Why government shills & intellectual cowards LOVE the term "conspiracy theory"

Author Topic: Why government shills & intellectual cowards LOVE the term "conspiracy theory"  (Read 103575 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/02/ridicule-of-conspiracy-theories-focuses.html

Ridicule of Conspiracy Theories Focuses On Diffusing Criticism of the Powerful

Washington's Blog
Wednesday, February 10, 2010

The label "conspiracy theory" is commonly used to try to discredit criticism of the powerful in government or business.

For example, just this week - after Tony Blair was confronted by the Iraq Inquiry with evidence that he had used lies to sell the Iraq war - Blair dismissed the entire Iraq Inquiry as simply being part of Britain's "obsession with conspiracy theories". (Not only did Blair know that Saddam possessed no WMDs, but the French this week accused Blair of using of ‘Soviet-style' propaganda in run-up to the Iraq war).

Of course, the American government has been busted in the last couple of years in numerous conspiracies. For example, William K. Black - professor of economics and law, and the senior regulator during the S & L crisis - says that the government's entire strategy now - as during the S&L crisis - is to cover up how bad things are ("the entire strategy is to keep people from getting the facts"). Similarly, 7 out of the 8 giant, money center banks went bankrupt in the 1980's during the "Latin American Crisis", and the government's response was to cover up their insolvency.

And the government spied on American citizens (even before 9/11 ... confirmed here and here), while saying "we don't spy". The government tortured prisoners in Iraq, but said "we don't torture".

In other words, high-level government officials have conspired to cover up the truth.

And Tom Brokaw notes:

    All wars are based on propaganda.

A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy.

Acceptable Versus Unacceptable Conspiracy Theories

Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See this, this, this, this and this.

Time Magazine's financial columnist Justin Fox writes:

    Some financial market conspiracies are real ...

    Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.

Indeed, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven by the evidence.

But - while people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies - they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.

Indeed, those who most loudly attempt to ridicule and discredit conspiracy theories tend to focus on defending against criticism involving the powerful.

This may be partly due to psychology: it is scary for people to admit that those who are supposed to be their "leaders" protecting them may in fact be human beings with complicated motives who may not always have their best interests in mind. And see this.

[Continued...]


http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/02/there-are-no-conspiracies-because-daddy.html

There are No Conspiracies Because Daddy Will Always Protect Us

Washington's Blog
Thursday, February 11, 2010

Yesterday, I wrote:

    It is scary for people to admit that those who are supposed to be their "leaders" protecting them may in fact be human beings with complicated motives who may not always have their best interests in mind.

Indeed, long-term psychological studies show that approximately one-quarter of the American population has an "authoritarian personality", where they look for a "strong leader" to protect them (that's why even after his lies were exposed, Bush still stayed at approximately a 25% approval rating).

Authoritarians not only don't want to hear that the most powerful people might be acting against their interest, they will aggressively defend against any such information.

But it's not just the quarter of the population that can be said to clinically suffer from authoritarian personality disorder.

All of us - to one degree or another - have invested tremendous hope in the idea that our leaders and institutions will protect us.

As just one example, Americans have traditionally believed that the "invisible hand of the market" means that capitalism will benefit us all without requiring any oversight. However, as the New York Times notes, the real Adam Smith did not believe in a magically benevolent market which operates for the benefit of all without any checks and balances:

[Continued...]


http://infowars.net/articles/february2008/270208evil.htm

See no evil

By David Cogswell
Online Journal
Feb 27, 2008
 
I recently had a conversation with a person I'll just call "a successful writer," and when I mentioned an idea that he classified as "conspiracy theory" he said this: "The trouble with conspiracy theories is that they really take a toll on readership. Many people write you off as a conspiracy nut and the result is that you don't get to have your voice in the mainstream dialogue."

Now that gave me pause. It was a slap in the face that forced me to confront the question: Why write? I had to consider the question of whether I want to participate in a dialogue in which one must wear blinders and observe strict boundaries to the free flow of logical discourse or thought. Must I stymie the flow of rational thought whenever I reach a point deemed unacceptable by the establishment? Let's be clear with our terms. The term "conspiracy theory" is not a literal description, it's a label for ideas that cross certain borders, in particular, ideas that suggest abuses of power and illegal activity by people in high places. Conspiracy theory is the label for forbidden thought. The problem with "going there" is not just that one can be proven wrong. It is that it is forbidden to even think about it or discuss it. If one disobeys, one is exiled from the community.

The fact that the term "conspiracy theory" has no literal meaning is one of the many things that was firmly established by the events of 9/11. The official explanation of events of that day is unequivocably a theory of conspiracy. It's the ultimate conspiracy theory for the world's most spectacular crime, but it's not called a conspiracy theory. That term is reserved for any ideas that contradict the official story. This is a very important point. Conspiracy theories are not about conspiracies, they are about forbidden thought. The label "conspiracy theory" is a stop sign on the avenues of rational thought and inquiry. It says, "Stop here. Entrance forbidden."

When one reaches the stop sign, one must turn around, one must find another way, must bend the very laws of physics if that is what it takes, or throw them out altogether in order to avoid following a certain train of thought to its logical conclusion. In 2008 the abuses and outrages of the American political system have ballooned to such monstrous proportions, that there is very little room to think at all if one wishes to remain respectable. That's why the noise from the official media propaganda system is so overwhelmingly loud. The box that we are forced to contain our thoughts within is getting so small there is barely enough room within it to scratch one's nose.

[Continued...]


http://www.prisonplanet.com/george-carlin-%E2%80%93-conspiracy-theorists.html

George Carlin – Conspiracy Theorists

You Tube
Wednesday, August 26, 2009

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bO0-u900OG4

The late George Carlin talks about how the term “conspiracy theorist” is a label used by the establishment to dismiss the idea that powerful people might get together and actually plan anything.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/conspiracy.htm

Conspiracy Theory as Naive Deconstructive History

by Floyd Rudmin
newdemocracyworld.org
April, 2003

Floyd Rudmin is a member of the Psychology Department, University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway.

"Conspiracy theory" is usually used as a pejorative label, meaning paranoid, nutty, marginal, and certainly untrue. The power of this pejorative is that it discounts a theory by attacking the motivations and mental competence of those who advocate the theory. By labeling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory," evidence and argument are dismissed because they come from a mentally or morally deficient personality, not because they have been shown to be incorrect. Calling an explanation of events "conspiracy theory" means, in effect, "We don't like you, and no one should listen to your explanation."

In earlier eras other pejorative labels, such as "heresy," "witchery," and "communism" also worked like this. The charge of "conspiracy theory" is not so severe as these other labels, but in its way is many times worse. Heresy, witchcraft, and communism at least retain some sense of potency. They designate ideas to be feared. "Conspiracy theory" implies that the ideas and their advocates are simple-minded or insane.

All such labels implicitly define a community of orthodox believers and try to banish or shun people who challenge orthodox beliefs. Members of the community who are sympathetic to new thoughts might shy away from the new thoughts and join in the shunning due to fear of being tainted by the pejorative label.

There is currently a boom in books on conspiracy theory, most of them derogatory, as is evident in some recent titles: Architects of Fear: Conspiracy Theories and Paranoia in American Politics; Conspiracy Culture: From the Kennedy Assassination to the X-Files; Conspiracy: How the Paranoid Style Flourishes and Where It Comes From.

Within popular US culture, there is also now a boom in movies, novels, and web sites that feature conspiracy theories. The apparent popularity of conspiracy theories is often cited as a cause of concern, that our society is breaking down. For example, Canadian journalist Robert Sibley has said that conspiracy theory is "a nihilistic vortex of delusion and superstition that negates reality itself."

I think that just the reverse is true. There is nothing insane or sinister about conspiracy theory research. It is rather matter of fact. A wide range of ordinary people from many walks of life take an interest in the political and economic events of our era. They think things through on their own, use the library, seek for evidence, articulate a theory, communicate with other people with similar interests. It is heartening that some citizens invest time and effort to unearth and expose some of the conspiracies that damage our society, our economy and our government.

But it certainly does seem that some historians and journalists are quite frightened of conspiracy theory and its wide popularity. Those are the two professions whose job it is to interpret our world for us. When ordinary people take on the task of doing this themselves, it must mean that they don't believe what the authorities say we should. Maybe the professionals feel threatened when amateurs think about political events for themselves.

Perhaps we are in the middle of a new Reformation. The high priests are again losing their monopoly, and they see us sliding into cults and chaos. Something similar happened in 1517, when Martin Luther challenged the Church and translated the Bible into German so that ordinary people could think about theology for themselves. When put on trial, Luther said, "I cannot submit my faith either to the Pope or to the Councils, because it is clear as day they have frequently erred and contradicted each other." That is exactly what a JFK conspiracy theorist would say about the Warren Commission.

People take on the task of explaining things for themselves when the orthodox experts insist on saying nonsense—for example, that Lee Harvey Oswald acting alone killed JFK. A Reformation is a rebellion against arrogance. If historians and journalists want to understand why they are being displaced by conspiracy theory, it would be most reasonable to examine their own failings first.

The correct big-word label for conspiracy theory would be "naive deconstructive history." It is "history" because it explains events, but only after they have happened. Past-tense. Conspiracy theory, as a political act, is an after-the-fact complaint. To see conspiracies while they are happening would require the resources and powers of police forces and espionage agencies.

Conspiracy theory is "deconstructive history" because it is in rebellion against official explanations and against orthodox journalism and orthodox history. Conspiracy theory is radically empirical: tangible facts are the focus, especially facts that the standard stories try to overlook. There is a ruthless reduction down to what is without doubt real, namely, persons. Conspiracy theory presumes that human events are caused by people acting as people do, including cooperating, planning, cheating, deceiving, and pursuing power. Thus, conspiracy theories do not focus on impersonal forces like geo-politics, market economics, globalization, social evolution and other such abstract explanations of human events.

To call conspiracy theory "naive" does not mean that it is uncritical or stupidly innocent. In fact, that is what conspiracy theorists might say about orthodox explanations of events promoted by government sources, by mainstream journalism, or by schoolbook history. For example, it is naive to believe that the September 11, 1973, coup d'etat against Allende was not orchestrated by the United States. Rather, to here call deconstructive history "naive" means that conspiracy theorists are unaware that they are doing deconstructive history, and they are amateurs, untrained in deconstructive history.

Conspiracy theories arise when dramatic events happen, and the orthodox explanations try to diminish the events and gloss them over. In other words, conspiracy theories begin when someone notices that the explanations do not fit the facts.

Take the case of explaining the past two decades of US "free-trade" schemes among countries in the Americas: FTA, NAFTA, and soon FTAA. These schemes began with two nations, then three, and soon four and more. The first was the 1989 Canada-US Free Trade Agreement (FTA) which set the subservient conditions of member nations to US economic dominance. The essence of the FTA is that US corporations get unrestricted commercial rights and resource ownership in Canada, and in exchange, Canada gets to obey US trade laws.

Why would Canadians have agreed to this? Well, we didn't, but historians would explain it by saying something like, "Globalization made Canadians choose free-trade." Conspiracy theorists would say, "Don't be naive. Look at the facts." In a decade of political opinion polls, and in three consecutive national elections (1984, 1988, 1993), a majority of Canadians had consistently said that they do not want American "free-trade" schemes. How has it happened that such a clear, strong democratic decision by so many millions of Canadians could be overthrown?

In the 1984 and 1993 federal elections in Canada, the successful parties had explicitly campaigned against free-trade, but when elected they reversed themselves. The 1988 vote was also not straight: of the two anti-free-trade parties, the minor one in mid-campaign began to attack the leader of the major one. It is reasonable to see such facts and to surmise that orthodox explanations are not the real explanations.

Let's look in the library to see what can be found. From 1976 to 1979, more than a decade before the FTA, US Ambassador Thomas Enders was crisscrossing Canada promoting free-trade. Who was Thomas Enders? He was hired by the US government in 1958 as an "intelligence research specialist." In 1969 he was in Yugoslavia, in 1971 Cambodia. His jobs there were to rig Lon Nol's election and to use a local intelligence network to pick villages to be bombed by B52s in President Nixon's secret war. From 1976 to 1979, he was in Canada weaving a web of political and business connections to promote the American version of "free-trade." In 1981 Enders became President Reagan's Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, working on the invasion of Grenada and the illegal proxy wars against Nicaragua and El Salvador. One of his jobs was to coordinate operations with Oliver North and Duane Claridge, head of the CIA's covert operations in Latin America.

Considering these facts, which is more likely—that Enders was in Canada promoting free-trade as some kind of personal hobby, or that he was under orders, promoting free-trade as one more operation in a career of covert operations? At the time, Quebec's populist premier, Réne Lévesque, said of Enders, "He's the bum who launched the bombs in Vietnam. He's a damned spy. He must be working for the CIA" (quoted in Lisée, 1990, p. 207).

The idea of NAFTA first appeared in public in 1979, to everyone's surprise, as Ronald Reagan's core policy when he announced his candidacy for President. But, curiously, it was then never again mentioned in his campaign. In 1979, Reagan's campaign was run by Michael Deaver and Paul Hannaford, who reportedly also ran a public relations firm that represented the right-wing Guatemalan group Amigos del Pais and its leader Roberto Alejos, who had provided the ranch used for CIA training of Cuban Bay of Pigs invasion forces in 1961. In early 1980 William Casey became Reagan's campaign director. Casey began his career directing OSS espionage operations in Germany and China in the 1940s, and he ended his career as director of the CIA. It is not common for US presidential candidates to be so managed by those so linked to covert operations.

The information in the proceeding two paragraphs comes from library sources. "Free-trade" comes from the dark lower bowels of Washington sometime in the early 1970s. It seems to have been conceived and promoted, in part, by conspiracy rather than by forthright democratic processes.

This exemplifies how conspiracy theory arises: 1) significant political or economic events change power relationships in our society; 2) contradictions are noticed by ordinary citizens in the explanations of these events; 3) concern and curiosity are aroused; 4) further information is sought under the presumption that power is being abused and deception is being deployed. Most of the evidence discovered is circumstantial, as it must be when investigating conspiracies.

"Free-trade" was definitely not the democratic choice of Canadians, and maybe not of Americans or Mexicans either. There is a history waiting to be written about these "free-trade" schemes. Orthodox, school-book historians will probably not write that history, and mainstream journalists will not dig it out. Conspiracy theorists might. (Did anyone notice that the NAFTA treaty was not legally passed by Congress as a treaty?)

Conspiracy theory has a special focus on contradictions, discrepancies, and missing facts. The natural sciences similarly seek to find faulty explanations by focusing on facts that don't fit the orthodox explanations. If we want more truthful explanations of events, whether of scientific events or of political and historical events, then we must compare competing explanations.

One explanation usually fits the available observations better than the other. By the principle of fit, the explanation that encompasses more of the observations should be preferred. This principle can favor conspiracy theories. For example, one gunman cannot shoot a bolt-action rifle as fast as the shots were fired at JFK. The vast majority of eye-witnesses heard shots coming from different directions.

We can discover mis-explanations and find better ones by focusing on the facts that don't fit. For example, Galileo concluded that moons around Jupiter are discrepancies to the then-orthodox geocentric theory. Galileo was called a heretic for writing that. Mark Lane's book, Rush to Judgment, includes hundreds of facts that did not fit the Warren Commission's conclusion that a lone gunman killed Kennedy. Lane was called a conspiracy theorist for writing that.

The pejorative force of the "conspiracy theory" label comes from its ad hominem attack on the author's personality. It is true that conspiracy theory authors doubt the orthodox explanations and suspect that there are other explanations for events. Such doubt and suspicion, which is the same kind of doubt and suspicion as motivates many scientific discoveries, gets labeled paranoia.

Think for a moment. Most of the US population believes that a conspiracy, not a lone gunman, killed JFK. A society could not function if that many people were "paranoid." That word is pure pejorative. Real paranoia includes: 1) fear, 2) of a prominent person, 3) whom you think threatens you personally, 4) using invisible means, like the evil-eye, x-rays, or laser beams. Conspiracy theory entails doubt and suspicion, but that is far from clinical paranoia. For example, I believe the Iran-Contra conspiracy theory, but I have no emotion of fear, certainly no fear that Oliver North is out to get me, using invisible rays of some kind.

However, we should remember that conspiracy theorists are ordinary people and will show ordinary failings of rationality, for example, what is referred to as "confirmation bias." This means that we are all biased to look for evidence that our ideas are right rather than for evidence that our ideas are wrong. This bias has been demonstrated and replicated in many different contexts and countries. Confirmation bias is a common mistake made by conspiracy theorists, as well as by historians, journalists, and everyone else. David Fischer has catalogued and exemplified over 100 different kinds of faulty reasoning in the research of competent, published historians. These would all apply to conspiracy theorists as well.

Conspiracy theory is more thoughtful than fearful. The motivations behind conspiracy theory research are cognitive and social. It is very much like doing family genealogy. You begin with a few facts. Then you puzzle out the story, make inferences and hypotheses, and seek further facts. With help from other people, with good luck, you discover information that is sometimes difficult to find. A story emerges, suggesting new facts that should be sought. The satisfaction comes from finding the facts, constructing the story, and sharing the process and discoveries with other people.

Conspiracy theorists think they are serving the public good. Often their motivations are patriotic, and with good reason. Democracy is built on distrust of the king and all the king's men. Democratic safeguards like habeas corpus, jury trial, independent courts, and secret ballots all presume that we should not trust people in positions of power. Because of distrust, opposition parties and an independent press are expected to question and criticize the government, and the government is expected to answer. The free press is called the Fourth Estate, in opposition to the First Estate (the Church), the Second Estate (the aristocracy), and the Third Estate (those who live off capital). Since orthodox journalism has become an instrument of power, investigative journalism is now sometimes called the Fifth Estate. Conspiracy theory is part of the Fifth Estate in this balance of powers. The independent, oppositional thinking that underlies conspiracy theory is not paranoia; it is the very foundation of freedom and democracy.

There probably appear to be more "conspiracy theories" about for three reasons: 1) More people have the skills and resources to look for conspiracies and to make their thinking public; 2) Probably there are more conspiracies to find as political and economic power become ever more concentrated and our democracy declines; 3) Mainstream journalism and schoolbook history now serve the state and corporate interests more than in the past, so now we hear more nonsense.

Conspiracy theory will certainly be a growth industry for the foreseeable future. Conspiracy theory will decrease when conspiracies decrease and when journalists and historians increase their efforts to explain events rather than explain them away.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.gatecreepers.com/entries/exclusive-debunking-myths-on-conspiracy-theorie/

Debunking Myths on Conspiracy Theories

Article written by Gatecreepers.
 
The purpose of this article is to redress a number of general myths concerning so-called 'conspiracy theories', repeated by media organisations and other self-proclaimed guardians of the orthodoxy, as well as people who have been erroneously convinced that conspiracy theories are intellectual aberrations rather than the acknowledgment of a common historical and social phenomenon.

This document does not claim that every event is the product of a conspiracy. It remains true, however, that conspiracies are far more common than admitted by the establishment. Whether conspiracy or coincidence was involved, we believe that the matter should be arbitrated by evidence rather than falsehoods on the alleged motives or state of minds of alternative researchers.

For the purposes of this guide, a conspiracy theory may be defined as:

    A theory detailing the involvement of two or more people who have secretly or otherwise conspired to commit an act that is against the public interest, and furthermore who may have conspired to cover up these acts in concert with the media and other authorities.

Conspiracy theories should not be confused with other schools of alternate reality. Such claims may include:

*  Supernatural claims. Elite groups may believe and act upon them, but those beliefs alone do not pertain to conspiracy as discussed in this document.

*  Mythological or religious claims. A theory that an occult group engages in subversion according to its religious beliefs may be considered a conspiracy theory, but interpretations of religion and scriptures are not covered by this manual.

*  Claims pertaining to alternative science. The act itself of covering up scientific discoveries is a conspiracy, but the legitimacy of the scientific claims are to be determined by researchers with the proper qualifications.

*  Existential claims. Claims pertaining to the alleged existence of hidden or unobservable phenomena or beings (such as aliens) are not in and of themselves conspiracy theories. Inexperienced proponents of such claims however may attempt to justify their lack of evidence with a conspiracy theory, usually that the evidence is covered up by the government or the entity alleged to exist (in most cases, however, this is a straw man). This secondary claim must be addressed apart from the primary claim with at least evidence that the alleged conspirators believe in the existence of the alleged phenomena, and that they have made attempts to cover it up.

If the entity is alleged to be a participating actor in a conspiracy, then its existence must be proven and the entire claim must be treated as a conspiracy theory.

Conspiracy myths may be divided into the following categories:

*  Claims that discredit proponents of conspiracy theories as legitimate researchers

Ad Hominem attacks are often leveled at conspiracy theorists to label them as paranoid, delusional, extremist, hyperbolic or mentally incompetent. In the case of academics, attempts will be made to undermine their credibility by labeling them as incompetent, unprofessional, or lacking objectivity, or by publicising issues of their lives or beliefs that are unrelated to the theories they propose.

*  Claims that associate conspiracy theories with group behaviour or psychological pathology

This category is a subset of the first category, but it gets special mention because a large amount of anti-conspiracy propaganda aims at using scientific-sounding theories to equate it with paranoia, frivolous fantasies or security blankets.

Claims of this nature are usually made by purported experts from various academic fields. Like the specifically listed claims such as #1, #5, #9, #13, #20, #21 and #22, other claims trying to pin conspiracy theories on group behaviour and psychological disorders are groundless and pseudo-scientific.

In extreme cases of demonisation, there may be attempts to conflate belief in conspiracies with paranoid delusion. As pointed out in Myth #16, pathologising anti-establishment researchers has been done in many authoritarian regimes such as current Communist China and the historical Soviet Union, with various labels ranging respectively from 'political maniac' to 'sluggishly progressing schizophrenic'.

There may also be attempts to pin belief in conspiracies on sociological reasons, such as alleged needs to 'make sense of a traumatic event' and similarly formulated 'theories'. Those claims are usually found in articles which, despite being written by experts in their own field, rarely cite or point to academic research, are filled with political bias and aim at discrediting a specific conspiracy that started to gain prominence. Articles of this nature are formulaic and often start with statements alleging that conspiracy theories are popular amongst average people and have accompanied most major events (Claim #29).

*  Claims made by academic scholars that delegitimise the role of conspiracies played in society and history

Many scholars reject conspiracy theories in favour of the so-called 'institutional' perspective, which ascribes events to the dynamics of institutions rather than organised groups. We do not believe that conspiracies and institutions are mutually exclusive; they often work together. Certain institutions that are taken for granted originated from conspiracies; likewise, institutional factors may explain what motivates people and groups to conspire.

We believe that the conspiratorial point of view has its merits because not all activities operate within recognised institutions. Hidden, extra-institutional groups can exert major influence in ways that are overlooked by institutionalists.

Possible reasons why conspiracy theories are frequent targets of ridicule may include:

*  Institutionalised intellectual elitism. Mainstream media personalities and academics may feel that their authority and experience are challenged by what they perceive to be 'amateur' research, while seeing themselves in the role of gatekeepers who filter the information to protect the public from what they view as 'unsuitable' information.

*  Deliberate propaganda campaigns aimed at protecting established truths. An example of such a practice has been documented by a declassified document admitting attempts by the CIA to use academics and the media to discredit alternative theories on the assassination of JFK. The document reveals that many of the myths still widespread today and debunked in this document originated from the CIA (see Countering Criticism of the Warren Report). Other documents reveal CIA infiltration of American and foreign media as well as academia (see How to co-opt academia and Operation Mockingbird).

*  The presence of unfounded and over the top conspiracy theories which undermine the credibility of more rational theories. It is speculated that many of those theories were deliberately spread in order to divide or ridicule research communities as well as confuse or turn away people who come across the alternative versions of the official story.

*  Perception of conspiracy theories as being part of a cultural phenomenon or fad rather than a serious investigation of the motives and actions of the ruling elite. Such perceptions are reinforced by stereotypical portrayals in movies and sitcoms, such as 1997 movie Conspiracy Theorist and Dale Gribble in King of the Hill. This stereotypical view of conspiracy theorists, however, appears to be limited to American culture; in fact the expression 'conspiracy theorist' itself appears to be an invention of the American media. Most equivalent terms in other languages are directly translated, sometimes awkwardly (such as in French "partisan de la théorie du complot"), and are not used to label other people to the extent that they in the United States. It is also mainly in American language that one finds expressions such as "tin-foil hat". It is thought that those cultural caricatures originate from the controversies around the JFK assassinations, possibly with initial or on-going prompting from the CIA (see point #2).

The following is a collection of general statements purporting to dismiss conspiracy theories heard in various places from mainstream media articles to discussion forums.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Here is a so called "left" leaning truther concerning the ruling class and its stranglehold on Amerca.  His use of the word capitalists and capitalism really refers to corporatists and corporatism. I believe this is a failure on his part and there are other minor issues I disagree with, but he is locked and loaded on globalists and the ruling oligopoly. For that reason I highly recommend utlizing his speeches and essays to expose the NWO to any possible Obamanoids or mind controlled democrats:



Dr. Michael Parenti: "Terrorism, Globalism and Conspiracy"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6573660441809242121
1:00:41  - 4 years ago

OCTOBER 9, 2002, VANCOUVER: Dr. Michael Parenti, one of North America's leading radical writers on U.S. imperialism and interventionism, fascism, democracy and the media, spoke to several hunded people at St. Andrews Wesley Church in Vancouver. Dr. Parenti has taught political science at a number of colleges and universities in the United States and other countries. He was written 250 major magazine articles and 15 books and is frequently heard on public and alternative radio.



THE JFK ASSASSINATION II:
CONSPIRACY PHOBIA ON THE LEFT

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15824
From Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti (1996, City Lights Books) (Pages 172 - 191)

Almost as an article of faith, some individuals believe that conspiracies are either kooky fantasies or unimportant aberrations. To be sure, wacko conspiracy theories do exist. There are people who believe that the United States has been invaded by a secret United Nations army equipped with black helicopters, or that the country is secretly controlled by Jews or gays or feminists or black nationalists or communists or extraterrestrial aliens. But it does not logically follow that all conspiracies are imaginary.

Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial acts. Conspiracies are a matter of public record, and some are of real political significance. The Watergate break-in was a conspiracy, as was the Watergate cover-up, which led to Nixon's downfall. Iran-contra was a conspiracy of immense scope, much of it still uncovered. The savings and loan scandal was described by the Justice Department as "a thousand conspiracies of fraud, theft, and bribery," the greatest financial crime in history.

Conspiracy or Coincidence?

Often the term "conspiracy" is applied dismissively whenever one suggests that people who occupy positions of political and economic power are consciously dedicated to advancing their elite interests. Even when they openly profess their designs, there are those who deny that intent is involved. In 1994, the officers of the Federal Reserve announced they would pursue monetary policies designed to maintain a high level of unemployment in order to safeguard against "overheating" the economy. Like any creditor class, they preferred a deflationary course. When an acquaintance of mine mentioned this to friends, he was greeted skeptically, "Do you think the Fed bankers are deliberately trying to keep people unemployed?" In fact, not only did he think it, it was announced on the financial pages of the press. Still, his friends assumed he was imagining a conspiracy because he ascribed self-interested collusion to powerful people.

At a World Affairs Council meeting in San Francisco, I remarked to a participant that U.S. leaders were pushing hard for the reinstatement of capitalism in the former communist countries. He said, "Do you really think they carry it to that level of conscious intent?" I pointed out it was not a conjecture on my part. They have repeatedly announced their commitment to seeing that "free-market reforms" are introduced in Eastern Europe. Their economic aid is channeled almost exclusively into the private sector. The same policy holds for the monies intended for other countries. Thus, as of the end of 1995, "more than $4.5 million U.S. aid to Haiti has been put on hold because the Aristide government has failed to make progress on a program to privatize state-owned companies" (New York Times 11/25/95).

Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: "Do you actually think there's a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?" For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot - though they call it "planning" and "strategizing" - and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.

Yet there are individuals who ask with patronizing, incredulous smiles, do you really think that the people at the top have secret agendas, are aware of their larger interests, and talk to each other about them? To which I respond, why would they not? This is not to say that every corporate and political elite is actively dedicated to working for the higher circles of power and property. Nor are they infallible or always correct in their assessments and tactics or always immediately aware of how their interests are being affected by new situations. But they are more attuned and more capable of advancing their vast interests than most other social groups.

The alternative is to believe that the powerful and the privileged are somnambulists, who move about oblivious to questions of power and privilege; that they always tell us the truth and have nothing to hide even when they hide so much; that although most of us ordinary people might consciously try to pursue our own interests, wealthy elites do not; that when those at the top employ force and violence around the world it is only for the laudable reasons they profess; that when they arm, train, and finance covert actions in numerous countries, and then fail to acknowledge their role in such deeds, it is because of oversight or forgetfulness or perhaps modesty; and that it is merely a coincidence how the policies of the national security state so consistently serve the interests of the transnational corporations and the capital-accumulation system throughout the world.


Kennedy and the Left Critics

In the winter of 1991-92 Oliver Stone's film JFK revived popular interest in the question of President John Kennedy's assassination. As noted in part I of this article, the mainstream media launched a protracted barrage of invective against the movie. Conservatives and liberals closed ranks to tell the public there was no conspiracy to murder the president for such things do not happen in the United States.

Unfortunately, some writers normally identified as on the Left have rejected any suggestion that conspiracy occurred. While the rightists and centrists were concerned about preserving the legitimacy of existing institutions and keeping people from seeing the gangster nature of the state, the leftists had different concerns, though it was not always clear what these were.

Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others challenge the notion that Kennedy was assassinated for intending to withdraw from Vietnam or for threatening to undo the CIA or end the cold war. Such things could not have led to his downfall, they argue, because Kennedy was a cold warrior, pro-CIA, and wanted a military withdrawal from Vietnam only with victory. Chomsky claims that the change of administration that came with JFK's assassination had no appreciable effect on policy. In fact, the massive ground war ordered by Johnson and the saturation bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos ordered by Nixon represented a dramatic departure from Kennedy's policy. On some occasions, Chomsky says he refuses to speculate: "As for what JFK might have done [had he lived], I have nothing to say." Other times he goes on to speculate that Kennedy would not have "reacted differently to changing situations than his close advisers" and "would have persisted in his commitment to strengthen and enhance the status of the CIA" (Z Magazine, 10/92 and 1/93).

The evidence we have indicates that Kennedy observed Cambodian neutrality and negotiated a cease-fire and a coalition government in Laos, which the CIA refused to honor. We also know that the surviving Kennedy, Robert, broke with the Johnson administration over Vietnam and publicly stated that his brother's administration had committed serious mistakes. Robert moved with the tide of opinion, evolving into a Senate dove and then a peace candidate for the presidency, before he too was murdered. The two brothers worked closely together and were usually of like mind. While this does not provide reason enough to conclude that John Kennedy would have undergone a transition comparable to Robert's, it still might give us pause before asserting that JFK was destined to follow in the direction taken by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

In the midst of this controversy, Chomsky wrote a whole book arguing that JFK had no intention of withdrawing from Vietnam without victory. Actually, Kennedy said different things at different times, sometimes maintaining that we could not simply abandon Vietnam, other times that it ultimately would be up to the Vietnamese to fight their own war.1

One of Kennedy's closest aides, Kenneth O'Donnell, wrote that the president planned to withdraw from Vietnam after the 1964 elections. According to Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who headed military support for the clandestine operations of the CIA, Kennedy dictated "the rich parts" of NSAM 263, calling for the withdrawal not only of all U.S. troops but all Americans, meaning CIA officers and agents too. Prouty reflects that the president thereby signed "his own death warrant." The Army newspaper Stars and Stripes ran a headline: "President Says - All Americans Out by 1965." According to Prouty: "The Pentagon was outraged. JFK was a curse word in the corridors."

Concentrating on the question of withdrawal, Chomsky says nothing about the president's unwillingness to escalate into a ground war. On that crucial point all Chomsky offers is a speculation ascribed to Roger Hilsman that Kennedy might well have introduced U.S. ground troops in South Vietnam. In fact, the same Hilsman, who served as Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, the officer responsible for Vietnam, noted in a long letter to the New York Times (1/20/92) that in 1963 "President Kennedy was determined not to let Vietnam become an American war - that is, he was determined not to send U.S. combat troops (as opposed to advisers) to fight in Vietnam nor to bomb North Vietnam." Other Kennedy aides such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and General Maxwell Taylor made the same point. Taylor said, "The last thing he [Kennedy] wanted was to put in our ground forces . . . I don't recall anyone who was strongly against [the recommendation], except one man and that was the President." Kennedy opposed the kind of escalation embarked upon soon after his death by Lyndon Johnson, who increased U.S. troops in Vietnam from 17,000 to approximately 250,000 and committed them to an all-out ground war.

Kennedy and the CIA

Chomsky argues that the CIA would have had no grounds for wanting to kill JFK, because he was a dedicated counterinsurgent cold warrior. Chomsky arrives at this conclusion by assuming that the CIA had the same reading of events in 1963 that he has today. But entrenched power elites are notorious for not seeing the world the way left analysts do. To accept Chomsky's assumptions we would need a different body of data from that which he and others offer, data that focuses not on the Kennedy administration's interventionist pronouncements and policies but on the more private sentiments that festered in intelligence circles and related places in 1963.

To offer a parallel: We might be of the opinion that the New Deal did relatively little for working people and that Franklin Roosevelt actually was a tool of the very interests he publicly denounced as "economic royalists." From this we might conclude that the plutocrats had much reason to support FDR's attempts to save big business from itself. But most plutocrats dammed "that man in the White House" as a class traitor. To determine why, you would have to look at how they perceived the New Deal in those days, not at how we think it should be evaluated today.

In fact, President Kennedy was not someone the CIA could tolerate, and the feeling was mutual. JFK told one of his top officials that he wanted "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" (New York Times, 4/25/66). He closed the armed CIA camps that were readying for a second Bay of Pigs invasion and took a number of other steps designed to bring the Agency under control. He fired its most powerful and insubordinate leaders, Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell. He tried to reduce its powers and jurisdiction and set strict limits as to its future actions, and he appointed a high-level committee to investigate the CIA's past misdeeds.

In 1963, CIA officials, Pentagon brass, anti-Castro Cuban émigrés, and assorted other right-wingers, including FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, hated JFK and did not believe he could be trusted with the nation's future. They referred to him as "that delinquent in the White House." Roger Craig records the comments of numerous Dallas police officers who wanted to see Kennedy done away with. Several years ago, on a San Francisco talk show on station KGO, I heard a listener call in as follows: "this is the first time I'm saying this. I worked for Army intelligence. In 1963 I was in Japan, and the accepted word around then was that Kennedy would be killed because he was messing with the intelligence community. When word came of his death, all I could hear was delighted comments like 'We got the bastard'."

In his book First Hand Knowledge, CIA operative Robert Morrow noted the hatred felt by CIA officers regarding Kennedy's "betrayal" in not sending the U.S. military into the Bay of Pigs fiasco. One high-level CIA Cuban émigré, Eladio del Valle, told Morrow less than two weeks before the assassination: "I found out about it last night. Kennedy's going to get it in Dallas."2 Morrow also notes that CIA director Richard Helms, "knew that someone in the Agency was involved" in the Kennedy assassination, "either directly or indirectly, in the act itself - someone who would be in a high and sensitive position . . . Helms did cover up any CIA involvement in the presidential assassination."

Several years after JFK's murder, President Johnson told White House aide Marvin Watson that he "was convinced that there was a plot in connection with the assassination" and that the CIA had something to do with it (Washington Post, 12/13/77). And Robert Kennedy repeatedly made known his suspicions that the CIA had a hand in the murder of his brother.

JFK's enemies in the CIA, the Pentagon, and elsewhere fixed on his refusal to provide air coverage for the Bay of Pigs, his unwillingness to go into Indochina with massive ground forces, his no-invasion guarantee to Krushchev on Cuba, his overtures for a rapprochement with Castro and professed willingness to tolerate countries with different economic systems in the Western hemisphere, his atmospheric-test-ban treaty with Moscow, his American University speech calling for reexamination of U.S. cold war attitudes toward the Soviet Union, his antitrust suit against General Electric, his curtailing of the oil-depletion allowance, his fight with U.S. Steel over price increases, his challenge to the Federal Reserve Board's multibillion-dollar monopoly control of the nation's currency,3 his warm reception at labor conventions, and his call for racial equality. These things may not have been enough for some on the Left but they were far too much for many on the Right.

Left Confusions and the Warren Commission

Erwin Knoll, erstwhile editor of the Progressive, was anther left critic who expressed hostility toward the conspiracy thesis and Oliver Stone's movie in particular. Knoll admitted he had no idea who killed Kennedy, but this did not keep him from asserting that Stone's JFK was "manipulative" and provided false answers. If Knoll had no idea who killed Kennedy, how could he conclude that the film was false?

Knoll said Stone's movie was "a melange of fact and fiction" (Progressive, 3/92). To be sure, some of the dramatization was fictionalized - but regarding the core events relating to Clay Shaw's perjury, eyewitness reports at Dealey Plaza, the behavior of U.S. law officers, and other suspicious happenings, the movie remained faithful to the facts unearthed by serious investigators.

In a show of flexibility, Knoll allows that "the Warren Commission did a hasty, slipshod job" of investigation. Here too he only reveals his ignorance. In fact, the Commission sat for fifty-one long sessions over a period of several months, much longer than most major investigations. It compiled twenty-six volumes of testimony and evidence. It had the investigative resources of the FBI and CIA at its disposal, along with its own professional team. Far from being hasty and slipshod, it painstakingly crafted theories that moved toward a foreordained conclusion. From the beginning, it asked only a limited set of questions that seemed to assume Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin.

The Warren Commission set up six investigative panels to look into such things as Oswald's background, his activities in past years and on the day of the assassination, Jack Ruby's background, and his activities on the day he killed Oswald. As Mark Lane notes, there was a crying need for a seventh panel, one that would try to discover who killed President Kennedy. The commission never saw the need for that undertaking, having already made up its mind.

While supposedly dedicated to bringing the truth to light, the Warren Commission operated in secrecy. The minutes of its meetings were classified top secret, and hundred of thousands of documents and other evidence were sealed for seventy-five years. The Commission failed to call witnesses who heard and saw people shooting from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. It falsely recorded the testimony of certain witnesses, as they were to complain later on, and reinterpreted the testimony of others. All this took careful effort. A "hasty and slipshod" investigation would show some randomness in its errors. But the Commission's distortions consistently moved in the same direction in pursuit of a prefigured hypothesis.

Erwin Knoll talks disparagingly of the gullible U.S. public and says he "despises" Oliver Stone for playing on that gullibility. In fact, the U.S. public has been anything but gullible. It has not swallowed the official explanation the way some of the left critics have. Surveys show that 78 percent of the public say they believe there was a conspiracy. Both Cockburn in the Nation and Chomsky in Z Magazine dismiss this finding by noting that over 70 percent of the people also believe in miracles. But the fact that people might be wrong about one thing does not mean they are wrong about everything. Chomsky and Cockburn are themselves evidence of that.

In any case, the comparison is between two opposite things. Chomsky and Cockburn are comparing the public's gullibility about miracles with its unwillingness to be gullible about the official line that has been fed to them for thirty years. If anyone is gullible it is Alexander Cockburn who devoted extra column space in the Nation to support the Warren Commission's tattered theory about a magic bullet that could hit both Kennedy and Connolley while changing direction in mid-air and remaining in pristine condition.

Chomsky says that it is a "curious fact that no trace of the wide-ranging conspiracy appears in the internal record, and nothing has leaked" and "credible direct evidence is lacking" (Z Magazine, 1/93, and letter to me, 12/15/92). But why would participants in a conspiracy of this magnitude risk everything by maintaining an "internal record" (whatever that is) about the actual murder? Why would they risk their lives by going public? Many of the participants would know only a small part of the picture. But all of them would have a keen sense of the immensely powerful and sinister forces they would be up against were they to become too talkative. In fact, a good number of those who agreed to cooperate with investigators met untimely deaths. Finally, what credible direct evidence was ever offered to prove that Oswald was the assassin?

Chomsky is able to maintain his criticism that no credible evidence has come to light only by remaining determinedly unacquainted with the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered. There has even been a decision in a U.S. court of law, Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, in which a jury found that President Kennedy had indeed been murdered by a conspiracy involving, in part, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, and FBI informant Jack Ruby.4

Nixon advisor H.R. Haldeman admits in his memoir: "After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic coverup." And "In a chilling parallel to their coverup at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA."

Indeed, if there was no conspiracy, why so much secrecy and so much cover-up? If Oswald did it, what is there to hide and why do the CIA and FBI still resist a full undoctored disclosure of the hundreds of thousands of pertinent documents? Would they not be eager to reveal everything and thereby put to rest doubts about Oswald's guilt and suspicions about their own culpability?

The remarkable thing about Erwin Knoll, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others on the Left who attack the Kennedy conspiracy findings is they remain invincibly ignorant of the critical investigations that have been carried out. I have repeatedly pointed this out in exchanges with them and they never deny it. They have not read any of the many studies by independent researchers who implicate the CIA in a conspiracy to kill the president and in the even more protracted and extensive conspiracy to cover up the murder. But this does not prevent them from dismissing the conspiracy charge in the most general and unsubstantiated terms.

Let's Hear It for Structuralism

When pressed on the matter, left critics like Cockburn and Chomsky allow that some conspiracies do exist but they usually are of minor importance, a distraction from the real problems of institutional and structural power. A structural analysis, as I understand it, maintains that events are determined by the larger configurations of power and interest and not by the whims of happenstance or the connivance of a few incidental political actors. There is no denying that larger structural trends impose limits on policy and exert strong pressures on leaders. But this does not mean that all important policy is predetermined. Short of betraying fundamental class interests, different leaders can pursue different courses, the effects of which are not inconsequential to the lives of millions of people. Thus, it was not foreordained that the B-52 carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos conducted by Nixon would have happened if Kennedy, or even Johnson or Humphrey, had been president. If left critics think these things make no difference in the long run, they better not tell that to the millions of Indochinese who grieve for their lost ones and for their own shattered lives.

It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a "conspiracist" who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces. As Chomsky notes: "However unpleasant and difficult it may be, there is no escape from the need to confront the reality of institutions and the policies and actions they largely shape." (Z Magazine, 10/92).

I trust that one of the institutions he has in mind is the CIA. In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.

As I pointed out in published exchanges with Cockburn and Chomsky (neither of whom responded to the argument), conspiracy and structure are not mutually exclusive dynamics. A structural analysis that a priori rules out conspiracy runs the risk of not looking at the whole picture. Conspiracies are a component of the national security political system, not deviations from it. Ruling elites use both conspiratorial covert actions and overtly legitimating procedures at home and abroad. They finance everything from electoral campaigns and publishing houses to mobsters and death squads. They utilize every conceivable stratagem, including killing one of their own if they perceive him to be a barrier to their larger agenda of making the world safe for those who own it.

The conspiracy findings in regard to the JFK assassination, which the movie JFK brought before a mass audience, made many people realize what kind of a gangster state we have in this country and what it does around the world. In investigating the JFK conspiracy, researchers are not looking for an "escape" from something "unpleasant and difficult," as Chomsky would have it, rather they are raising grave questions about the nature of state power in what is supposed to be a democracy.

A structuralist position should not discount the role of human agency in history. Institutions are not self-generating reified forces. The "great continuities of corporate and class interest" (Cockburn's phrase) are not disembodied things that just happen of their own accord. Neither empires nor national security institutions come into existence in a fit of absent-mindedness. They are actualized not only by broad conditional causes but by the conscious efforts of live people. Evidence for this can be found in the very existence of a national security state whose conscious function is to recreate the conditions of politico-economic hegemony.

Having spent much of my life writing books that utilize a structuralist approach, I find it ironic to hear about the importance of structuralism from those who themselves do little or no structural analysis of the U.S. political system and show little theoretical grasp of the structural approach. Aside from a few Marxist journals, one finds little systemic or structural analysis in left periodicals including ones that carry Chomsky and Cockburn. Most of these publications focus on particular issues and events - most of which usually are of far lesser magnitude than the Kennedy assassination.

Left publications have given much attention to conspiracies such as Watergate, the FBI Cointelpro, Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, CIA drugs-for-guns trade, BCCI, and savings-and-loans scandals. It is never explained why these conspiracies are important while the FJK assassination is not. Chip Berlet repeatedly denounces conspiracy investigations while himself spending a good deal of time investigating Lyndon LaRouche's fraudulent financial dealings, conspiracies for which LaRouche went to prison. Berlet never explains why the LaRouche conspiracy is a subject worthy of investigation but not the JFK conspiracy.

G. William Domhoff points out: "If 'conspiracy' means that these [ruling class] men are aware of their interests, know each other personally, meet together privately and off the record, and try to hammer out a consensus on how to anticipate and react to events and issues, then there is some conspiring that goes on in CFR [the Council for Foreign Relations], not to mention the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Council, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency." After providing this useful description of institutional conspiracy, Domhoff then conjures up a caricature that often clouds the issue: "We all have a tremendous tendency to want to get caught up in believing that there's some secret evil cause for all of the obvious ills of the world." Conspiracy theories "encourage a belief that if we get rid of a few bad people, everything will be well in the world."

To this simplistic notion Peter Dale Scott responds: "I believe that a true understanding of the Kennedy assassination will lead not to a few bad people but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the way we are systematically governed." In sum, national security state conspiracies are components of our political structure, not deviations from it.

Why Care About JFK?

The left critics argue that people who are concerned about the JFK assassination are romanticizing Kennedy and squandering valuable energy. Chomsky claims that the Nazi-like appeals of rightist propagandists have a counterpart on the Left: "It's the conspiracy business. Hang around California, for example, and the left has just been torn to shreds because they see CIA conspiracies . . . secret governments [behind] the Kennedy assassination. This kind of stuff has just wiped out a large part of the left" (Against the Current 56, 1993). Chomsky offers no evidence to support this bizarre statement.

The left critics fear that people will be distracted or misled into thinking well of Kennedy. Cockburn argues that Kennedy was nothing more than a servant of the corporate class, so who cares how he was killed (Nation 3/9/92 and 5/18/92). The left critics' hatred of Kennedy clouds their judgment about the politcal significance of his murder. They mistake the low political value of the victim with the high political importance of the assassination, its implications for democracy, and the way it exposes the gangster nature of the state.

In 1894 Captain Alfred Dreyfus was a conservative militarist. Clemenceau once conjectured that if the man's name had not been Dreyfus, he would have been an anti-Dreyfusard. Does that mean that the political struggle waged around l'affaire Dreyfus was a waste of time? The issue quickly became larger than Dreyfus, drawn between Right and Left, between those who stood with the army and the anti-Semites and those who stood with the republic and justice.

Likewise Benigno Aquino, a member of the privileged class in the Philippines, promised no great structural changes, being even more conservative than Kennedy. Does this mean the Filipino people should have dismissed the conspiracy that led to his assassination as an event of no great moment, an internal ruling-class affair? Instead, they used it as ammunition to expose the hated Marcos regime.

Archbishop Romero of El Salvador was a member of the Salvadoran aristocracy. He could not have risen to the top of the church hierarchy otherwise. But after he began voicing critical remarks about the war and concerned comments about the poor, he was assassinated. If he had not been murdered, I doubt that Salvadoran history would have been much different. Does this mean that solidarity groups in this country and El Salvador should not have tried to make his murder an issue that revealed the homicidal gangster nature of the Salvadoran state? (I posed these questions to Chomsky in an exchange in Z Magazine, but in his response, he did not address them.)

Instead of seizing the opportunity, some left writers condescendingly ascribe a host of emotional needs to those who are concerned about the assassination cover-up. According to Max Holland, a scribe who seems to be on special assignment to repudiate the JFK conspiracy: "The nation is gripped by a myth . . . divorced from reality," and "Americans refuse to accept their own history." In Z Magazine (10/92) Chomsky argued that "at times of general malaise and social breakdown, it is not uncommon for millenarian movements to arise." He saw two such movements in 1992: the response to Ross Perot and what he called the "Kennedy revival" or "Camelot revival." Though recognizing that the audiences differ, he lumps them together as "the JFK-Perot enthusiasms." Public interest in the JFK assassination, he says, stems from a "Camelot yearning" and the "yearning for a lost Messiah."

I, for one, witnessed evidence of a Perot movement involving millions of people but I saw no evidence of a Kennedy revival, certainly no millenarian longing for Camelot or a "lost Messiah." However, there has been a revived interest in the Kennedy assassination, which is something else. Throughout the debate, Chomsky repeatedly assumes that those who have been troubled about the assassination must be admirers of Kennedy. In fact, some are, but many are not. Kennedy was killed in 1963; people who today are in their teens, twenties, thirties, and forties - most Americans - were not old enough to have developed a political attachment to him.

The left critics psychologize about our illusions, our false dreams, our longings for Messiahs and father figures, or inability to face unpleasant realities the way they can. They deliver patronizing admonitions about our "conspiracy captivation" and "Camelot yearnings." They urge us not to escape into fantasy. They are the cognoscenti who guide us and out-left us on the JFK assassination, a subject about which they know next to nothing and whose significance they have been unable to grasp. Having never read the investigative literature, they dismiss the investigators as irrelevant or irrational. To cloak their own position with intellectual respectability, they fall back on an unpracticed structuralism.

It is neither "Kennedy worship" nor "Camelot yearnings" that motivates our inquiry, but a desire to fight back against manipulative and malignant institutions so that we might begin to develop a system of accountable rule worthy of the name democracy.

--------------------------------

1 Kennedy's intent to withdraw is documented in the Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers ("Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," vol. 2, pp. 160-200). It refers to "the Accelerated Model Plan . . .. for a rapid phase out of the bulk of U.S. military personnel" and notes that the administration was "serious about limiting the U.S. commitment and throwing the burden onto the South Vietnamese themselves." But "all the planning for phase-out . . . was either ignored or caught up in the new thinking of January to March 1964" (p. 163) - the new thinking that came after JFK was killed and Johnson became president.

2 Del Valle's name came up the day after JFK's assassination when Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade announced at a press conference that Oswald was a member of del Valle's anti-communist "Free Cuba Committee." Wade was quickly contradicted from the audience by Jack Ruby, who claimed that Oswald was a member of the leftish Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Del Valle, who was one of several people that New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison sought out in connection with the JFK assassination, was killed the same day that Dave Ferrie, another suspect met a suspicious death. When found in Miami, del Valle's body showed evidence of having been tortured, bludgeoned, and shot.

3 The bankers of the Federal Reserve System print paper money, then lend it to the government at an interest. Kennedy signed an executive order issuing over $4 billion in currency notes through the U.S. Treasury, thus bypassing the Fed's bankers and the hundreds of millions of dollars in interest that would normally be paid out to them. These "United States Notes" were quickly withdrawn after JFK's assassination.

4 See Mark Lane, Plausible Denial; Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991). For testimony of another participant see Robert Morrow: First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1992).
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Here is an article written before 9/11 which exposes the same BS "theories" that continue to target conspiracy facts...



Conspiracy fact vs. conspiracy theory
www.onlinejournal.com/archive/05-01-01_Binion.pdf
By Carla Binion


May 1, 2001—There have been actual conspiracies in this country, as we all know. Watergate, Iran-contra, BCCI, the savings and loan scandal, Iraq-gate, Cointelpro, and the CIA’s drugs-for- weapons trade are all examples of actual conspiracies. They’re all a matter of public record, most of them investigated by congressional committees.

In “Goebbels and mind control, part three,” we talked about the fact that social problems, such as poverty, the lack of affordable health care, and an inequitable tax system, are not the result of just one aberrant conspiracy. Instead, they are natural outcomes of a system whose central goal is the accumulation of wealth and power for the few.

That central goal is the main impetus behind many of the genuine conspiracies. Politicians might talk about education, health care and social security. However, for many politicians, the top priority is seeing that the very few, who own vast amounts of wealth, get their interests served ahead of 99 percent of the rest of the population . . . far ahead.

In order for the few to keep expanding their wealth, they seek to control public dissent. Corporations try to undermine environmentalists, civil rights workers and labor in ways we examined in the series on Goebbels and mind control. “The people” and our discontent are often described by the ruling class and their think-tanks as threats to be “managed” rather than as fellow human beings with valid points to make. For example, in “The Crisis of Democracy,” (a report prepared by three social scientists on behalf of a right-wing think-tank) Samuel Huntington warned there was an “excess of democracy” in this country, which he described as a dangerous increase in egalitarianism and a “democratic distemper.” Huntington argued that inflation, unemployment and other problems could best be solved by less, not more, democracy. (Bertram Gross, “Friendly Fascism,” South End Press, 1980.)

Do the very wealthy ever seek to maintain their power through conspiracy? In “Land Of Idols,” (St. Martin’s Press, 1994) Michael Parenti offers “alternatives” to conspiracy theory:

(1) Somnambulist Theory: The wealthiest 1 percent sleepwalk through life, never giving a thought to their vast wealth or how to keep it.

(2) Coincidence Theory: Things repeatedly happen by chance in ways that magically maintain the interests of the very wealthy, year after year.

(3) Stupidity Theory: The very rich are befuddled, incompetent and ineffectual. They just don’t know how they keep that power.

(4) Spontaneity or Idiosyncrasy Theory: Stuff happens (in a way that keeps the system in place.) Again and again. Over long periods of time.

(5) Aberration Theory: Dirty tricks of the CIA and so forth are “atypical departures” from the norm.

The above theories would have us believe our inequitable tax system, corporate-owned media, unjust social conditions and other wrongful policies are momentary aberrations, isolated from the central goal of our political system. Again, that goal is protecting the money and power of the wealthiest 1 percent.

Parenti points out that the wealthiest 1 percent naturally defend their interests, just as farmers or steelworkers defend theirs. He quotes a corporate executive voicing typical ruling class self- interest at a meeting of his colleagues, “The have-nots are gaining steadily more political power to distribute the wealth downward. The masses have turned to a larger government.” Another executive said, “If we don’t take action now, we will see our own demise. We will evolve into another social democracy.” (Leonard Silk and David Vogel, “Ethics and Profits: The Crisis of Confidence in American Business.”)

Conspiracy fact is harder to deal with than conspiracy theory, because it shows us that something is fundamentally wrong with a political system whose central goal is the accumulation of wealth and power for the very few. (I’m repeating that central goal deliberately, because it is vital to keep in mind as we look at every sub-topic.) As one example, it’s a matter of public record that a number of wars have been waged and insurrections suppressed with the help of the Central Intelligence Agency, (CIA) for the purpose of increasing profits or protecting markets for the wealthy. Most of the CIA’s covert actions have been conspiracies by definition. For example, a Contra-era CIA training manual, “Psychological Operations in Guerilla Warfare,” reads: “It is possible to neutralize carefully selected and planned targets, such as court judges, mesta judges, police and state security officials, CDS chiefs, etc. For psychological purposes it is necessary to take extreme precautions . . . The mission to replace the individual should be followed by: Extensive explanation within the population affected of the reason why it was necessary for the good of the people.” (David McGowan, “Derailing Democracy: The America The Media Don’t Want You To See,” Common Courage Press, 2000.)

An earlier CIA training manual, “A Study of Assassinations,” reads: “No assassination instruction should ever be written or recorded . . . The simplest local tools are often the most efficient means of assassination . . . anything hard, heavy and handy will suffice . . . The most efficient accident . . . is a fall of 75 feet or more onto a hard surface . . . Falls before trains and subway cars are usually effective, but require exact timing . . . assassinations can seldom be employed with a clear conscience. Persons who are morally squeamish should not attempt it.” (McGowan, “Derailing Democracy.”)

In his 1995 book, “The Twilight Of Democracy,” former CIA political analyst Patrick E. Kennon argues that democracy is a failure, and that only well-trained technocrats are qualified to run the country. He claims that voters and our elected officials are too ignorant to question bureaucratic experts or contribute to decision-making. The problem is, the technocrats often give us the kinds of anti-ethics “solutions” recommended in the above CIA training manual excerpts. Today we have a president who was appointed instead of democratically elected. His team of well-trained technocrats run the country on behalf of the wealthiest 1 percent, with little regard for the other 99 percent of us. This is not a result of any one aberrant conspiracy, but is the rational outcome of a political system that exists to protect the wealth and power of the few at the expense of the many.

What we are living with today is the result of money-and-power run amok. It’s a political system that has gradually inched away from its stated purpose of government instituted “of, by and for the people,” toward a system aimed at fleecing the people, with no annoying “moral squeamishness” to interfere. There have been many actual conspiracies along the road from the former system to the latter
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Paranoid shift

By Michael Hasty
Online Journal
Jan 10, 2004

Just before his death, James Jesus Angleton, the legendary chief of counterintelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, was a bitter man. He felt betrayed by the people he had worked for all his life. In the end, he had come to realize that they were never really interested in American ideals of “freedom” and “democracy.“ They really only wanted “absolute power.”

Angleton told author Joseph Trento that the reason he had gotten the counterintelligence job in the first place was by agreeing not to submit “sixty of Allen Dulles’ closest friends” to a polygraph test concerning their business deals with the Nazis. In his end-of-life despair, Angleton assumed that he would see all his old companions again “in hell.”

The transformation of James Jesus Angleton from an enthusiastic, Ivy League cold warrior, to a bitter old man, is an extreme example of a phenomenon I call a “paranoid shift.” I recognize the phenomenon, because something similar happened to me.

Although I don’t remember ever meeting James Jesus Angleton, I worked at the CIA myself as a low-level clerk as a teenager in the ‘60s. This was at the same time I was beginning to question the government’s actions in Vietnam. In fact, my personal “paranoid shift” probably began with the disillusionment I felt when I realized that the story of American foreign policy was, at the very least, more complicated and darker than I had hitherto been led to believe.

But for most of the next 30 years, even though I was a radical, I nevertheless held faith in the basic integrity of a system where power ultimately resided in the people, and whereby if enough people got together and voted, real and fundamental change could happen.

What constitutes my personal paranoid shift is that I no longer believe this to be necessarily true.

In his book, “Rogue State: A Guide to the World’s Only Superpower,” William Blum warns of how the media will make anything that smacks of “conspiracy theory” an immediate “object of ridicule.” This prevents the media from ever having to investigate the many strange interconnections among the ruling class -- for example, the relationship between the boards of directors of media giants, and the energy, banking and defense industries. These unmentionable topics are usually treated with what Blum calls “the media’s most effective tool -- silence.” But in case somebody’s asking questions, all you have to do is say, “conspiracy theory,” and any allegation instantly becomes too frivolous to merit serious attention.

On the other hand, since my paranoid shift, whenever I hear the words “conspiracy theory” (which seems more often, lately) it usually means someone is getting too close to the truth.

Take September 11 -- which I identify as the date my paranoia actually shifted, though I didn’t know it at the time.

Unless I’m paranoid, it doesn’t make any sense at all that George W. Bush, commander-in-chief, sat in a second-grade classroom for 20 minutes after he was informed that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, listening to children read a story about a goat. Nor does it make sense that the Number 2 man, Dick Cheney -- even knowing that “the commander” was on a mission in Florida -- nevertheless sat at his desk in the White House, watching TV, until the Secret Service dragged him out by the armpits.

Unless I’m paranoid, it makes no sense that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sat at his desk until Flight 77 hit the Pentagon -- well over an hour after the military had learned about the multiple hijacking in progress. It also makes no sense that the brand-new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat in a Senate office for two hours while the 9/11 attacks took place, after leaving explicit instructions that he not be disturbed -- which he wasn‘t.

In other words, while the 9/11 attacks were occurring, the entire top of the chain of command of the most powerful military in the world sat at various desks, inert. Why weren’t they in the “Situation Room?” Don’t any of them ever watch “West Wing?”

In a sane world, this would be an object of major scandal. But here on this side of the paranoid shift, it’s business as usual.

Years, even decades before 9/11, plans had been drawn up for American forces to take control of the oil interests of the Middle East, for various imperialist reasons. And these plans were only contingent upon “a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor,” to gain the majority support of the American public to set the plans into motion. When the opportunity presented itself, the guards looked the other way . . . and presto, the path to global domination was open.

Simple, as long as the media played along. And there is voluminous evidence that the media play along. Number one on Project Censored’s annual list of underreported stories in 2002 was the Project for a New American Century (now the infrastructure of the Bush Regime), whose report, published in 2000, contains the above “Pearl Harbor” quote.

Why is it so hard to believe serious people who have repeatedly warned us that powerful ruling elites are out to dominate “the masses?” Did we think Dwight Eisenhower was exaggerating when he warned of the extreme “danger” to democracy of “the military industrial complex?” Was Barry Goldwater just being a quaint old-fashioned John Bircher when he said that the Trilateral Commission was “David Rockefeller’s latest scheme to take over the world, by taking over the government of the United States?” Were Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt or Joseph Kennedy just being class traitors when they talked about a small group of wealthy elites who operate as a hidden government behind the government? Especially after he died so mysteriously, why shouldn’t we believe the late CIA Director William Colby, who bragged about how the CIA “owns everyone of any major significance in the major media?”

Why can’t we believe James Jesus Angleton -- a man staring eternal judgment in the face -- when he says that the founders of the Cold War national security state were only interested in “absolute power?” Especially when the descendant of a very good friend of Allen Dulles now holds power in the White House.

Prescott Bush, the late, aristocratic senator from Connecticut, and grandfather of George W Bush, was not only a good friend of Allen Dulles, CIA director, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and international business lawyer. He was also a client of Dulles’ law firm. As such, he was the beneficiary of Dulles’ miraculous ability to scrub the story of Bush’s treasonous investments in the Third Reich out of the news media, where it might have interfered with Bush’s political career . . . not to mention the presidential careers of his son and grandson.

Recently declassified US government documents, unearthed last October by investigative journalist John Buchanan at the New Hampshire Gazette, reveal that Prescott Bush’s involvement in financing and arming the Nazis was more extensive than previously known. Not only was Bush managing director of the Union Banking Corporation, the American branch of Hitler’s chief financier’s banking network; but among the other companies where Bush was a director -- and which were seized by the American government in 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act -- were a shipping line which imported German spies; an energy company that supplied the Luftwaffe with high-ethyl fuel; and a steel company that employed Jewish slave labor from the Auschwitz concentration camp.

Like all the other Bush scandals that have been swept under the rug in the privatized censorship of the corporate media, these revelations have been largely ignored, with the exception of a single article in the Associated Press. And there are those, even on the left, who question the current relevance of this information.

But Prescott Bush’s dealings with the Nazis do more than illustrate a family pattern of genteel treason and war profiteering -- from George Senior’s sale of TOW missiles to Iran at the same time he was selling biological and chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, to Junior’s zany misadventures in crony capitalism in present-day Iraq.

More disturbing by far are the many eerie parallels between Adolph Hitler and George W. Bush:

A conservative, authoritarian style, with public appearances in military uniform (which no previous American president has ever done while in office). Government by secrecy, propaganda and deception. Open assaults on labor unions and workers’ rights. Preemptive war and militant nationalism. Contempt for international law and treaties. Suspiciously convenient “terrorist” attacks, to justify a police state and the suspension of liberties. A carefully manufactured image of “The Leader,” who’s still just a “regular guy” and a “moderate.” “Freedom” as the rationale for every action. Fantasy economic growth, based on unprecedented budget deficits and massive military spending.

And a cold, pragmatic ideology of fascism -- including the violent suppression of dissent and other human rights; the use of torture, assassination and concentration camps; and most important, Benito Mussolini’s preferred definition of “fascism” as “corporatism, because it binds together the interests of corporations and the state.”

By their fruits, you shall know them.

What perplexes me most is probably the same question that plagues most paranoiacs: why don’t other people see these connections?

Oh, sure, there may be millions of us, lurking at websites like Online Journal, From the Wilderness, Center for Cooperative Research, and the Center for Research on Globalization, checking out right-wing conspiracists and the galaxy of 9/11 sites, and reading columnists like Chris Floyd at the Moscow Times, and Maureen Farrell at Buzzflash. But we know we are only a furtive minority, the human remnant among the pod people in the live-action, 21st-century version of “Invasion of the Body Snatchers.”

And being paranoid, we have to figure out, with an answer that fits into our system, why more people don’t see the connections we do. Fortunately, there are a number of possible explanations.

First on the list would have to be what Marshal McLuhan called the “cave art of the electronic age:” advertising. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Karl Rove, gave credit for most of his ideas on how to manipulate mass opinion to American commercial advertising, and to the then-new science of “public relations.” But the public relations universe available to the corporate empire that rules the world today makes the Goebbels operation look primitive. The precision of communications technology and graphics; the century of research on human psychology and emotion; and the uniquely centralized control of triumphant post-Cold War monopoly capitalism, have combined to the point where “the manufacture of consent” can be set on automatic pilot.

A second major reason people won’t make the paranoid shift is that they are too fundamentally decent. They can’t believe that the elected leaders of our country, the people they’ve been taught through 12 years of public school to admire and trust, are capable of sending young American soldiers to their deaths and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians, just to satisfy their greed -- especially when they’re so rich in the first place. Besides, America is good, and the media are liberal and overly critical.

Third, people don’t want to look like fools. Being a “conspiracy theorist” is like being a creationist. The educated opinion of eminent experts on every TV and radio network is that any discussion of “oil” being a motivation for the US invasion of Iraq is just out of bounds, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a “conspiracy theorist.” We can trust the integrity of our ‘no-bid” contracting in Iraq, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a “conspiracy theorist.” Of course, people sometimes make mistakes, but our military and intelligence community did the best they could on and before September 11, and anybody who thinks otherwise is a “conspiracy theorist.”

Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a “conspiracy theorist.”

Perhaps the biggest hidden reason people don’t make the paranoid shift is that knowledge brings responsibility. If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world’s most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world’s only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people’s votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don’t live in a particularly democratic system. And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn’t be enough. Because then the duty of citizenship would go beyond serving as a loyal opposition, to serving as a “loyal resistance” -- like the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except that in this case the resistance to fascism would be on the side of the national ideals, rather than the government; and a violent insurgency would not only play into the empire’s hands, it would be doomed from the start.

Forming a nonviolent resistance movement, on the other hand, might mean forsaking some middle class comfort, and it would doubtless require a lot of work. It would mean educating ourselves and others about the nature of the truly apocalyptic beast we face. It would mean organizing at the most basic neighborhood level, face to face. (We cannot put our trust in the empire’s technology.) It would mean reaching across turf lines and transcending single-issue politics, forming coalitions and sharing data and names and strategies, and applying energy at every level of government, local to global. It would also probably mean civil disobedience, at a time when the Bush regime is starting to classify that action as “terrorism.” In the end, it may mean organizing a progressive confederacy to govern ourselves, just as our revolutionary founders formed the Continental Congress. It would mean being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves.

It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift.

But as a paranoid, I’m ready to join the resistance. And the main reason is I no longer think that the “conspiracy” is much of a “theory.”

That the US House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was “probably” the result of “a conspiracy,” and that 70 percent of Americans agree with this conclusion, is not a “theory.” It’s fact.

That the Bay of Pigs fiasco, “Operation Zapata,” was organized by members of Skull and Bones, the ghoulish and powerful secret society at Yale University whose membership also included Prescott, George Herbert Walker and George W Bush; that two of the ships that carried the Cuban counterrevolutionaries to their appointment with absurdity were named the “Barbara” and the “Houston” -- George HW Bush’s city of residence at the time -- and that the oil company Bush owned, then operating in the Caribbean area, was named “Zapata,” is not “theory.” It’s fact.

That George Bush was the CIA director who kept the names of what were estimated to be hundreds of American journalists, considered to be CIA “assets,” from the Church Committee, the US Senate Intelligence Committe chaired by Senator Frank Church that investigated the CIA in the 1970s; that a 1971 University of Michigan study concluded that, in America, the more TV you watched, the less you knew; and that a recent survey by international scholars found that Americans were the most “ignorant” of world affairs out of all the populations they studied, is not a “theory.” It’s fact.

That the Council on Foreign Relations has a history of influence on official US government foreign policy; that the protection of US supplies of Middle East oil has been a central element of American foreign policy since the Second World War; and that global oil production has been in decline since its peak year, 2000, is not “theory.” It’s fact.

That, in the early 1970s, the newly-formed Trilateral Commission published a report which recommended that, in order for “globalization” to succeed, American manufacturing jobs had to be exported, and American wages had to decline, which is exactly what happened over the next three decades; and that, during that same period, the richest one percent of Americans doubled their share of the national wealth, is not “theory.” It’s fact.

That, beyond their quasi-public role as agents of the US Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Banks are profit-making corporations, whose beneficiaries include some of America’s wealthiest families; and that the United States has a virtual controlling interest in the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization, the three dominant global financial institutions, is not a “theory.” It’s fact.

That -- whether it’s heroin from Southeast Asia in the ‘60s and ‘70s, or cocaine from Central America and heroin from Afghanistan in the ‘80s, or cocaine from Colombia in the ‘90s, or heroin from Afghanistan today -- no major CIA covert operation has ever lacked a drug smuggling component, and that the CIA has hired Nazis, fascists, drug dealers, arms smugglers, mass murderers, perverts, sadists, terrorists and the Mafia, is not “theory.” It’s fact.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
It's worth noting that, despite their differences, all three types -- the zombies, the cowards, and the self-appointed know-it-alls -- have the same general reaction upon being told about such things as false flag terrorism, banker-engineered depressions, and the NWO agenda: they blindly dismiss them as (you guessed it!) "conspiracy theories."

Everyone knows that, when a frightened little child clings to his teddy bear, he does so purely because of the emotional comfort it gives him. Yet what few adults -- particularly authority-worshipping, straw man-bashing, insult-spewing coincidence theorists -- will ever admit to is that they invoke the term "conspiracy theory" for the same exact reason.  





The only difference, of course, is that a four-year-old has an excuse for acting that childish.  ::)
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,519
Hi S.

Those photos of the children got to me. Is this what we are leaving them, is this to be their heritage.

I didn't through all of Geos post, what I did was on the money.. For so very long the pols and their MSM machine have labeled any and all reistance to their deceptions as Consiracy Theorists,, they have demonized the phrase. tin hatted us, UFO trechys, disidents, scitsos, whatever, they have weened the public on this term. Yes, their instant rebutall to any and all truth.
Even to go as far as labeling truthers nutbags, Beck has pushed this one endlessly. You can bet your bip this slander will continue and increase, it is their their f  defense mechanism, they are masters of human nature and use their expertise to the fullest. The day is around the corner we will shift from truthers to dissidents, sympathizers, unpatriotic groups of pysco bablers.

The other side of the coin, we have grown in dimension incredibly, imploded actualy, the more they push this slant its very possible they will draw more attention to the truth.

Offline Sheepleprod

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 748
This is an awesome thread +1000

Offline squarepusher

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,013
'Conspiracy theorist' is the modern-day equivalent of 'Thought criminal' from Orwell's novel 'Nineteen Eighty Four'.

Really, it's that simple. They applied that concept straight from Orwell's book onto modern society - and it serves them well. If Orwell were alive today, he would use that exact same term instead of 'Thought criminal'.
Infowars Wiki - Help make this become the official wiki of Infowars.com - contribute!

Offline squarepusher

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,013
Hi S.

Those photos of the children got to me. Is this what we are leaving them, is this to be their heritage.

There are many ADULTS today that are exactly like those children clutching their teddy bears -  they look towards 'Big brother/Big sister' to solve it all and they don't want to hear anything negative. You might recognize some of them as your own parents even. So 'is this what we are leaving them' is really redundant - the brainwashing began before you were even born - before your parents were born.
Infowars Wiki - Help make this become the official wiki of Infowars.com - contribute!

Offline infowarrior_039

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • explosions in the sky
    • Truth Archive
this is the thread where i would love to insert the NWO Illuminati game card "Conspiracy Theorists" but i seem to have misplaced it (and cant find on the net)... if i find it i will post it..

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
There are many ADULTS today that are exactly like those children clutching their teddy bears -  they look towards 'Big brother/Big sister' to solve it all and they don't want to hear anything negative. You might recognize some of them as your own parents even. So 'is this what we are leaving them' is really redundant - the brainwashing began before you were even born - before your parents were born.

This has got to be one of the best threads on this forum. Thanks geolibertarian for starting it and squarepusher (as well as others) for keeping it fresh.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline John_Back_From_The_Club_O

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,166
    • From Hell to Veins
The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is a 'programmed' mass hypnotic response phrase. 

For instance, if one has been watching way too much TV and has heard over and over the above phrase associated with obvious disinfo or absurd situations, then that person has been programmed with the correct trigger response to 'LUMP ALL' situations that would otherwise warrant serious discernment into 'conspiracy THEORIES.   Here the brain can simply NOT HAVE TO THINK.

It works well because people have always preferred 'easy' flip-of-the-switch answers instead of having to bother with putting 2 and 2 together. 

...and the NWO system provides all these sleeping people with ready made easy answers.
The Crowd Shouted... “Give us Barabbas!” ... and People, The NWO Gave Him To You.
http://www.dominicanajournal.org/give-us-barabbas/

https://www.greatagain.gov

Offline Valerius

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,865
Good stuff. I've heard similar separately, but not all bundled up.
"No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck."  -Frederick Douglass

Offline unitedstrokesofamerica

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,452
  • DOMO SMASH DA NWO!!!!
great post A+
"You gotta remember, establishment, it’s just a name for evil. The monster doesn’t care whether it kills all the students or whether there’s a revolution. It’s not thinking logically, it’s out of control."
— John Lennon (1969)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEej1feA9N8

Offline citizenx

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9,086
Let's talk about Daniel Pipes, who seems to have coined the phrase and his relationship to the great state of Israel and the highjacking of American foreign policy by the neocons.

"Conspiracy theory" is one of the greatest weapons in the arsenal of the Mossad propaganda machine in the United States.  Anybody that doesn't go along with AIPAC/ADL poiint-of-view is labeled a "conspiracy theorist."


Offline xereau

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,246
  • Thread Killer
CONSPIRACY
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. Law An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas.

THEORY
n. pl. the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2. The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
3. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.

HYPOTHESIS
n. pl. hy·poth·e·ses (-sz)
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.


What the powers that be want everyone to believe, is that Alex Jones et al promote 'Conspiracy Theories'.

What the powers that be are actually accusing Alex Jones et al of being is promoting 'Conspiracy Hypotheses'.

Check out the above difference between a THEORY and a HYPOTHESIS.

This difference is the Orwellian mindf*ck they pull using this term.

*****************************

A hypothesis is an explanation without evidence.

A theory is an explanation with replicable, scrutinizable data, or hard facts to back it up.

Learn this difference.

Educate others on the significance of this discrepancy.

A THEORY HAS REPLICABLE HARD FACTS TO BACK IT UP.
Government is the Entertainment Division of the military-industrial complex. --  Frank Zappa

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
There is clearly a massive and utterly pathetic PSYOP underway:

------------------------------

http://www.prisonplanet.com/media-says-nazis-al-qaeda-terrorists-and-conspiracy-theorists-targeting-children-online.html

Media says Nazis, Al Qaeda, Terrorists, and Conspiracy Theorists Targeting Children Online

Ruben Meyer
Prisonplanet.com
March 16, 2010

Gone are the days when Conspiracy theorists were portrayed as harmless crazies who wore tin foil hats. According to the mainstream media, today Conspiracy Theorists are targeting your children on the internet alongside Al Qaeda, and Neo-Nazi Organizations.

On March 15 the lead story on FoxNews.com (under a glowing banner of SS Storm Troopers) was “Terrorists Targeting Children via Facebook, Twitter.”

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/15/terrorists-targeting-children-via-facebook-twitter/

This article goes on to cite the 2010 Digital Terror Report from the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Tolerance in which the Wiesenthal Center found a 20% increase in the prevalence of hate-filled web sites. But the most troubling aspect of this piece of “Fair and Balanced Journalism” put out by Fox News is this paragraph.

“The report found a 20% increase to 11,500 in hate-filled social networks, Web sites, forums, blogs, Twitter feeds, and so on (up from 10,000 last year). It notes that beyond its role in our social lives, the Internet often acts as the incubator and validator of dangerous conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and organ theft.”

Dangerous Conspiracy Theories? The article does not go on to explain exactly how Conspiracy Theories are dangerous but it does a fine job at implying how they are dangerous by going on to associate Conspiracy Theorists with Neo-Nazis, Islamic Terrorists, and of course Al Qaeda.

The article continues on to say that “ The Wiesenthal Center uncovered expanded ‘how-to’ posts for terrorists, including binary and laser technology. And even more disturbing, the Center found hate games, including one inviting the user to bomb Haitian earthquake victims, continue to target young people.”

I can hear the fear crazed, mainstream media brainwashed, populace clamoring “How-to Posts for Terrorists, including binary and Laser Technology on the internet? I’m not sure what it is but it sounds scary so we better censor the internet in order to protect the children.”

The article concludes by recapping (in the usual way, with minimal detail) with

“FoxNews.com reported that the 6-year-old son of a Colorado nursing student who ran off to Europe to join a terrorist murder cell was brainwashed into a hate-filled Islamic fundamentalist zombie, his family said Saturday. Her family said she struck up an Internet friendship with a Colorado radical.”

See the Internet has converted this innocent 6 Year Old into (Quoting Fox News Here) “a hate-filled Islamic Fundamentalist Zombie.” But the implication is clear, if a Neo-Nazi got to the child first via the Internet he would have become a “Hate-Filled White Supremacist Zombie.” But if the child stumbled upon some websites asking why the BBC reported WTC Building 7 collapsing before the building collapsed, or a website asking why thermite dust was found in the rubble of the World Trade Center, or a website asking why the Pentagon has never released the videos of the hijacked airliner striking the Pentagon then the mainstream media would be reporting that the internet turned the child into a “Hate-Filled 9/11 Truther Zombie.”

Or if the child simply read the UK Guardian Online Article “ Doctor admits Israeli pathologists harvested organs without consent.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/21/israeli-pathologists-harvested-organs that child would now be referred to as a “Hate-Filled Anti-Semite Zombie.”

The writing on the walls is clear. The number of 9/11 Truthers has grown to a level where the media can no longer discount our fact-based arguments effectively with a simple “Go look for Black Helicopters cook.”

9/11 Truthers come from a wide diverse background from all sectors of society and form a large and ever growing population. They are physicists, engineers, doctors, celebrities, actors, Governors, Former German Defense Ministers, and of course they are the brave people on the street passing out DVDs and fliers.

So with their favorite ad hominem attack of “Cooky Tin-Foil Hat wearing Man” rendered useless they have been forced to turn to a more provocative slander. That 9/11 Truthers are violent extremists.

Shortly following the Pentagon shooting on March 4, 2010 the media was quick to point out that shooter John Patrick Bedell was a 9/11 Truther. Questions remain whether this was a staged event or not but either way the propagandists have ran with it, 9/11 Truth is a violent, dangerous movement.

And as a matter of fact, FoxNews.com ran a slideshow as part of this article entitled “The World Wide Web of Hate.” in which they expose “The Web’s Worst Sites.” John Patrick Bedell’s audio files are listed in this list alongside Neo Nazi Blogs, White Supremacist Websites, Hamas Training Videos, and the website for Al Qaeda in the Southern Arabian Peninsula.

Does one of these not belong with the others? Nazi, White-Supremacist, Islamic Terrorist, 9/11 Truther.

According to the mainstream media, no. They are all violent hate mongers. And if the propagandists succeed they will set the tone for all future debate in the pattern of “9/11 an Inside Job? What are you Al Qaeda?” Never mind that 9/11 truth does not believe that Al Qaeda even exists outside of a CIA operation. That is what you will be told by the Fair and Balanced truth dispensing glowing box in the room.

But most frightening of all, is that this FoxNews.com article just continues in the pattern of “We must protect the children from the hate-filled Internet.” The mainstream media will make it appear that most people are frightened by the Internet and that they support government oversight of it in the name of protecting our children. This is a lie. Most people are opposed to any censorship online but that’s not what you will hear on the TV. You will hear “You don’t want to censor the internet? What are you? A pedophile, a terrorist, an evil 9/11 Truther? Because those are the only people that want a free uncensored Internet.” Any mention of free speech will quickly be glossed over.

The reason that this is happening is simple, The controllers are afraid of 9/11 Truth and the Internet.

[Continued...]

------------------------------

The predatory, parasitic, ruling-class oligarchs who've hijacked our government -- and the minions and thugs-for-hire who gleefully serve them -- know that they're anti-American criminals who belong behind bars, and that the masses are becoming increasingly aware of this fact. So they're trying desperately to project their very own clinical psychosis and treasonous/terroristic behavior onto anyone who dares not worship them as Gods (or at least grovel to them like a cowardly slave).

"Waaaah! Look! All those horrible people are actually thinking for themselves instead of letting us tell them what to think! They're actually criticizing us for engaging in the very 'terrorism' we profess to oppose, for turning America into a Nazi-style police state, and for waging economic war against them! Waaaah! Waaaah! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaah!"








Just bwakes ur wittle heart, doesn't it?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline squarepusher

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,013
Quote

The report found a 20% increase to 11,500 in hate-filled social networks, Web sites, forums, blogs, Twitter feeds, and so on (up from 10,000 last year). It notes that beyond its role in our social lives, the Internet often acts as the incubator and validator of dangerous conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 and organ theft.

"dangerous" conspiracy theories - you know what they say:

First they ignore you,
then they mock you,
then they attack you,
then they fight you,
then you win."

That was by Mathma Gandhi, and it still holds up today. First, it was simply ignored - we were a 'fringe' group. Then, they were mocking it as 'crazy' or 'lunatic-like'. Then, they attacked it - as they're doing now. That's the phase we're in right now.

Screw all these goddamn enemies of humanity all over the globe - they can take their pedophile-pushing/legalizing, C4ISR/control grid, RFID tracking mechanisms, they can take all that garbage and SHOVE IT right up their ass - because I sure as hell WON'T SUBMIT.

YOU CAN PUT ME INSIDE THE GRID, BUT ALL YOUR BEHAVIOR INFERRING SOFTWARE AND COURSE OF ACTION GENERATING SYSTEMS ARE AN OPTIC ILLUSION THAT IS VERY MUCH A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD - BECAUSE IT EMPOWERS YOU, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT ALSO LIMITS YOU TO A SEVERELY CONSTRICTED VIEW OF 'HEY, THE SYSTEM TELLS ME THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, SO IT HAS TO BE SO'. AND THAT'S WHERE YOUR WEAKNESS IS.

Just because the Oracle Delphi convinced the Greeks such and such was going to take place, did not necessarily make it so. But by 'believing' it, and by seeing to it that it happens, you make it 'reality'. For example - say the Oracle tells her 'client' - say, a Greek military commander or something - that a great war is about to begin between the Greeks and the Spartans. Based on this portion of perceived 'knowledge', the Greek military leadership become so obsessed with this idea/forecast that it eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The 'theory' becomes reality by people believing it - it becomes a center of gravity. That's what this stuff is.

That's all CAESAR III, TEMPER, JSIMS, and GIS-enabled simulation systems are - modern-day Oracles who 'predict' something based on whatever rubbish you feed them. This whole urge to want to control everything and anything at any time is a sensory deception and a great con - I'm not even getting into a theological argument here because I subscribe to no religious orthodoxy, but there's no doubting that a great many people are not only deceived, but they think they gain some kind of higher power by being 'deceived'  - why else would 'oracles', 'behavioralists' and 'psychologists' be so revered?
Infowars Wiki - Help make this become the official wiki of Infowars.com - contribute!

Offline 46andtwo

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 24
Squarepusher,

I appreciated your views in the previous post and would like to know a little more. 

"YOU CAN PUT ME INSIDE THE GRID, BUT ALL YOUR BEHAVIOR INFERRING SOFTWARE AND COURSE OF ACTION GENERATING SYSTEMS ARE AN OPTIC ILLUSION THAT IS VERY MUCH A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD - BECAUSE IT EMPOWERS YOU, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT ALSO LIMITS YOU TO A SEVERELY CONSTRICTED VIEW OF 'HEY, THE SYSTEM TELLS ME THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, SO IT HAS TO BE SO'. AND THAT'S WHERE YOUR WEAKNESS IS."

What does this mean?  That we are all living in a 3D matrix and everything is simulated/self-fulfilling?

"Just because the Oracle Delphi convinced the Greeks such and such was going to take place, did not necessarily make it so. But by 'believing' it, and by seeing to it that it happens, you make it 'reality'. For example - say the Oracle tells her 'client' - say, a Greek military commander or something - that a great war is about to begin between the Greeks and the Spartans. Based on this portion of perceived 'knowledge', the Greek military leadership become so obsessed with this idea/forecast that it eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The 'theory' becomes reality by people believing it - it becomes a center of gravity. That's what this stuff is."

How does one 'break out' of this system, to where it exists no more?

Offline infowarrior_039

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • explosions in the sky
    • Truth Archive

Offline squarepusher

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,013
Squarepusher,

I appreciated your views in the previous post and would like to know a little more.  

"YOU CAN PUT ME INSIDE THE GRID, BUT ALL YOUR BEHAVIOR INFERRING SOFTWARE AND COURSE OF ACTION GENERATING SYSTEMS ARE AN OPTIC ILLUSION THAT IS VERY MUCH A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD - BECAUSE IT EMPOWERS YOU, BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT ALSO LIMITS YOU TO A SEVERELY CONSTRICTED VIEW OF 'HEY, THE SYSTEM TELLS ME THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO, SO IT HAS TO BE SO'. AND THAT'S WHERE YOUR WEAKNESS IS."

What does this mean?  That we are all living in a 3D matrix and everything is simulated/self-fulfilling?

No, I don't bring new-age theology into this (apologies if this was not what you were driving at - since I can't be sure). I'm just saying that the systems they are using - this onion-shaped control grid that consists of the wireless network sensors, the CCTV cameras, the systems that 'predict' all possible moves by insurgents and mass groups of people - what I'm saying is - all of that does not necessarily have to reflect 'reality' in the way they think it does. But they are so rigidly constrained by their own 'oracle'-like systems that they will believe whatever is 'shown' in these systems to be the ultimate gospel truth.

For instance, let's say the face-scanning cameras chronicle my daily behaviour. Let's say they infer from this that I will always walk this specific way, hop onto this specific bus and so on. I'm not saying we are not predictable - but they basically take that as their premise and they discount any possibility that human beings will 'adapt' in a changing environment - for instance, I might get the hell out of dodge before the city is totally bankrupt because I don't want to be here when there are mobs on the streets looting and stealing everything.

I'm just doubtful of their ability to extract 'meaningful' and 'relevant' data from these systems - and I'm wondering whether or not it might prove to be their own Achilles Heel. Of course, at the same time I also doubt my own analysis in this respect - perhaps this is just a white little lie that I tell myself so that I can say: "Well, see, it's not so bad. They might have all this crap, but they can't predict this or that".

Quote
How does one 'break out' of this system, to where it exists no more?

I don't think you can. People are in it whether they like it or not.

BTW, I'm very skeptical of the new age - as part of a fitness exercise schedule, I had to do a few yoga classes and I didn't like it. They make you do all of these subservient moves that have you 'bowing' to some kind of Sun God or whatever and it freaks me out how they're embedding 'religion' and packaging it as a sport. In the same way, they teach you as part of the yoga lessons that at some point you have to lie down on your little mattress and 'think away' everything and imagine you're in some beautiful grass valley where there is no danger and so on. And they refer to this as your 'comfort zone' that you can return to whenever you're meditating - I suppose, whenever you're feeling lost or whatever or whenever you're depressed.

That's the thing - you can't 'wish' away this stuff - what difference would it make to a Jew, living inside a concentration camp, to go to this 'comfort zone' inside his head and believe himself 'not' to be in the camp? There is a 'push' here to divert people off into abstract semi-theological 'possibility thinking', and I regard it as extremely dangerous.

I see David Icke pushing it as well. I will say that I agree with David Icke that human beings should have a better control over the 'three' brains inside their head as it were - but all this talk about 'consciousness' is ill-defined and it's left deliberately vague so the 'user'/'follower' can insert whatever positive connotation he can think of into that little box he calls 'consciousness'.

Here's another thing - it might as well be that people are living in a 3D matrix or that all of this is a cognitive illusion - but hey, I don't know for sure nor do I have any way of knowing for sure, hence I'm not even going to speculate about it or entertain any possibility of there being so. I'm certainly not going to push this idea onto other people - what good will that do? It's better to keep one's own personal interpretation of the universe to oneself and not go down a rabbit trail that may not lead anywhere.
Infowars Wiki - Help make this become the official wiki of Infowars.com - contribute!

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.prisonplanet.com/should-conspiratorial-thinking-be-the-default-position.html

Should Conspiratorial Thinking Be The Default Position?

Would society really collapse if Americans stopped trusting government wholesale, or would only the corrupt in power be threatened?

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Friday, March 19, 2010

Considering the number of times governments have been caught lying over the last few decades, we have to ask the question, should the belief that major world events and political developments happen as a result of a conspiracy of some form or other be the default position in contemporary thinking, or should we continue to blindly trust government and afford it the credibility it plainly doesn’t deserve in order to maintain a perceived sense of order?

Knowing their track record, trusting governments has become the height of foolishness. It would be like betting your mortgage on a horse that has lost every race it ever ran to win the Kentucky Derby.

And yet under the Obama administration, Americans are not only being told to trust government but to serve government, a complete reversal of the role of the state as laid down by the founders.

Would society really collapse if the vast majority of Americans distrusted government and authority figures as a reflex response, or would such a prevalent attitude lead to the most rapid restoration of freedom ever witnessed?

With corruption and injustice so virulently entwined in just about every sector of the federal government, a vacuum of power would inevitably ensue, leading potentially to a temporary state of anarchy. However, the common need for limited government would create fertile soil for the organic growth of more representative bodies.

The only way for the conspiratorial view of history to be dislodged from the prominent position in the body politic it has come to occupy would be for governments to start telling the truth again and stop lying to the public on an almost habitual basis. This is why reflex distrust of government is inherently healthy for a free and prosperous society.

However, since this is far too inconvenient for them, the establishment has decided instead to make their propaganda more sophisticated and more believable, in the hope that the public will grow tired of asking questions and reluctantly accept a contrived substitute for reality.

The establishment’s war on “conspiracy theories,” illustrated by White House regulatory czar Cass Sunstein’s attempt to ban or tax them, is almost completely focused around creating a misconception of why conspiracy theories attract prominence, advocacy, and credibility. They do so not as a result of some mass mental illness on behalf of the population, but as a natural reaction to endless government corruption, cover-ups and misdeeds.

The increasing conspicuity of the conspiratorial view of history is merely a symptom of growing distrust in government. Widespread distrust in government does not pose a threat to the public nor to their freedoms, it only poses a threat to tyrants and monopoly men who want to maintain their oppressive power over others.

Distrust in government is not extremist, unstable or psychotic as the military-industrial complex owned media would have it, it’s necessary, healthy and the most patriotic expression of freedom imaginable.

America was founded on distrust of government, and so long as that remains the case the fires of liberty will burn bright, even in times of mass deception and authoritarian brainwashing.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,519
J. Watson did a nice run of this, thanks for the post Geo. I'm hanging on to this pecie of work, its filed.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
Since most people have been conditioned to fear being labeled a "conspiracy theorist" more than death itself, when speaking to someone for the first time about 9/11 truth or something similar, you should always start out by asking him (or her) to define the word "conspiracy" for you.

Then, once he finishes bumbling through his Miss Teen South Carolina-style answer, show him what it really means:

    CONSPIRACY - 18 U.S.C. 371 makes it a separate Federal crime or offense for anyone to conspire or agree with someone else to do something which, if actually carried out, would amount to another Federal crime or offense. So, under this law, a 'conspiracy' is an agreement or a kind of 'partnership' in criminal purposes in which each member becomes the agent or partner of every other member.

    In order to establish a conspiracy offense it is not necessary for the Government to prove that all of the people named in the indictment were members of the scheme; or that those who were members had entered into any formal type of agreement; or that the members had planned together all of the details of the scheme or the 'overt acts' that the indictment charges would be carried out in an effort to commit the intended crime.

    Also, because the essence of a conspiracy offense is the making of the agreement itself (followed by the commission of any overt act), it is not necessary for the Government to prove that the conspirators actually succeeded in accomplishing their unlawful plan.

    What the evidence in the case must show beyond a reasonable doubt is:

    First: That two or more persons, in some way or manner, came to a mutual understanding to try to accomplish a common and unlawful plan, as charged in the indictment;

    Second: That the person willfully became a member of such conspiracy;

    Third: That one of the conspirators during the existence of the conspiracy knowingly committed at least one of the methods (or 'overt acts') described in the indictment; and

    Fourth: That such 'overt act' was knowingly committed at or about the time alleged in an effort to carry out or accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

    An 'overt act' is any transaction or event, even one which may be entirely innocent when considered alone, but which is knowingly committed by a conspirator in an effort to accomplish some object of the conspiracy.

    A person may become a member of a conspiracy without knowing all of the details of the unlawful scheme, and without knowing who all of the other members are. So, if a person has an understanding of the unlawful nature of a plan and knowingly and willfully joins in that plan on one occasion, that is sufficient to convict him for conspiracy even though he did not participate before, and even though he played only a minor part.



Make sure you point out the phrase, "two or more persons," so that he sees with his own eyes that, under the law, two is all it takes to make a "conspiracy."

Then ask him, "In view of this definition, is the official government account of 9/11 a conspiracy?"

Once you get him to admit that even the official story is a (gasp!) "conspiracy," you will have greatly reduced if not eliminated the psychological block he likely has to taking seriously anything that has that particular term attached to it.

Unless, of course, he's completely brainwashed, in which case he'll continue to mindlessly invoke the dreaded "C" word no matter how much smoking gun evidence you provide, and thereby prove what a total waste of time it is to discuss anything of importance with him to begin with.

Time is precious these days, so cast your pearls wisely.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

H0llyw00d

  • Guest

Offline phasma

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,197
  • Have a H.A.A.R.P.Y DAY !
If we are termed "conspiracy theorists then we are easier to discredit.
we automatically get lumped onto the "tin foil hat waering" bandwagon
i was in a acfe the other day when the news broke about the polish plane crash - i turned to my friend and said yeah right, accident my arse.
some guy at the next table turned to me and said - thats the problem with conspiracy theories - they are just theories - not provable.
random, i thought, but it is true a good percentage of the population just want to remain wrapped up tightly in their big bro bubble.
Things are not what they appear to be: nor are they otherwise - Surangama Sutra

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,147
  • GOT GLOCK
    • Graphic Design/Printing
I'm a TRUTH SEEKER
Make it so!

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
I'm a TRUTH SEEKER

Then as far as the criminal, parasitic, banker-owned political establishment is concerned, you're both a thought criminal and a potential terrorist.  ::)

Welcome to the Fourth Reich.
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,147
  • GOT GLOCK
    • Graphic Design/Printing
Then as far as the criminal, parasitic, banker-owned political establishment is concerned, you're both a throught criminal and a potential terrorist.  ::)

Welcome to the Fourth Reich.

We'll I'm not afraid to fight .. NO FEAR

Make it so!

H0llyw00d

  • Guest
its 1776 all over again......time for a refresher course people
1776-Some people were a tad disgruntled w/ the way the powers that be were abusing the money and raising/making taxes
They did something about it. They led a revolt that initially established this Once Great Country

2010-A LOT of people were a tad disgruntled w/ the way the powers that be were abusing the money and raising/making taxes
They did something about it. They watched American Idol on their iPods.

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,147
  • GOT GLOCK
    • Graphic Design/Printing
its 1776 all over again......time for a refresher course people
1776-Some people were a tad disgruntled w/ the way the powers that be were abusing the money and raising/making taxes
They did something about it. They led a revolt that initially established this Once Great Country

2010-A LOT of people were a tad disgruntled w/ the way the powers that be were abusing the money and raising/making taxes
They did something about it. They watched American Idol on their iPods.

Not when they cant pay their cable/internet LOL
Make it so!

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,090
    • Git Ureself Edumacated


i pray to god himself that this is what they believe and leave us the f alone until enough people wake from their slumber.

unfortunately the funky creator of this card failed to mention that they spend trillions infiltrating, provoking, hijacking, and sabatoging this "powerless and much mocked group"
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline L2Design

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,147
  • GOT GLOCK
    • Graphic Design/Printing
I love SANE!

Me too.. I think good will prevail.. you'll see  ;D ;D ;D
Make it so!

Offline infowarrior_039

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 789
  • explosions in the sky
    • Truth Archive
thats from the NWO card series by the way same as the ones they have of 9/11 and everything else.

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
http://www.infowars.com/cbs-propaganda-placement-conspiracy-theorists-are-anti-american-domestic-terrorists/

CBS Propaganda Placement: Conspiracy Theorists Are Anti-American, Domestic Terrorists

Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Monday, May 24th, 2010

A primetime CBS show that aired last week featured a notable example of so called “propaganda placement”, where a talking point is inserted into the plot in order to shape public perception, often at the behest of the government.

CSI NY’s episode entitled “Point of View” featured a character who researches “conspiracy theories”, such the deliberate dispersal of potentially dangerous chemtrails into the atmosphere.

First the character, a professor, is labeled ”odd”, then “anti-American”, before finally he is revealed to be a “domestic terrorist” hell bent on releasing a biological weapon in New York.

The following is a partial transcript of dialogue from the show:

    CSI detective: “I have a little intel on Professor Scott; he has a history of espousing various conspiracy theories; sharing them with his students got him into a little trouble.”

    Professor’s friend: “Every university has a least one unconventional professor.”

    Second CSI detective: “Oh come on Payton, this guys ideas here are totally anti-American. Look at this; water fluoridation, tsunami bombs, chemtrails…

    First CSI detective: “What are chemtrails?”

    Third CSI detective: “Some people believe that vapor exhaust from aircraft are actually dangerous bio-chemicals dispersed into the air.”

    Friend of the professor: “Which only proves that the professor is a little odd.”

Watch the video (the above dialogue begins at around 24:40)

[Video clip omitted - see original article for embedded player]

Call me a rabid conspiracy theorist, but the episode happens to coincide with a State Department guide that dismisses a range of “conspiracy theories”, including the use of depleted uranium by U.S. forces in Iraq as existing only “in the realm of myth”.

But the government cannot inject plot lines into TV dramas – that’s simply a baseless conspiracy theory, isn’t it?

Unfortunately no, it is not. As we covered in depth last year, in just one publicly announced instance, shows on all the major networks in the U.S. were infested with plot lines and talking points aimed at promoting “service and volunteerism”, as well as other topics high on the priorities list of the Obama administration.

One of those shows, according to the Entertainment Industry Foundation, was CSI: NY on CBS.

The week that followed saw many subliminal messages, as well as overt talking points, inserted into shows on all the networks.

Neither was this the first time the corporate networks prostituted their integrity and handed over control of their content to the Obama administration. Back in June 2009, ABC News mimicked the likes of Communist China and North Korea by completely turning its news coverage over to the government and excluding any dissenting opinions to promote President Obama’s health care agenda.

The use of the chemtrails talking point in CSI: NY is interesting given that the dispersal of sulphur containing aerosols into the atmosphere is a practice that has been proven to have been undertaken, and is a regular part of controversial discussions concerning geo-engineering the planet in the face of climate change.

Of course, you’re not supposed to know that, you’re just supposed to think it’s a crazy conspiracy theory espoused by nut case anti-American terrorists who want to kill you with bio weapons.

Could this latest example of propaganda placement be a manifestation of Obama’s information czar Cass Sunstein’s all out war on “conspiracy theories”? Or is that just another conspiracy theory too?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org
The Psychology of Conspiracy Denial
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2010, 10:34:09 AM »
http://www.prisonplanet.com/the-psychology-of-conspiracy-denial.html

The Psychology of Conspiracy Denial

Wired Magazine writer Jonah Lehrer claims his critics are engaging in “cognitive dissonance,” by expressing concern about experimental vaccines, which in fact is the perfect description for Lehrer’s own behavior

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, August 5, 2010

Wired Magazine writer Jonah Lehrer attempts to offset the overwhelmingly critical response to his attack on Alex Jones by characterizing skepticism of authority in the context of vaccines and mass medication as a psychological dysfunction, despite the fact that the history of government-funded medical research in the United States is replete with examples of scientific abuse against unwitting victims.

Lehrer fires another salvo in the controversy surrounding brain-altering vaccines that eliminate stress and induce artificial states of “focused calm” by portraying those who are concerned about the potential abuse of such treatments as paranoid cult members who believe in space aliens coming to rescue them from an imminent apocalypse.

Unable to properly address Alex Jones’ video journal about the dangers of mind-altering vaccines point by point, Lehrer resorts instead to retelling a completely unrelated story from the 1950’s about a woman in Minneapolis who thought a giant spaceship would rescue her from the end of the world.

According to Lehrer, people who are concerned about fluoridated drinking water and the New World Order, in other words, anyone who expresses consternation about what they are putting in their own body or what powerful people are planning to do with the planet, are mentally disturbed cult members who are victims of cognitive dissonance.

Of course, Lehrer’s tactic of labeling of those who disagree with him in pointing out that there are very real proposals to mass medicate the water supply with lithium, in addition to the already prevalent neurotoxin sodium fluoride, with a psychological dysfunction, could just as easily be applied to Lehrer himself.

The acid test on who is engaging in cognitive dissonance and ‘doubling down’ on their beliefs even in light of conflicting evidence, be it Lehrer or the “conspiracy theorists,” has to come down to the basic facts.

It’s a fact that Lehrer’s own fellow Oxford luminary Julian Savulescu, in a 2008 white paper, called for populations to be mass-medicated through pharmacological ‘cognitive enhancements’ added to the water supply.

It’s a fact that Professor Allan Young of Vancouver’s Institute for Mental Health told the BBC that “Large-scale trials involving the addition of lithium to drinking water supplies may…be feasible,” following claims that lithium led to a reduction in the number of suicides in Japan and helped to alleviate “mood disorders”.

It’s a fact that Barack Obama’s top science czar John P. Holdren advocated in his own textbook Ecoscience that a “planetary regime” should employ a “global police force” to enforce totalitarian measures of population control, including forced abortions, mass sterilization programs conducted via the food and water supply.

These facts are not a product of some spurious Internet link found on Google, as Lehrer spins it, nor do they have anything to do with alien spaceships or the apocalypse, they were either written or said directly by the individuals themselves.

In Lehrer’s first article on the subject, he wrote that people who expressed concern about proposals to put lithium as well as sterilants in the water supply were trafficking in “idiotic conspiracy theories”.

Lehrer’s knee jerk denial of these manifestly provable facts that he derides as “idiotic conspiracy theories” is proof positive that it’s Lehrer himself, and not the conspiracy theorists, who is engaging in cognitive dissonance and “doubling down” on his beliefs even in light of conflicting evidence.

Lehrer’s behavior is a classic case of cognitive dissonance – when presented with the fact that proposals are in place to mass medicate the water supply, he continues to spin yarns about space aliens from the 50’s while defending his belief system with sophomoric name-calling and discredited stereotypes which attempt to label anyone who disagrees with him as mentally unstable.

Given the multi-decade documented history of the United States government using its own population as unwitting guinea pigs for the most abhorrent scientific experiments and trials, to deny that such plots could be hatched today is the height of cognitive dissonance.

Lehrer’s argument frames skepticism of authority in the context of vaccines and health care as a mental disorder, a trait of people who are susceptible to cults, people who believe in space aliens and the apocalypse.

In fact, skepticism of authority in the context of health care is the most rational and intellectual mind set one could possibly embrace.

[Continued...]
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0

Offline OpticalOut22

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 11
I have to marvel at how well some of the news is spread nowadays and how certain groups have created puppets and loyal followers.  The news can spout off whatever it wants and you will see it come down the pipe and sheep will repeat it.
Exactly How to Build a 72 Hour Kit And Seriously Prepare For The Worst...

Offline Geolibertarian

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,122
  • 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB! www.911truth.org



Pretty much sums up this entire thread, does it not?
"Abolish all taxation save that upon land values." -- Henry George

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond, it can issue a dollar bill." -- Thomas Edison

http://schalkenbach.org
http://www.monetary.org
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=203330.0