Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jan 2002 21:58:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1754 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> As further clarification, it might be useful to distinguish between the
> Foucault's-Pendulum-style Conspiracies and simple two-guys-working-together
> conspracies. <Snip>
> The essential difference relates to the level of organization and the
> breadth of the enterprise in question. I would suggest that disparate
> factions working toward a similar goal do not constitute a Conspiracy; some
> deliberate coordination between them is fundamental.
Dave!
Is this the semantic game AGAIN?! Man, you love to talk about words...
Maybe we just need another word for what happens -- maybe the word
"conspiracy" is insufficient to describe observed phenomena.
I keep thinking about chaos theory, nanotechnology, the way different kinds
of cells in the human body keep things working -- for that matter I keep
thinking about metaphors like a room filled with monkeys and typewriters
independently creating the works of William Shakespeare. How about
terrorist cells?
-- Any single-minded entity that does it's little job with the net effect of
such acts synergistically becoming more meaningful than the simple sum of
the composite acts.
That's the small, mobile, highly effective, tiny-stepped strategy that can
describe everything from evolution to the existence of the Catholic faith.
Those baby steps will take you all the way -- even if the single actors
didn't have a concerted goal in mind.
It doesn't have to fit the description of a "conspiracy" per se, but one can
see that the end results can easily be the same.
Anyway, if conspiracies don't exist -- why is it so important to keep
everything the govt. knows about the assassination of JFK under wraps until
sometime approx. around the year 2020? What is being protected? Who is
being protected? I certainly doubt that it is the interests of the people...
I am not a conpsiracy nut wearing my foil helmet to protect me from the spy
satellites owned by Major League Baseball, but at some point one has to look
at groups of facts and wonder how such things managed to coalesce into some
kind of substantive form such that some action or end result was achieved.
Conspiracy? Maybe not...
...but then again, what's the difference?
Borrowing money from the Federal Reserve is wrong even if the Federal
Reserve is not owned by foreign interests or banks. So I don't care what
Tri-lateral, Warburg, Rothschilds, Skull and X-Bones, Cthulhu zombies may or
may not be involved -- the basics facts are such that I know we are doing
something different than what was stipulated in the Constitution. That is
enough for me to recognize a problem -- it doesn't matter how we got here.
Don't get caught up in arguing over the details if you can see that the big
picture is still there.
-- Hop-Frog (drink Duff ... responsibly.)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) Sorry, occupational hazard (English major)... The killer is that, the word does have an unfortunate overlap into two related but distinct applications, so it's tough to keep them separate. (...) I'll buy that. (...) I thought they bumped the (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: An armed society...(what if?)
|
| (...) As further clarification, it might be useful to distinguish between the Foucault's-Pendulum-style Conspiracies and simple two-guys-working-together conspracies. The former generally cannot exist in its described form, since it demands far too (...) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
