CATS do exist (Here's the proof!)Submitted by Doug Evans on Fri, 02/27/2009 - 14:45
If you are going to read this it will not make sense unless you read to the end.
This is written this in defense of all of us on this site. It is written because we all have talked conspiracy, but as we all know when we talk it, we automatically set ourselves and our message up to being ridiculed and slandered. That in itself is not so bad. What's bad is that quite often very valid and important information becomes suppressed or distorted in the process. Thus understanding the meaning of conspiracy and how it quite often can be the the stimuli that provokes conflict will help us understand the nature of what were dealing with and, thus, how to develop a stronger and more effective argument to help build our case.
It seems using the word conspiracy always seems to touch a nerve with the so-called anti-conspiracy folk. Why is that so? If we look into the dictionary "Newspeak," we see the word "Bellyfeel." What does "bellyfeel" mean? It means to react from the "gut," or at gut level, but not logically from the mind. For many times this is why people who claim to be anti-conspiracy minded have simply been programed by the media to have a gut level reactionary response to avoid any mention of the word conspiracy. Other times they could be agent provocateurs intentionally attempting to misdirect conversation, or keep selected topics covered up. It seems it’s OK when others, speak of conspiracies, but if anyone else should mention one that they don’t want out or don’t want to acknowledge to themselves, all of the sudden you get accused as being a sky is falling chicken little, a kook, or even being a dreaded conspiracy theorist.
The fact is conspiracies do exist and those who accuse others as being a “theorist” should look up the definition of “conspiracy” before they accuse.......... Then look in the mirror.
Here is how it is: There are three major forms of conspiracy, which most people here, only know of TWO. They are: 1) A common conspiracy, in which two or more collaborate in secret to do evil. 2) A subjective conspiracy, i.e. a “theory,” and, 3) “The open conspiracy,” which is what most people do not know about and is what we are dealing with -most of the time-. It is called the open conspiracy because it is out in the open, for all to see, to such a degree that it is in everyone’s face. The book "The Open Conspiracy," was written in 1928 by George Orwell, basically prophesing that this would eventually take place.
One of the best recent examples of the open conspiracy is when George Bush was accused of plotting to form a North American Union superhighway. His response was, “How can it be a conspiracy, when its been on the internet, for all to see?”
With that said, conspiracies exist and are all around us all the time. They exist like every bit of a cat exists. A cat exists not because the critter should or should not meow, but because it embodys the definition of what it takes to be a cat. Likewise, conspiracies exist NOT because the conspiracy may or may not be a theory, or everyone already knows about it, or if very few know about it. It does not matter if the conspiracy is secret or not. It does not matter if the conspiracy may be old or brand new. BUT conspiracies exist because of the criteria of the DEFINITION and when that criteria is met: "Two or more collaborating in secret to do evil."
The point to all of this is, that when one is talking conspiracy, they're more than likely to be talking about the open conspiracy. Thus, without knowing or utilizing the conspiracy "type" in its proper context, leaves the door open to the message becoming debased, loosing it's credibility and loosing your argument.
To sum up:
Win your argument by clairifying the definition.