NewsFocus In-depth

A Look at the hidden facts beneath the story

The Absurdity of the Conspiracy Theory Fallacy
When Facts and Reality Give Way to Big $$$ Cover-ups and Lies
NewsFocus, by Tim Watts 070409 

Conspiracy is a sad fact of life...

When it comes to high crimes against the people, a mantra often used by the guilty in order to diminish the allegations against them, or from the ignorant who refuse to entertain the evil of an organized cabal, is the label of “conspiracy theory.” It is a term that has been methodically marketed to pre-condition the public into wrongly believing that conspiracy theory is a bad thing. This intentionally defined derogatory expression is coined from two simple words, “conspiracy” and “theory.” Let’s take a quick moment to look at each of these two words.

Conspiracy:  n., pl. -cies.  1. The act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. (see conspire)
conspirative, conspiratorial, conspiratory, conspiratorially


The.o.ry n., pl. –ries  1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 3. Hypothesis or Conjecture.
the·o·ret·i·cal, the·o·ret·ic, the·o·ret·i·cal·ly

(Einstein's theory of relativity, Scientific theory, chaos theory, theory of evolution)

Each of the above definitions is easily understandable and unarguably a legitimate word in its own right. Of the two, conspiracy seems to have been given the worst rap, yet, by its own definition, it is as valid and credible as any word there is, an expression quite easily supported by the very nature of good versus evil. For conspiracy to be cavalierly  disregarded as pure folly is to disregard the legitimate premise of the definition itself.

In all reality a conspiracy takes place somewhere on this planet every single day. To disregard conspiracy is blind ignorance and absolute naive foolishness.

Some officials in positions of authority want us to refuse to entertain conspiracy, as if it were sheer lunacy, but what they disregard with this disingenuous ruse is that many throughout history have died for ideals and money. Power, greed and lust have done much to try the human soul. Yet many have been beguiled into refusing to entertain conspiracy, even though most understand and believe that true evil really does exist in our world.

Do conspiracy debunkers honestly think that true evil is simply too stupid to organize an agenda?

Most large coups and crimes are generally perpetrated by more than one person. It is rare indeed for most large crimes to be organized and executed by a singular entity, so to claim that conspiracies (two or more persons) do not exist is undeniably ludicrous, if not simply moronic.

Some in government clearly seem to reserve the right to label what a conspiracy is and what isn’t. A look back through time reveals much in this regard.

Instances Where Government Actions Could Be Considered As "Conspiracy"  

The definition of conspiracy clearly fits for the following historic events. Look at these events with the official line that was fed to us at the time.
If we were to believe the first story told to us by the government, then a foreign born conspiracy would be responsible for these events. So where is the argument in that? No problem from a government perspective, but the minute the finger gets pointed the other way, conspiracy suddenly becomes a very uncomfortable dirty word. Those daring to challenge the official government story are routinely labeled as conspiracy theorists, but history often has a way of revealing the real truth.

  • Sinking of the Maine – (leading to the Spanish-American war) The new US excuse for the sinking of the Maine has been given as explosives stored near the hot steam room, not a Spanish mine which the US originally claimed as the impetus for the war. It would seem the conflict could now more appropriately be named the American-Spanish war.
  • Sinking of the Lusitania – (leading to World War I) The US is said to have given the Germans information that the Lusitania was carrying a secret cargo of weapons. A German U-boat then sank the ship, giving the US the excuse to enter into World War I.
  • Pearl Harbor – (leading to World War II) According to Admiral Kimmel, the US had broken the Japanese codes and knew in advance exactly when and where the attack would begin. The US moved key ships out to sea and is said to have allowed the attacks to take place, justifying its war presence and the eventual use of nuclear weapons which resulted in a long-sought place of world military prominence for the US.
  • Gulf of Tonkin – (leading to the Viet Nam War) The US claimed that the North Vietnamese launched torpedoes at the destroyer Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin. Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara later admitted that the attack had never happened. Essentially, the US involvement in the Viet Nam War was based on a lie.
  • First Iraq War – (leading to the Gulf War) The US told Saddam it was okay to take over Kuwait and seize their oil fields. We even sold them the poison gas to attack Kuwait with. The Kuwaiti Ambassador’s daughter in Washington falsely posed as an Iraqi nurse, claiming babies were taken from incubators and left to die on the cold floor. She was said to be coached by DC ad firm, Hill & Knowlton.
  • 1995 World Trade Center Bombing - The FBI was intimately involved, using Ramzi Youseff as bait to coerce a terrorist attack. The FBI supplied real bomb material, rather than fake explosives. Youseff became alarmed and contacted others in regards to this.
  • 9/11 Attacks – (leading to Afghanistan War and Iraq War) The Project For a New American Century (PNAC), a treatise detailing a plan for US dominance in the world. A neo-con group wrote that this plan would take years to achieve, unless of course there was a new Pearl Harbor-type event. Shortly after, we had the 9/11 attacks. This event has produced numerous evidentiary oddities that question how Osama bin Laden or Al Qaeda could have pulled off the attacks and the controlled demolition of three WTC towers, one not hit by plane, none burning from top to bottom, yet all collapsing conveniently into their own basements at near free fall speed, through the path of most resistance. Note: The Afghanistan War and Iraq War were both planned long before 9/11.

Given the Maine incident and the fact that the military is generally much smarter with the storage of its munitions, it would seem that every one of these events would have required more than one person to execute the complex planning that was needed to carry out each event. This would undeniably be, by definition, an outright conspiracy, whether on the part of a foreign power or unscrupulous forces within our government. Unless one person was solely responsible for each of these events, they must be considered conspiracies.

Each one of these disasters is not exactly as the public was told, yet no matter who was responsible, they all boil down to actual bona fide conspiracies, with two or more persons involved. Realistically and statistically, according to all the odds... none of these historical events could have been the work of just one person.

For others to claim that some in the US are not capable of a false flag operation is wildly ingenuous at best and unfortunately ignorant in the very least.

Consider the recently revealed Operation Northwoods document. Some in the US government concocted a plan in 1964 to either sink a boat or shoot down an airliner near Cuba in order to go to war with that country. This unscrupulously planned provocation is well documented and easily verified today. It proves without dispute that there are indeed factions within the US government who scheme deviously to achieve nationalist and/or capitalist goals at the expense and careless disregard for human life.

When those within government are implicated or caught in the act of heinous deeds, they immediately paint those making the allegations as conspiracy theorists. In a calculated fashion they carefully insinuate that any charges are totally unfounded and without merit. The inference they intentionally work to convey is that those who have uncovered the truth are mentally unstable and not reliable sources to be believed. Whether it be Pearl Harbor, MLK, JFK, RFK, or 9/11, the tactic is always the same, discredit the messenger.

Two little words. That’s all it seems to take these days to discount the truth, but if you consider the nonsense in the argument, or therein the actual lack of a tenable argument, it’s quite easy to see the absurdity in such a weak premise.

Why is it okay for some in the government to cry conspiracy when they want, yet at the same time negate the theories of others when they claim there could be a government conspiracy?

The point here is, conspiracy, by its definition, is okay with the government when it is assigned by official sources, but clearly it is not considered plausible when suggested by those that are not in a position of power. How is this justified?

This clearly appears to be a double-standard which can only weigh heavily against "we the people" when dealing with government.

Conspiracy is a word with clear meaning and explicitness. It has meaning because it truly does exist in our world.

Some on the other hand don’t want us to believe in the reality of evil or bad intentions. Some would have us look the other way or totally disregard accusations of egregious criminal behavior by giving simple words an unsavory connotation, neutering their validity and the charges of those who would levy them.

To spin an old saying, “sticks and stones may break bones, but words will never hurt you,” especially if “conspiracy” and “theory” are involved. Unless of course you have the ability to reason on your own and realize the absurdity of the conspiracy theory fallacy.

Conspiracy is a valid word with definitive meaning. It says absolutely nothing about having a contrarian point of view. It merely denotes a sad fact of life.

To all the myriad parrots in the mainstream media…from the Chronicle, the Examiner, the Post and the Times, to CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, FOX and the likes of corporate mouthpieces such as Ted Koppel, Diane Sawyer, Charlie Gibson, Wolf Blitzer, Anderson Cooper, Campbell Brown, Joe Scarborough and a countless horde of others, to talk blowhards like Rush Limbaugh, as well as numerous shills such as Neil Cavuto, Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity… conspiracy is a legitimate word. If only they would take the time to look it up between their make-up and blow-comb sessions. If they continue to refuse to entertain it or give it the proper respect with which it is owed, then just maybe, quite possibly, they are also part of it.

Great men and women have died trying to expose it, while the weak and evil have killed in an effort to hide it.

Conspiracy is real. It is time for those in the media to muster up some rational intellect and moral integrity and deal with it in a serious manner.

See also: The Nature of a Conspiracy

See also:
The Truth On Conspiracy Theory


Ed Note: Don't be a lemming! Do not take this author's word for it. Research for yourself and find out the truth. Think on your own. Find alternative press outside the corporate media. Don't be caught up in left versus right. Reason the facts. Big money controls the world and wants to fool you. Thanks for reading


Return to