On Conspiracy Theory: A Response To A Fellow Conspirator

This post will be mainly responding to a blog post written by a dear friend of mine Adam Woodard. If you would like to read his blogs please go to: http://politicmusing.blogspot.com/. The post can be found at the top of the blog.

Well I will not be as eloquent as my friend in his writing, but I hope my message would be conveyed properly.

First of all I agree with most of his post, as his argument is not stated until the latter part of the post (Particularly the last two paragraphs), on which I slightly disagree. He says that conspiracy theories provide an alternative version of a certain issue, so to speak. In other words, they sustain a number of answers without one being THE answer. But the question is, do we have to abide by one? Must we pertain to certain criteria for answering a question?

Conspiracy theories, like my friend said, address unquestioned areas of a certain issue. They do so because some people refuse to let particular facts, information, etc. out in public for a number of security, national or societal reasons. However, they who ignite those theories play on a very basic ground. A common denominator that appeases human beings' curiosity. What If?

Now what if is a very dangerous question in any shape or form. This simple question can raise civilizations or ruin them. Conspiracy theories are like that. They question the reliability of given sets of facts. It is a purely democratic way to address the credible essence of them. Take the JFK assassination issue for example. It is widely acknowledged as the 'Holy Grail' of conspiracy theories. Their Pandora's Box. We all agree that Kennedy was assassinated. But what if the government was in on it? What if it wants to hide something from the populace in fear of resentment or protest? That is what they essentially do.

Governments want their populace like sheep, blind sheep even. Until the fox comes along and eats them. Ironically, and that is the beauty of freedom of speech, no one stops or prevents those theories from coming into the picture. Partly because of democratic institutionalism, but mostly because fear of people's anger. A prominent conspiracy theory advocate is Jesse Ventura. He hosts a number of programs, one of which is called Conspiracy Theory. Let us say the government tries to arrest him for misleading the population. People will take to the streets in protest of such action, even if they do not agree with his opinions. They would do that simply out of respect for him for offering several outcomes and answers. Questioning everything.

Adam said in the last paragraph : ''but if the conspiracy theorists underwent the same scrutiny that the media does there'd be a lot less of them.'' I would go on to say that if the government respects its citizenry and provides reliable and credible sources, conspiracy theorists would not exist at all. In some parts of the world, and surely Adam would agree, if you say anything other than the government's perspective, you will be arrested, executed or exiled, let alone provide a conspiracy theory. He also states that they are called theories for a reason. He means that they are also questionable. But what if the information that the government provides are in essence mere theories? And what the actual theories are trying to do is to give us light and illumination? To think first, not to act. To hold plausibility and accountability.

This was by no means a counter-argument, because he would simply win. I have known him long enough to not to debate with him, let alone refute his writings. This was simply a continuation of his train of thought that, I would like to think, he might have cut on purpose. Maybe to raise a conspiracy theory??