"That's a conspiracy theory"

We have a cultural problem in the west. We have been blindfolded and lulled into thinking that actual conspiracy theories do not exist. Even the term "conspiracy theory" is used to indicate that something is silly and shouldn't be considered. Politicians and media use the term like this all the time.

Consider the murder of JFK, it's like the term "conspiracy theory" was made to suit that event. Anyone suggesting an alternative to the official story is considered a "conspiracy theorist". When this term is applied to them, we as a culture discount their suggestion because of the label, often without even the barest consideration of what they are saying.

This attitude winds me up. I've heard people say that these theories are nonsense because no one could keep secrets that well or for that long, that too many people know the truth. This is based on a misconception. It assumes there is always a massive head count around these things and genuine, realistic theories that differ from the official accounts require massive complicity from hordes of people.

Bollocks.

Consider this. I think everyone remembers the debacle that was the WMD threat posed by Sadam in the 90s. Did this require a massive head count to fabricate the report that sent us to war? No, it didn't. All it required was the political will and power of one or more people. When Tony "Warmonger" Blair demanded a report he could show to parliament, he only had to pose the request that he wanted a "worst-case-scenario". That does not mean he had two hundred people secretly working on the project. He only had to pose his question in a certain way, and ANYONE who wanted to keep their job had to give him what he wanted. Not a lot of people keeping secrets here, everything in the open and yet the "theory" was right. Even if you disagree with my opinion on B.S. nature of the reasons for that war, my point remains pertinent. It did not require hundreds of people to work secretly and keep mum. It was all done in the open, but for the wrong (secret) reason.

What about the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It could easily have been deliberate. All it would take would be one guy at the top to manufacture the effect. The captain of the ship says "fire back", the crew obeys orders. The truth about who shot first does not matter to most people on the ship, they're just following orders. They trust and believe in the chain of command. If the captain says they were fired on first they naturally believe it.  Again, whether you believe this was a "conspiracy" or not, the point is that only one or maybe two people would need to know. You do not have to bring the whole ship into the secret.

Having now made the point that a "conspiracy theory" does not have to involve hundreds of people keeping a secret, ponder this...it has been done, lots of times. Big secrets kept by lots of people. All of the following were secrets kept by many people for a long time that were mere "conspiracy theories" until proved to be true.

The Manhattan Project
Bletchley Park.
The poisoned water in Flint
The tobacco industry covering up the cancerous and addictive facts about cigarettes
Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment
Project MK-ULTA
The Nayirah testimony
The police cover up of Hillsborough
Poisoning of alcohol during the US prohibition
The asbestos cover-up
The NSA is tapping your phones
...and don't even get me started on the US/UK selling arms to both sides in the middle east conflicts.

So to my main point. Do not dismiss "conspiracy theories" out of hand. Look for facts. Do not assume that every official is looking out for the betterment of mankind, as too often they are only looking out for themselves, and the next paycheck.

"It builds character"

It flushes me with rage when anyone uses the phrase "it builds character" when defending the heinous crimes that take place within the school system.

In this case is mandatory rugby from age 11. When confronted by common sense, such as doctors calling for a ban on the contact side of rugby, because children end up crippled or mauled for life, the response is "it builds character". Correction. It either builds character or causes life long injuries. Sure you can build team spirit and the will to win with non-contact rugby but apparently you need life long injuries "to build character". Bullshit I say.

It's a meaningless response from those with no alternative answer. It's a stock response from those who can't conceive of change.

Consider this. Mandatory rugby. Mandatory. In what other aspect of life would you put up with mandatory contact sports? If you boss came to you and demanded you play for the company team, you'd tell him to get lost. But no, not at school apparently.

Let's consider how this rugby builds character. The spindly, fat, or small kids get ridiculed and physically pounded. That doesn't sound like "building" it sounds like crippling, both physical and mental). The larger sportier kids learn to beat on the smaller, weaker, and slower. Well, that character, but not one I'd recommend.

End the mandatory, it's evil.

 

BBC article that "builds character"