Naom Chomsky : why the word "conspiratory theorists" have been used to discredit not only people, but history, data, and facts.
In an article on Conspiracy Theory and the Theories behind the Conspiracies You read:..[words in brackets ar added]
"..When certain people or organizations [e.g. Shakespeare experts or the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust] want to dismiss an argument, they tend to phrase words in such a way that makes them appear illogical or treacherous if given credence. One of these words is “conspiracy”, and when put together with the word “theory” it becomes the infamous phrase “Conspiracy Theory”. Let’s take a look at the definition of these two words and try to figure out why they have been used to discredit not only people, but history, data, and facts.
The definition of conspiracy is “an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal or unlawful act, or to achieve a legal act but by illegal or unlawful means.” A conspiracy theory is “a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena.” So a conspiracy theory is a conjecture that two or more people may have planned an unlawful act, and if certain facts are proven to be true, then the conspiracy theory becomes reality.(...)
Politics is littered with conspiracies but the mainstream media treats this word with contempt.
Have we forgotten Watergate, Tonkin, Iran-Contra, Basra, Pinochet, Mohammad Mosaddeq, Reichstag, Pearl Harbor, Oklahoma City, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Pine Ridge, COINTELPRO, Oswald and JFK, Northwoods, Condor, Iraq, 9/11, LIBOR, Robo-Signing round one, Robo-Signing round two, HSBC, The War on Drugs, and much more?
So in the phrase “conspiracy theory”, it is not the conspiracy that needs to be scrutinized, but the data on which the theory is based on. And this is where the problem lies. Neither the mainstream media nor those in power have any desire to investigate the theory behind the argument. If they did, many questions could arise from the investigation which in turn could be devastating for the status quo.
So next time the phrase “conspiracy theory” is used to discredit someone, just point out that the conspiracy is not in question, but rather the data being presented from the theory. Then ask them what part of the argument they disagree with. You’ll most likely find out that they know less about the theory behind the conspiracy than they know about history.
This is when you can direct them to the teachings of Noam Chomsky – regarded as a leading contemporary historian, the author of over 100 books, and voted the “world’s top public intellectual” in 2005.
The Marlowe/Shakespeare plot was an actual conspiracy !
