Fear of the word Conspiracy

Conspiracies happen all the time. So why are people so timid to use the word? There is a subset of people that believe that every thing that goes on is controlled by a vast conspiracy. These people look at all sorts of things as evidence to support their notion that nothing happens without this conspiracies say so. The implication is that their control is absolute.

This notion is arguably false. To operate a conspiracy of this reach and size is exceedingly difficult. The larger and more powerful the conspiracy the more likely it is to fall apart.

Conspiracies do happen. It is simply the collusion of 2 or more individuals that decide to game a system to their advantage using illegal or questionable tactics. It is nearly certain that George and Co are involved in a conspiracy of some proportion.

The key difference between Conspiracy Theory and real Conspiracies is the amount of control exerted by the conspirators. In reality all they can do is pressure things and hope it goes their way. They do not have absolute control. Things go wrong and plans fall apart.

... to describe the way the Iraqi guerilla fighters operate. I.e., they know they need to go out and make trouble, but there is no one coordinating them. I think that's how a lot of "conspiracies" work, including the infamous "VRWC." Participants just do their parts autonomously, but the effect is the same as if they had conspired. There should be another word for it. Gang mentality?

when people accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist. I point out that none of it is secret. They have all published their intentions. The only reason it's "secret" is because people don't have the time to read it.

It is very reasonable to assume that the Elites use strategic planning against us. Wording it this way seems to give it more credibility for some reason.

How would you know? Really, think about it...

EVERYONE who wonders about conspiracies ought to read this!

http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special_Reports/Higdon111401/higdon111401.html

The common law definition of conspiracy is quite simple. An agreement between two or more persons to do either an unlawful act, or a lawful act by unlawful means. And frankly, early in common law, neither the act nor the means needed to be unlawful, but merely wrongful. But for the sake of simplicity in our examination, the crime has developed over the years to where a minimum of two people must reach agreement to either seek a lawful purpose by unlawful means, or an unlawful purpose by any means. The conspirators need not carry out their goal through any spoken or written contract, but actions alone can imply the agreement between them if their actions suggest that such acts would not have been carried out absent an agreement.

This touches, somewhat, on the reason that we recognize such a crime to begin with. For surely we could simply convict anyone who commits a crime, agreed on with someone else or not, of the crime he actually committed. The problem arises where some of the members of the conspiracy carry out no illegal act whatever, and achieve no benefit from the target crime. They conduct purely legal activity and achieve their benefits from those lawful acts, so that others may benefit from the unlawful result. The law provides that participation in the conspiracy itself is a crime so that the lawful actor, knowingly seeking the occurrence of an unlawful event, will not escape liability.

<snip>

Over time, the law has recognized three types of conspiracies. First is the simple conspiracy that we commonly think of where, for instance, two or more get together with the intention of robbing a bank. The second is most often referred to as a "chain link" conspiracy, the best example of which is a series of drug deals, from manufacturer to the street dealer. Each group of individuals go about their function, committing illegal transaction after illegal transaction. Each link is only vicariously criminally liable for the crimes of the other links if they have known of the specific role of each link, as each link carries out its unlawful activity.

When Hillary Clinton talks of a "vast right wing conspiracy" to bring down her husband, the mainstream media calls to mind the first type; discrediting the notion that large numbers of individuals in the courts, in the press, in business, and in politics must have sat in some convention hall somewhere to devise a common plan to attack her husband, and then to have maintained the secret. But, in fact, what the former First Lady was referring to was a third type of conspiracy. Commonly called a "hub and wheel," or a "spoke and wheel" conspiracy. It is the most intricate, and the most difficult for a prosecutor to prove. It requires a minimum of people in the hub with actual knowledge of the overall plan, as long as the hub has diverse influence over the various spokes. This is the type of conspiracy that is most common in corporate crimes, such as anti-trust, free trade infringements, and SEC violations.

(much more...)

As I said, truly a must-read!

sw