Reply #95: This example demonstrates the uselessness of the terminology. [View All]

[JackRiddler]

In that episode, objectively, the only "conspiracy theorists" were the Bush regime members, who posited a non-existent conspiracy between Saddam and "Al-Qaeda." This particular conspiracy theory contributed to the destruction of the Iraqi nation and the deaths of about a million people.

Thus the responsible Bush regime members were 1) a conspiracy (because they conspired to lie and manufacture evidence), and they were also 2) conspiracy theorists (because they wittingly invented a fictional conspiracy). See?

But in the bizarro-world terminology that dominate and degrades American discourse, people who correctly pointed out that the government was lying... were attacked as the "conspiracy theorists." Because this term is used about as promiscuously and with the same intent and similar effect as "commie" in the 1950s or "liberal" in the 1980s.

The CT term is used consistently only with regard to allegations of crimes by the government, corporations, or establishment institutions.

You can talk about mean and nasty plans of the Commies (back in the day) or nowadays the Islamists, or Iran or North Korea. Even if these plans don't even exist, you're not a "conspiracy theorist."

But if you attribute mean and nasty plans to your own government, or to corporations, or the glorious banks without whom we cannot even breathe - watch out! You're a "CT" and now fair game for any association that your accuser wishes to make, no matter how irrelevant.