The Complete Post Modern, New Age Idiots’ Guide to the Dark, Subversive, Malevolent, Conspiratorial Forces that Shape the New World Order we Live In
‘At the bottom of Dante’s Inferno, in that third part of the traitors’ ninth circle called Tolomea, Dante and Vergil encounter a certain Frate Alberigo. Tolomea is devoted to that species of traitors who have betrayed their own guests. The peculiarity of Alberigo is that he is apparently alive on earth, even while his soul is being tormented in the depths of Hell. Alberigo explains that in cases of particularly heinous betrayal, the damned soul departs from the body and descends directly into Hell…..The body remains alive, but it is operated by a demon during the rest of its natural life span. Something similar happened to [George] Bush when he betrayed his oath of office by turning the US government over to the rogue network on 9/11. The demon has been in control ever since.’ — Webster Griffin Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terrorism – Made in the USA (2004)
‘We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds; and by a natural propensity, if not corrected by experience and reflection, ascribe malice and good will to everything that hurts or pleases us.’ — David Hume
‘[V]isual stimuli, transduced by the rods and cones in the eyes, and sent by electro-chemical signals to the central nervous system via the optic nerves does not go directly to the occipital cortex which is the primary region responsible for processing information. Instead, it first goes to the lateral geniculate nucleus of the thalamus, another region of the brain that is a part of the lymbic system and important to emotional arousal. To put this in simpler terms, this means you can experience an emotional reaction to something before you’re consciously aware you’ve even seen it.’ — Extract from: In Denial of Democracy: Social Psychological Implications for Public Discourse on State Crimes Against Democracy Post-9/11, by Dr Laurie Manwell. Manwell’s academic ‘thing’ is the study of the psychological resistance to embracing alternative explanations of official narratives of those events which inspire conspiracy theories and their practitioners.
Some circumstantial evidence does exist, such as when you find a trout in the milk. — Henry David Thoreau.
Our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a “crippled epistemology,” in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources. —Cass Sunstein & Adrian Vermeule, Authors of a 2008 White Paper on Conspiracy Theory.
Brief: For too long the domain of the ‘time-rich’ whack job, in an age of growing paranoia and suspicion, along with increasing, self-evident government, corporate and institutional secrecy and subterfuge, it’s perhaps time to ‘rehab’ the brand of the much-maligned “conspiracy theory”, and go in to bat on behalf of its many practitioners. In this first instalment of an epic 3 parter, we secure the perimeter, don our Comalco hat, pull the blinds, bolt the doors, and embark on what might turn out to be a quixotic quest. Yet desperate times call for desperate measures.
— The Crippled Epistemologists of Conspiracy —
Along with possibly hinting at one of the great conspiracies of the Twentieth Century if not history overall, in his seminal 1969 book The Anti-Communist Impulse, U.S. author, political scientist, historian, and cultural critic Michael Parenti offered up a cogent critique of the faux ideology that fuelled the so-called Cold War, to wit:
‘Our fear that communism might someday take over most of the world blinds us to the fact that anti-communism already has.’
Parenti’s seminal study of the Cold War milieu and the political psychopathology that informed and propelled it seem even more relevant now—in fact possibly moreso than at least reviewer who dismissed his book as “little more than a myth-jabber”.
In this the post-Cold War and—especially—the post-9/11 era, we can, some 45 years after he penned these words and in an era of even greater propensity for myth making, now easily substitute the word “terrorism” for “communism”. Given that it’s “fear” itself that is one of the principal drivers not just of conspiracy theorists but their detractors as well, we would do well to keep Parenti’s point in mind when looking at the conspiracy theory construct overall.
Of course what the conspiracy theorists fear most is that a failure to arrive at the truth or unwillingness to accept such realities and deal with them will necessarily mean more plots, more conspiracies and more secrets, lies and subterfuge down the track, with all that that implies for themselves and for everyone else. In their view, very little of it is a ‘good look’ for the current or future state of democracy.
And what the debunkers fear most is that any exposés about the veracity of the theorists’ claims—leave alone any broad acceptance of their validity—will undermine the prevailing social and political order and destroy the status quo. This, not to mention making them all look like a brace of gullible wood-ducks for not at least acknowledging a semblance of truth in the “secrets, lies and subterfuge” or, at least—in the true Sherlock Holmes tradition—being open to all probabilities and possibilities.
As for what the real perpetrators and facilitators before and after the fact of any specific event that has given birth to any given conspiracy theory fear most should be obvious—they simply don’t want to be held to account. Assuming they are still on the right side of the grass, if their secrets are exposed, it’s ‘roll over Rover and play dead’. Most of them though took their real secrets to the grave, and from my vantage point, those still on this side of the grass aren’t looking overly contrite or remorseful.
It’s about keeping one’s ass covered then, a time honoured political impulse to be sure, but one also that is increasingly invoked in an age where “secrets, lies and subterfuge”—always cherished as high-value political currency in a national security state, particularly one so cleverly camouflaged as a democracy—are, fifteen years into the new millennium, arguably enjoying their most favourable ‘exchange rate’ since time immemorial. That includes keeping one’s own dirty secrets and ignoble lies under wraps, and in the process—a la The Watergate Thing, The JFK Thing, and The 9/11 Thing and others—creating more of the same, whilst still being clued up on everyone else’s when and where necessary.
Of course the bigger the stakes the more the perpetrators and facilitators along with their protectors will do to ensure that plausible deniability remains the fallback, and that no theory about their amoral, sub rosa machinations will ever get any traction with the public at large. They remain hidden even if in plain sight.
In Conspiracy Theory in America, Lance de Haven-Smith‘s intriguing and welcome exposition of the history and ‘pathology’ of conspiracy politics in American civic culture, he makes a number of compelling observations key to understanding in greater depth many controversial aspects of pivotal events and turning points in the overarching American narrative.
In doing so he provides us with a greater appreciation of the causes and effects of those “pivotal events” that have both driven and directed that narrative even well before the estimable Founding Fathers began referring to the Revolution in the past tense and started seriously contemplating their freshly minted, newly independent nation’s future ascendancy and its exceptional destiny, manifest or otherwise.
In fact well before Paul Revere‘s time, America’s historical twists and turns seemed always, if not at the time then certainly with hindsight, [to] pivot around the conspiracy construct. It was, as they say, ever thus.
— Wheels within Wheels, Fires within Fires —
To be sure the 1692-93 Witch Trials in Salem, Massachusetts for example are ample evidence of America’s warm and eager embrace of conspiracy. In fact later on with his 1953 play The Crucible—one whose many themes juxtaposed unquestioning faith and unerring suspicion, and in which one of the characters spoke of “wheels within wheels, [and] fires within fires”—venerable American playwright Arthur Miller drew upon the Trials as a pitch perfect allegory to contemporaneously showcase and amplify another of America’s all-time great conspiracies that was raging at the time.
We’re talking here of course the infamous House un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) investigations of the 40s and 50s, the machinations of which were driven by one of America’s most notorious, and some might say, most requited, of conspiracy theorists (nay zealots), the inimitable, and for the most part, irrepressible Senator Joseph McCarthy.
And here’s the thing with McCarthy: In terms of his impact, it would be hard to overstate. He had one of biggest followings of any conspiracy theorist in America and across the West, with many of the most powerful and influential people in America believing in his outrageous theories and considering him a true friend and patriot.
McCarthy was arguably the first real conspiracy brand of the modern era, a household name to be sure. At the time he was to the U.S. national security state in mid-century America what Tomas de Torquemada was to the Catholic Church’s Spanish Inquisition 500 years earlier, the Grand Inquisitor of his age. And like his mediaeval Iberian role-model, few people were better known, more feared, and more loathed [than] when McCarthy was ruling the roost. Even Dwight D Eisenhower, the then president of the US of A fer chrissakes, reportedly broke into a cold sweat at the very mention of his name.
Like most product/brand entities do, thankfully the McCarthy marque succumbed to the inevitable dictates of the product life cycle and the vagaries of consumer demand. But like DDT, asbestos, tobacco, CFCs, napalm, Thalidomide, and Agent Orange to name a few, they did a lot of damage in their heyday. Unfortunately, there’s always another new and decidedly more toxic iteration of the original model waiting in the wings even whilst McCarthy’s heirs are still strutting the political stage of today.
Speaking of the Founding Fathers, possibly the most cogent observation de Haven-Smith makes is his indispensable time—clearly directed at conspiracy theory debunkers and denialists in the main—that the United States itself was in fact birthed as a direct result of a conspiracy theory, one that like so many have done, turned out to be all too true.
In fact who was the aforementioned Paul Revere if he was not a prototype conspiracy theorist in the service of the Fathers’ grand ambitions for fomenting revolution in order to gain independence from their oppressive colonial masters (and into the bargain hopefully get a decent cup of tea at a reasonable price)?
Herein one is sorely tempted to engage in some counterfactual hypothesising: what might the outcome have looked like if they and their ‘revolting’ Sons of Liberty and Daughters of the Revolution ignored or ridiculed Revere’s frenzied conspiratorial urgings on his infamous midnight ride to warn them the full force and might of the British Imperial army was on its way to crush them all for daring to defy King George III and his dictates? The mind boggles at the possibilities to be sure if they had all rejected his dire “The British are Coming” invocations with the standard refrain: “Oh Paul, you’re just another one of those conspiracy theorists”, and then proceeded to stick him in the stocks in the town square for disturbing the peace. OK, I digress here, but….
Digressions notwithstanding though, we will however return to this motif later (including the implied one about conspiracy theories that turned out to be “all too true”). But de Haven-Smith leaves us in no doubt pretty much from the off that he is not overly enamoured of those conspiracy theory deniers whose default response is to pooh-pooh all theories as ludicrous, dangerous—indeed, even “unpatriotic hokum”—and to denigrate all conspiracy theorists as socially challenged loony ‘toon’, screw loose, fruit loops or some variation on the theme. None of which is to suggest the author buys all the conspiracy theories on offer by any means. But on this he opines the following: Most of the criticism aimed at undermining popular conspiracy narratives—such as The JFK Thing or The 9/11 Thing—is based on a “sentimentality about America’s political leaders and institutions rather than on any unbiased reasoning and object observation”.
I guess here then we’re talking about the benefit of the reasonable doubt versus the disadvantage of unreasonable suspicion or even unreasoned certainty. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that de Haven-Smith has some difficulty reconciling this “sentimentality” with any known, rational reason for it being so. For those of us not naturally inclined towards sentiment when we contemplate the general character, mindset, integrity and scruples of your average political figure, this especially might be the case. As it turns out, for many conspiracy debunkers and skeptics (and one assumes for the actual conspiracists themselves), the very foundations of modern conspiracy narratives are,
‘…offensive, [and] constitute slurs against America’s leaders and institutions, [slurs] that damage the nation’s reputation and may encourage violence against U.S. officials at home and abroad’.
De Haven-Smith says that a common mistake made by the debunkers is their easy predisposition to declare any and all suspicions about everything from everyday government, corporate or institutional secrecy and skullduggery up to and including the much touted millenarian machinations of the power elites (New World Order, Invisible Government, or Deep State anyone?), and other assorted political huggermuggers as “conspiracy theories”, and on the basis of the most improbable claims, argue that all unsubstantiated suspicions of elite political crimes (or “state crimes against democracy”—SCADs—as he defines them), are “far-fetched fantasies” and [are also] “destructive of public trust.”
Yet, it seems just as plain for those looking at least that the folks who have consistently done the most to destroy that “public trust” are the very ones in whom the “public” placed the most (and by implication, too much) trust to begin with, so this theory itself could well qualify under the heading of a “conspiracy”, albeit of a singularly different ‘species’.
— The Best Kept Secrets (Of Mice and Men) —
Be that as it may, when it comes to the use of the phrase “conspiracy theory” in the pejorative, de Haven-Smith observes something of a “fatal defect” in the way most scholars and journalists (stereo)typically approach the topic: He says the “surprising” thing is that they have,
‘…failed to notice that the use of the term to ridicule suspicions of elite political criminality betrays the civic ethos inherited from the nation’s founders. Those who now dismiss conspiracy theories as groundless paranoia have apparently forgotten the U.S. was founded on a conspiracy theory’.
He further notes that whilst most Americans are familiar with the more readily identifiable, self-evident truths and inalienable rights of the Declaration of Independence he says,
‘…they are less au fait with the more detailed enunciations regarding the abuses of tyrannical design, which themselves were designed to reduce them under absolute despotism, [deny them] their right…to throw off such government, and in the process provide new guards for their future security’. [My emphasis].
In short, the Founding Fathers considered political power [an inherently] corrupting influence that makes political conspiracies against people’s interests and liberties almost inevitable. Herein he seems to be suggesting that the Fathers would view today’s norms—indeed the memes—decrying conspiratorial suspicion as “not only arrogant, but also dangerous and un-American.”
Presumably the Fathers had in mind a slightly different definition of “un-American” than did Joe McCarthy and his HUAC ‘fellow travellers’. One might also argue it is also decidedly unhealthy for the polity, and toxic to the aforementioned civic culture and the collective political and social psyche. Yet it would seem this view has been turned entirely on its head. And not by accident it would appear.
Of course de Haven-Smith is amongst many folks who have leaped to the defence of the beleaguered, much put upon “conspiracy theorist”. Along with numerous others of a similar mindset, what makes de Haven-Smith’s insights even more compelling is his elucidation of the origins of the phrase “conspiracy theory” itself. By extrapolation then he seems to be referring to the roots of the intellectual milieu and politico-philosophical mindset that underpins the pejorative response to the theories themselves and the hostility directed toward people who espouse them or even simply accord them any possible legitimacy.
Again, not surprisingly the term was generally unheard before the assassination of John Kennedy (JFK)—which possibly up until 9/11 at least—we might’ve considered the Mother of All Modern American Conspiracy Narratives. In fact it wasn’t until the Warren Commission handed down its report in 1964 on the JFK hit that the phrase inserted itself into common political parlance and begun to be employed ad nauseum by the mainstream media (the meme-media?) firstly and others, especially so by those all too willing to quaff the Commission’s Kool-Aid. This reaction was largely in response to those who both held and voiced deep suspicions about the Commission’s findings, qualms of course it has to be said over 50 years after the event, are infinitely more profound, widespread—to say nothing of plausible—today. Indeed all but the most die-hard debunkers would say these suspicions are more justified than they ever were.
Not surprisingly for most folks, it was the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that dusted off and ‘reengineered’ the phrase, then resurrected the concept in modern usage terms, that is as it was used in and by the mainstream media (MSM). The ‘one-stop-shop’ for all the news that’s fit to read that is the MSM of course, has all too willingly been complicit in the CIA’s arguably most successful and insidious conspiratorial gambit of all, a statement that in and of itself is a big call. Which is to say, for those ‘students’ of the CIA who will be all too familiar with The Company’s tawdry family history and its sub rosa domestic and foreign machinations in general—and particularly its broad sweep cognitive infiltrations via Operation Mockingbird—a topic which is especially relevant to any discussion of conspiracy theories—once again this is all too plausible.
‘Op-Mock’ being of course, both the ‘mother’ and the ‘Johnnie Walker’ of all Psy-ops! The gift that keeps on giving as it were. Anyone doubting that only needs to occasionally peruse the New York Times and/or the Washington Post and compare the content therein with factual reality, and you will appreciate this point. OpMock had its roots going back to the late 1940s, pioneered by the legendary Frank Wisner. Wisner was another prominent CIA alumnus whose CoD is the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, which might give some pause for those folks who argue that Americans don’t do irony. Yet as successful as OpMock was/is, for some reason the ‘trench-coat ‘n trilby’ troops down on the Langley Farm don’t make much of a big deal about it on their official website. Funny that! They can be an awfully modest bunch of chaps at times. It must be a Spy v Spy thing! In short, if one is inclined to believe all they read, hear and/or see in the mainstream media, then one has ‘Op-Mock’ to thank for that.
This reality was indubitably underscored recently once more when Udo Ulfkotte, a former editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s largest newspapers, ‘fessed up to the inherent corruption, deception and manipulation that characterises Western mainstream ‘news’ media. Ulfkotte’s frank assessment—made last year in the context of the deteriorating U.S. and Russian bilateral relationship and interestingly, in the wake of his retirement—is startling even for folks who hitherto harbored few illusions about the integrity of our most respected media brands. After noting that corruption of journalists and major news outlets by the CIA and other intelligence agencies is ‘routine, accepted, and widespread in the western media’, [and] that journalists who do not comply either cannot get jobs at any news organization, or find their careers cut short, he added:
‘I’ve been a journalist for about 25 years, and I’ve been educated to lie, to betray, and not to tell the truth to the public. The German and American media tries to bring war to the people in Europe, to bring war to Russia. [I] am going to stand up and say…”it is not right what I have done in the past, to manipulate people, to make propaganda against Russia, and it is not right what my colleagues do, and have done in the past, because they are bribed to betray the people not only in Germany, all over Europe”….there is always people who push for war…not only politicians, it is journalists too. We have betrayed our readers [and] I’m fed up with this propaganda.’
Ulfkotte’s revelations then provide yet again more evidence—if indeed it was ever required—that these conspiracy theorists (bless their cotton blend socks), might have been actually onto something from the off. The following interview reveals all.
— We’re All Conspiracy Theorists Now —
And harking back to things ‘maternal’, as mentioned it is The 9/11 Thing which is the du jour Mother of all Conspiracy Theories. Although it doubtless will induce a measure of cognitive dissonance—especially for those of us who might have trouble accepting anything other than the official version of events of 9/11—the marathon 2013 documentary September 11 – The New Pearl Harbor by Massimo Mazzucco is still essential and compelling viewing. It is of course only one of the numerous exposes (books, articles, dokos, reports etc.) that purport to raise many disturbing—and as yet unanswered—questions re: this pivotal event. Although doubtless one risks attracting the perennially pejorative appellation “conspiracy nutter”, I defy anyone who still (more or less) adheres to the official narrative to come away without serious misgivings at the very least.
Put simply, for those still convinced the official version of the events of 9/11 is the whole ‘ridgey-didge’ nine yards and nothing but, Mazzucco’s documentary is an engrossing, epic tour de force that will leave them with very little wriggle-room and a lot of cognitive dissonance when it comes to maintaining said illusion. It brings it all up to date in a manner that’s compelling, insightful, measured, objective and yes, provocative. And disturbing! The still hundreds of outstanding questions, and remaining anomalies, imponderables and inconsistencies are inescapable.
Yet as thorough an examination of events Mazzucco’s film is, it doesn’t cover all possible, plausible angles that would be de rigueur in any bog standard, garden variety, criminal investigation. To name a couple of note, these included pertinent considerations such as the missing trillions ($2.3 trillion to be exact) of the U.S. taxpayer’s hard-earned in the Pentagon’s Black Hole budget, an astronomical ‘discrepancy’ being investigated by a team of auditors who just happened to be located in the very section of that building and that seemed deliberately targeted by the alleged terrorists, and most of whom were killed in the attack along with the records and files related to the audit.
Now its not everyday a government gets to announce it’s lost this amount of money, so under different circumstances we might have expected such a revelation to be big news indeed. However, fortunately for said “government”, this news was (ahem) coincidentally announced less than 24 hours before the attacks, thereafter getting buried under the inevitable avalanche of 9/11 reportage that dominated the news cycle for months on end, never to be resurrected again except by pesky conspiracy theorists and the occasional career defying journalist.
An even more recent and just as enticing and intriguing offering focussing on the relatively little explored financial aspect of 9/11 is from James Corbett of the Corbett Report. His excellent Follow the Money—9/11: The Trillion Dollar Heist is essential viewing for anyone wanting to get a full overview of—and insight into—the events of that day.
As the title implies Corbett follows the all important money trail in relation to this event, and as might be expected includes some exposition of the missing trillions mentioned earlier. Corbett is one of the most thorough of researchers and certainly one of the most credible of observers on subjects ranging from geopolitics, the economy, history and the deep state.
After watching it, like Mazzucco’s film, anyone dismissing this documentary as conspiratorial fantasising has either not being paying attention or is simply in the hard and fast grip of said “dissonance”. Or prefers the soothing, comforting assurances that it is just all these nasty bad guy Muslims who want to destroy freedom, democracy, liberty, peace, love and understanding and the Western way of life.
Then there was the manner in which those members of Osama bin Laden’s extended family who were resident in the U.S. at the time were inexplicably allowed—some say “encouraged”—to make themselves scarce within days of the event. That the bin Ladens had extremely close business and personal ties to the Bush family, members of the president’s administration, and [to] the wider neo-conservative diaspora and national security elites, is a fact that was/is well known, at least amongst those with an eye for these things.
That purported Saudi involvement in 9/11—over and above the fact that most of the alleged hijacker/terrorists were Saudi citizens—was under-reported in the mainstream media goes without saying, and recalls legendary investigative reporter I F Stone‘s acerbic yet accurate assessment of the integrity of his professional cohort in the establishment press, to wit:
‘The difference between burlesque and the newspapers is that the former never pretended to be performing a public service by exposure.’
Yet despite one of their family members being identified as the mastermind almost immediately after the attacks, all the bin Ladens in the U.S. at the time were spirited out of the country before any of them could be interviewed as part of an investigation, even whilst American civilian airspace was still locked up tighter than Fort Knox in the wake of the attacks.
And a recent report reinforced once again the strong connection between the terrorist group al Qaeda and the Saudi Royal family in the 1990s. This report also—wait for this—stated that “Saudi princes and terrorists discussed a plan to shoot Air Force One out of the sky.” Are we beginning to smell the odour of rodent now? In this case the Thoreau epigraph above is especially apposite.
Moreover, we’ve seen recent developments in the long-running court case in New York brought against the Saudi government several years back, wherein 9/11 family members allege direct Saudi complicity in the attacks, and that a cover-up has taken place. At the core of the case are the still unreleased 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission Report that documents the Saudi connection. The NY judge presiding over the case has declared the onus of proof is now on the Saudis to demonstrate they weren’t involved, a decision that must have many folks in both Riyadh and Washington sweating hollow-points as we speak awaiting the final outcome.
After noting there is no telling what may be disclosed if the case is allowed to move forward with “so many unanswered questions” surrounding 9/11, the news report herein ominously declares:
‘The terrifying reality is that if the Saudis are found guilty of involvement in the events of 9/11, such a conclusion would only raise more questions than it would answer. Who inside the United States government would be covering for the kingdom of Saudi Arabia for so many years— and more importantly, why?’ [My Emphasis].
Although of a somewhat different stripe, an equally compelling, dissonance-inducing presentation comes from the (now defunct) Reopen911 organisation, produced by 9/11 dissenter Jimmy Walters and directed by Lenny Charles. This features a 150m panel discussion that examines all manner of aspects of that day that will leave viewers incredulous and speechless. The diverse range of perspectives presented and topics covered and the equally diverse profile and credible stature of the panel members, contributors and experts makes for utterly absorbing—yet once again, highly disturbing—viewing.
(Author’s Note: I’m not sure of the date of this latter presentation as I was unable to determine this in the credits, but it appears to have been made in the mid 2000s. It is nonetheless an important early contribution to the growing movement for a new investigation into 9/11.)
The most probable cause of any “dissonance” surely would be the result of people unable or unwilling to consider that the US government and/or its agents is/are capable of perpetrating such events—the conspiracy before the fact—and then attempting to cover it up—the conspiracy after the fact.
Let’s try and dispel this at the outset with the following, anyone of which can and should be Googled for more background. The JFK Thing anyone? Iran-Contra Thing? Operation Gladio, Operation Paperclip et. al.? Project MK-ULTRA and like-minded nefarious schemes? The October Surprises (plural: Richard Nixon‘s and Ronald Reagan‘s)? Indeed, (the thankfully ill-fated) Operation Northwoods anyone?
For those really interested in testing their predisposition to cognitive dissonance in relation to matters of conspiracy, they may also wish to explore the real story behind the Watergate Thing. Or to put it another way, the conspiracy behind the conspiracy!
To paraphrase then the end credit voiceover of a famous 60s TV cop show The Naked City, “there are a million secrets in the Naked Crypto-Empire, and these are just some of them!” A cursory examination of and passing familiarity with any of the aforementioned operations and machinations—all a matter more or less of public record if you know where to look—should demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt the U.S. ‘crypto-statists’ have the ‘history’ as it were, in spades and shovels. And both Mazzucco’s and Corbett’s documentaries and the ReOpen presentation will have us all thinking again about 9/11, which is as it should be.
All of the above not to mention the CIA’s own ‘Family Jewels’—the three most ‘precious’ of which surely being its preeminent and not so secret status as the largest, longest running, best funded, and most successful drug smuggling, gun running and money laundering organisation (cartel? franchise?) on the Big Blue Ball. To paraphrase the inimitable Walter Brennan, that’s “no brag, just fact!” It is sufficiently instructive to note there is precious little mention of The Company’s “Family Jewels” on their website, leading one to ponder why this might be the case.
The key question here is this: Is America going to wait another 50+ years—as they did with The JFK Thing—before they start really demanding answers about this pivotal event? Can America—much less the rest of us—afford to wait that long?
For my own part, after several years of ‘studying’ the by now well documented (albeit not well publicised or immediately accessible) history of America’s foreign, economic, military, financial and national security policies over the past 7-8 decades and the folks who (with or without good intentions) have authored these policies—along with the manipulative machinations that have accompanied their rollout and especially the connections between them all—any “cognitive dissonance” I otherwise might personally have experienced has long gone AWOL.
In fact like many people I suspect who have made the effort, I have had to completely revise/reboot my hitherto broadly accepted notions of the reality of history in general and that of the history of the United States especially as a direct result of these and other private and personal investigations—the JFK Thing still arguably being the most significant, portentous and revelatory of all of them. It seems also that the same goes for many right-thinking citizens of the home of the (not-so) brave and the land of the (not-quite there yet) free.
As a case in point, my own country Australia’s involvement in Vietnam and my appreciation of the history behind it has undergone a complete makeover as a result firstly of discovering how LBJ and his national security state Cold Warriors ‘false-flagged’ the whole Gulf of Tonkin shooting match from the off and then up to and including revelations about what the Americans did throughout that war in the name of freedom and democracy and liberty, and not just in Vietnam itself.
As it stands, the call for the reopening of the investigation of 9/11—and not just within the U.S. but around the world—is becoming louder and more widely based by the day. And it would seem with greater justification. In simple terms forget everything you ever thought you knew about history—in the words of Henry Ford, it is “all bunk” after all, although possibly not in the way Hank envisioned when he ‘inflated’ that memorable thought bubble! Herein we might paraphrase Hank again, to wit: ‘you can have any conspiracy theory you like, as long as it’s ours’!
As for their own country’s place in the geopolitical order and the role of their Power Elites and assorted Crypto-Statists in making it what it is today, we can only hope that a sufficient number of Americans reach a critical mass of concerned consensus about the so-called oft-referenced “New World Order” and the real agenda behind those that are driving its evolution—what we might call the Global Politico-Governmental-Corporatist Collective. From there we might jointly do something proactive about it before the Good Ship America hits the iceberg, capsizes, and takes the rest of us and our descendants down with them.
That is of course if it is not already too late. Any cursory reading of a book dealing with the demise of empire would though suggest it may very well be. Well might we say, nice republic, shame about the empire.
— End Part One —
Next Week: Once Upon a Paranoid Time (In America): Part Two
Additional Material for Conspiratorial Explorers – See Below:
The Conspiracy “Theory” Conspiracy – a documentary by Adam Green.
Ed. Note: This just released film argues that the origins of the conspiracy theory are far from looney; indeed it posits scrutiny as a healthy, indeed necessary, exercise in the defence and promulgation of democratic principles.
Although Green addresses many of the same themes and motifs covered in this series and his objectives appear to be in sync, the juxtaposition of the many video soundbites and commentary from many well known and some not so well known identities makes for a very powerful, engaging complementary insight into, and commentary on, the conspiracy construct.
In short, this is highly recommended. Here is a synopsis.
When did the term ‘conspiracy theory’ become an automatic excuse for dismissal? The feature-length documentary The Conspiracy “Theory” Conspiracy provides an in-depth examination of this phenomenon, particularly as it is propagated by the media elite.
‘The mainstream media’s agenda is clear’ instructs the narrator during the film’s opening minutes. ‘They want you to believe that conspiracies don’t exist, the world is exactly like they say it is, and anyone who disagrees is to be marginalized, mocked and shamed.’
As presented in the film, some conspiracy theories are admittedly rooted in wild and grandiose fantasy, but many others are serious societal considerations which have stemmed from those who have dared to question the official accounts given to us by figures of power and authority. For their efforts, these dissenters are far too often labeled as part of the lunatic fringe, and the mainstream media dismisses their concerns as the nonsensical ramblings of a conspiracy theorist.
The film argues that the origins of the conspiracy theory are far from looney; in fact, these theories have often served as an essential function of an informed and invested people. The Conspiracy “Theory” Conspiracy contends that is our responsibility as citizens to question, especially when those in power have the motivation and the influence to provide a false narrative.
The mainstream media’s villainization of many of those who dare to question official accounts is illustrated through a rapid fire succession of hundreds of media clips from the likes of every major news network, including the 24-hour cycles of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.
The film also features illuminating soundbites and insights from cultural figures who have long stood unafraid of speaking truth to power, including everyone from comic legend George Carlin to Albert Einstein to popular radio personality Alex Jones.
Energetically assembled by director Adam Green, The Conspiracy “Theory” Conspiracy heralds scrutiny as a healthy exercise. The dawning of the internet age has brought forth a new generation of rabidly curious and skeptical conspiracy watchdogs, and it is in their pursuits that crucial seeds of truth may come to light that would have otherwise remained obscured.
Full length new Documentary 2015 The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy—9 11: Mounting Evidence
Dr David Ray Griffin Presentation: 9/11 The Myth And The Reality
Dr David Ray Griffin Article: 9/11 and Global Warming: Are They Both False Conspiracy Theories?