30 August, 2009
Have you ever been engaged in a discussion and making pretty good points you think when your friend simply
dismissses everything you say with the comment "Oh, that's a conspiracy theory." It has happened to me more than once.
Without going into the merits of any particular "conspiracy theory", I pose the question: "Is is justifiable to dismiss an argument
just because it is a "conspiracy theory"? Conspiracies to overthrow the state and establish a new government or social order have happened in the past.
The Cataline conspiracy of the late Roman Republic is well documented. No one would argue that it could not have and did not occur just because
it involved a conspiracy. Likewise the Bolshevik conspiracy of the 20th century for the overthrow of the Russian state and later many others
is well known. How about Guy Fawkes and the gunpowder plot? And of course history is repleat examples of one member of a royal family marrying another
or knocking off another to either preserve or change the line of succession and thus control of the state and manage the course of history for the benefit
of the royal family, the church, or perhaps both.
Clearly conspiracies have occured in the past. Is there any reason to believe they cannot still be going on? Have human motivations such as lust for
power, wealth and prestige changed? So why is a particular line of argument absurd just because it involves conspiracy?