I am no "conspiracy theorist," to use
your phrase. In fact, I am the opposite. I totally concur with a statement made by Historian and Philosopher Thomas Molnar when he said (paraphrase):
...Conspiracies are almost always the product of lazy historians. History is complicated. Current events are so distorted that it is often very difficult to find out the truth about what has happened today. History is much more difficult to make sense out of. If you take shortcuts you will get the causal relationships wrong...
So, give me a chance to show you that I was not referring to conspiracies in
any of my posts.
One of my major points of concern with the GW Movement is that the recommendations if and when implemented will create the opportunity for corruption and socialization on an unprecedented scale in the history of humankind. Note that at no time am I saying that there are a bunch of guys in a smoke filled room that are pulling the strings.
I am not and have not said or implied that in any of my posts. For decades the FBI textbooks listed
opportunity as one of the six major motives for all crime. Most of my arguments are about the opportunities presented by what the Movement proposes -- and ignoring them won't make them any less threatening to civil society.
Yes, I mentioned Hitler and some others, but that was only an attempt to give a remote idea of
the scale of the changes being casually thrown around (and never explained) by the Movement. I'm no economic expert but I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say that the economies destroyed by Hitler, Pol Pot and Lenin pale in significance when compared to our current world economy. The examples are actually
understated when compared to the prize. I've obviously failed to get my point across. When I mention Hitler, Pol Pot and Lenin and what they did to the rights of their citizens and their economies, the real point is that they were only able to do it because their followers never DEMANDED answers to
how the changes would be made and
at whose expense. What I was trying to give examples of were not conspiracies at all, but how time and again modern man has lost everything because of his willingness to turn over huge chunks of power over every aspect of their lives to one entity or another
without ever reading the fine print. It cost them dearly. Over less than five generations Socialism alone killed 110 million people at the hands of their own governments world wide.
The examples I've used are dramatic, but hey, they are dwarfed in scale by what has been proposed. Socializing the whole world all at once is way too dramatic for me. Some might think that this will be done without socializing the world and changing virtually every aspect of our everyday lives. I would answer that no information that would counter my fears has any part of The Movement's dogma. They normally rarely even weakly deny the socialization and they
never talk about any measures that may be taken that will actively prevent it.
So from my point of view The Movement is no vast Left Wing conspiracy -- it's just a warm, fuzzy deal made up mainly of fine print written in invisible ink. I am horrified that so few on this planet see the countless, systemic similarities to all of the most deadly and costly fiascoes of the twentieth century.
I'd also like to give an example of how
opportunity may be confused with
conspiracy:
Suppose I wrote about a long, dark, narrow alley in a city. The alley has cars, garbage cans, stacks of pallets and other objects distributed throughout it's length that give people lots of places to hide. I could describe this alley as a very dangerous place -- a place so dangerous that many people are robbed, beaten and raped there every week.
GreenLED, it is very important to understand that in the alley example above I am in no way implying that all of the thugs in the alley are involved in a
conspiracy to commit crimes there. The alley only presents suitable conditions for
many, many opportunities to commit crimes. That is an important distinction.
I devoted nearly a
whole post to listing groups who benefit
greatly by Global Warming. The post is still there. Like the thugs in the alley, many who profit from the
opportunities presented by Global Warming
are not required to be part of any conspiracy. Likewise they may act individually to protect their favorable environment just as different muggers may individually break streetlights to enhance their own work environs. The muggers do not have to engage in a conspiracy every time they do something that inadvertently may make another mugger's lot easier.
My examples of twentieth century history likewise do not point to conspiracy at all -- only that the broad ranging measures demanded and yet not explained by The Movement create a nearly identical set of
opportunities for corruption and abuse that empowered most of the now fallen Socialist dictators of the last century.
I believe many will see that I never referred to any conspiracies in any of my posts.
I must also state that while I cannot know why you chose to take the
conspiracy tack in reference to my posts I do know that to compare someone to a "conspiracy theorist", to use your exact phrase, is tantamount to calling someone a 'nut-case' -- someone whose ravings should be summarily dismissed by calmer folk. That tactic is
yet another rhetorical device that has been used nearly endlessly in countless disagreements. As I said, I can have no absolute knowledge of your intent in the use of that phrase to describe my post, but I certainly may illustrate it's hackneyed use as a crass attack by countless others in the past to discredit those who disagreed with them.
