It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


the power of thought and the connotations of "conspiracy"

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 12 2006 @ 06:22 PM
would anyone agree that the Word conspiracy carries with it is a connotation that something is either balogney far fetched nutty or off the wall and this simple use of the word CONSPORACY can cause people to dismiss the idea before even subjecting it to critical thinking ( i mean we have enough to think about in our lives anyway)

but what if we were to substitute the word ALTERNATIVE when talking about these theory's a word that carries less connotations. u can think of it as an alternative theory that suspects the official version as more immoral and misleading

i mean in a capatalistic world where the goal is money and success is often related to wealth, and where marketers make incredible use of psychology and the way they can modify i.e manipulate peoples perceptions and beleifs in an attempt to sell the most product, and thus be the most wealthy= successful why would this be at all surprising.

i beleve to different degrees we all use these "immoral" actions ( in varying degrees) to be successful in something (lie. deceive and manipulate) and then we do our best to justify those actions i.e to make money or its a dog eat dog world, then why should it come to anyone's surprise that the most succesful people or wealthiest who are the best at there art/ craft and where deception and shaping attitudes and behaviors (i.e manipulating is related to success wealth=rewarded) is at it's highest skill wise that the story's and accounts they give would not reflect these same qualities they rely upon for success (deception)

sadly the more success and power you have (often wealth) then the more authority and credentials you have and also trust and the more capability u have to be a little immoral and get away with it especially when this could actually help u be seen as a success wealth=success = reward

legitamine alternative theories are a dime a dozen and when u look at these theories from a more realistic perspective u get the chance to stare a capatalistic society in the eye and realize they lie all the time

(this thread is in two seperate category's since i thought they both pertained to this thread

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 03:50 AM
I agree that the term conspiracy has a terrible social stigma connected to it. Most serious researchers in the field make a point of saying that they are NOT conspiracy theorists. Here’s a brief explanation of why the researcher on the left hate “conspiracy theories”.

Conspiracy theories may or may not identify real coteries with real influence. Conspiracy theories:
(a) Claim that a particular group acted outside usual norms in a rogue and generally secretive fashion.
(b) Disregard the structural features of institutions.

“Conspiracy Theorists on the left prefer to research Institutional Theories, which they feel could actually induced permanent social changes.

I tend to agree with this assessment. Often “conspiracies” are isolated. They are regarded as “exceptions”. This is more convenient than actually looking at the institutions which made the conspiracies possible in the first place. (pseudo-Government, Corporations)

As an example look at the current Stock Market bubble, despite the numerous telling signs such as the recent tech crash followed by huge frauds like Enron etc. The attention is mainly focused on poor accounting practices and these companies are “isolated” and considered to be “rogue”.

In a similar way I think the word globalization is synonymous with the term NWO. But again serious academics usually shy from the term NWO because of the ambiguous definition of the term.


posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 11:31 AM

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
I agree that the term conspiracy has a terrible social stigma connected to it.

Our language is controled by those wishing to control our minds. The scifi author below explains it more clearly than I.

The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words. -- Philip K.Dick

[edit on 13-7-2006 by df1]

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 04:09 PM
u the man df1 i was hoping more people could see the truth and the way i explained it above should help people look at these theories from another perspective which may lead them to say. wow i feel kind of foolish that the use of words had such a strong ability to manipulate by beleifs and attitudes it may be foolish to think these alternative theory's are NOT holding much truth

don't worry people it is a realization more and more are learning

posted on Jul, 13 2006 @ 09:45 PM
Also check out another fictionb writers thoughts on the subject, George Orwell's Politics and the English Language.


posted on Jul, 18 2006 @ 12:56 PM
This guy makes some pretty good points about how the use of language is manipulated by those in power to mean whatever they desire.

George Lakoff, professor of cognitive linguistics at the University of California, Berkeley...
makes a very persuasive argument that Democrats have allowed Republicans to hijack words such as "freedom" and "liberty" in fundamental ways that have undercut Democrats' credibility. His latest book, "Whose Freedom? The Battle over America's Most Important Idea," builds on earlier works that urge progressives to stop getting their pockets picked by Republicans over issues in which, he says, progressives actually hold the higher moral ground.

Lakoff contends that Republicans not only have taken ownership of words, they also have skillfully succeeded in framing the debate. That has trapped Democrats into being reactive, implicitly buying into the GOP framework and almost dooming them to failure.

Consider the war in Iraq. Republicans have adroitly labeled Democratic calls for troop pullbacks as "cut and run." So how did Democrats respond? With John Kerry saying that the Bush strategy is "lie and die."
Chicago Tribune

The patriot act is not patriotic.
Prohibiting the burning of the flag does not protect liberty.
And Muslims do not hate freedom.

new topics

top topics

log in