true argument that we define the term “conspiracy” and use it appropriately, not as an ad hominem attack on someone whose point of view we don’t share.

According to my Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary, the word “conspiracy” derives from the Latin “conspirare,” which means literally “to breathe together” in the sense of agreeing to commit a crime. The primary definition is “planning and acting together secretly, especially for a harmful or unlawful purpose, such as murder or treason.”

It was in this sense that Mark Twain astutely observed, “A conspiracy is nothing but a secret agreement of a number of men for the pursuance of policies which they dare not admit in public.”

Conspiracies are common. If they weren’t, police stations would not need conspiracy units to investigate and prosecute crimes such as “conspiracy to import cocaine” or any other collusion on the part of two or more people to subvert the law.



Quotes on Conspiracy Theories - Updated Version