Add to favorites Examiner Bio

Rethinking Conspiracy

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

 

A good example of how the term conspiracy is not only misapplied but incorrectly used is how it’s employed to disparage people who find fault with official versions of major events. The John Kennedy Assassination and “9-11” tragedies provide excellent examples.

 

After Kennedy was murdered, very few people questioned the Warren Commission’s verdict that Lee Oswald had shot the president, unassisted, and anyone who challenged that belief was called a “conspiracy nut (or buff)” and not to be taken seriously. Nearly fifty years later, roughly 75% of the US population believes there was a conspiracy and that certain elements of the government helped cover it up. I'm not making up figures. A simple web search will verify them. Apparently there is a certain percentage of the population with a psychological need to protect themselves from such realities, so it is easier for such people to label others as conspiracy nuts than to assimilate the hard but discomforting facts. In the case of the John Kennedy assassination, even a congressional committee, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, concluded  in 1979 that there was a conspiracy to kill John Kennedy.

 

They tried to soften that reality by calling it a “limited conspiracy,” as if Oswald’s drunken cousin had helped him and didn't involve elements of US Intelligence, but the fact remains that the US government has admitted there was a conspiracy. “Conspiracy nuts” were finally vindicated, but I’ve never heard anyone apologize for unfairly calling them names and questioning their sanity.

 

The current topic that yields the most accusations of conspiracy nuttiness involves the circumstances surrounding the 9-11 events. Anyone who challenges the 9-11 Commission’s conclusion are called conspiracy nuts and theorists, as were their predecessors when JFK was killed.

 

History repeats itself.

 

The strange thing about the 9-11 affair is that even the 9-11 Commission called the events a conspiracy. In its view, the conspirators were fanatical Muslims, but somehow that investigative body has been exempt from accusations of being conspiracy theorists even though they called the event a conspiracy. Apparently one must disagree with the government in order to qualify as a “conspiracy theorist.” That might feel good if you’re inclined that way, but it’s not sound logic.

 

The critics of the 9-11 Commission have some good points, and it’s not fair to simply dismiss them as conspiracy kooks when the very people they’re countering are also claiming there was a conspiracy. The only question is: whose conspiracy was it?

 

9-11 critics, for example, wonder why there was no significant wreckage at the Pentagon. The official version says that jet fuel fires evaporated the titanium engines, yet the passengers' bodies could be identified. Does it take a conspiratorial nutcase to see a discrepancy?

 

According to witnesses, including numerous police and firemen, explosions were happening all around the Twin Towers even before the planes hit. Were all these trained professionals mistaken? Is someone a conspiratorial nut for asking the question?

 

This isn’t the place to debate the pros and cons of various conspiracy theories, but keep in mind that conspiracies exist. They have always existed, and a person’s not wanting them to be true does not invalidate their existence. Be prudent when using the term “conspiracy nut,” and if you do use it, be sure your usage reflects your target’s lack of logic, not your own.