The Complete Post Modern, New Age Idiots’ Guide to the Dark, Subversive, Malevolent, Conspiratorial Forces that Shape the New World Order we Live In
Dateline: September 11, 2001. Place: An elementary-grade classroom in Sarasota, Fla., USA. Time: The first lesson of the day.
The president took control and asked the teacher to begin the demonstration. From the very beginning… [he] smiles briefly and nods and even laughs aloud a few times, but there are cycles of fleeting, nervous facial expressions with eyes that seem hollow and cold, before he returns to the forced smile and rigid posture. Understandable: he’s just seen a terrifying scene of an airliner burning inside the World Trade Centre. That’s one consideration. Another is he’s sweating out the riskiest political move in history, and if his involvement is exposed by a failure to execute the plan, an entirely different ‘execution’ would take place. His [own].
Philip Marshall,The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror
The masses have never thirsted for the truth. Whoever can supply them with illusions is easily their master. Whoever attempts to destroy those illusions is always their victim.
Gustave le Bon, The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind (1895)
Humpty Dumpty Was Pushed. Popular conspiracy theory and bumper sticker. Anon
If You’re not Paranoid, You need to get out more. A great bumper sticker idea. © Anon.
Brief: For too long the domain of the ‘time-rich’ whack job, in an age of growing paranoia and suspicion, along with increasing government, corporate and institutional secrecy and subterfuge, it’s perhaps time to ‘rebuild the brand’ of the much-maligned “conspiracy theory”, and go in to bat on behalf of its many practitioners. In this second instalment of an epic 3 parter, we again secure the perimeter, don our Comalco hat, pull the blinds, take the phone off the hook, bolt the doors, and embark on what might turn out to be a quixotic quest. Yet desperate times call for desperate measures.
— None Dare Call it Coincidence —
Whenever even the most considered of individuals ruminate on the possibility that official explanations for the seminal political events may not be quite what the power elites would have us believe, for more polite folks not similarly predisposed the first and last refuge is the Pavlovian response: “Oh, you’re just another one of those conspiracy theorists.” Yet recent studies suggest that contrary to mainstream-media stereotypes, those designated “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who blithely accept the official versions of events. One such study was published in 2013 by psychologists Michael Wood and Karen Douglas of the University of Kent in the UK.
Enticingly titled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,”the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at various websites. Here is a brief summary:
‘….among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.” [My emphasis].
Now whilst this may be the case, it doesn’t mean that the “small, beleaguered minority” are ‘copping it sweet’ and allowing the “conspiracists” free rein over political reality. Not by a long shot from the Texas School Book Depository Building! Well might we say they have come too far and worked too hard to allow that to happen.
As it is they’re fighting back. In this respect, the estimable Paul Craig Roberts—insofar as we can gather a man not known for his promiscuous embrace of all things conspiratorial, after noting that the concept of the ‘conspiracy theory’ has undergone an “Orwellian redefinition”, and interestingly using The 9/11 Thing as his reference point—observed the following:
‘A “conspiracy theory” no longer means an event explained by a conspiracy….it now means any explanation, or fact, that is out of step with the government’s explanation and that of its media pimps. For example, online news broadcasts of RT have been equated with conspiracy theories by the New York Times (NYT) simply because RT reports news and opinions that the [NYT] does not report [on] and the US government does not endorse.’ [My emphasis]
The following is even more evidence of the ‘best form of defence is attack’ mindset of the “conventionalists”.
In 2008, along with professor Adrian Vermeule (Harvard Law School), Cass Sunstein Chicago University Law School professor and—more pertinently—the former chief of President Obama‘s (decidedly Orwellian) White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, released a paper prosaically titled “Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas”. This treatise—later turned into a book—on all things conspiratorial came complete with suggestions on how the US government might respond to their proliferation and increasing acceptance.
Their proposals for managing the phenomenon—and by implication, the behaviour of conspiracy theorists and adherents themselves—included everything from “cognitive infiltration” of conspiracist groups, [to] effectively banning conspiracy theorising, and (I kid you not), even levying a surcharge (or tax) on those who propagate and/or disseminate such theories. One imagines something akin to the conspiracists’ equivalent of a swear jar for the chronic Tourette’s Syndrome sufferer!
Now quite apart from the curiously anomalous fact that these recommendations came from a constitutional lawyer and, to boot, a buddy of the POTUS himself—himself a former constitutional lawyer and a president who, prior to being elected, purported to be a champion of one of the bedrocks of said Constitution, free speech—it seems like the paranoia, insecurity and anxiety commonly associated with the “conspiracists” is now manifesting itself decidedly more so with the “conventionalists”. And how, one might add!
(It may come as little surprise that Sunstein is the husband of the estimable Samantha Power, Obama’s gung-ho, ultra-hawk UN ambassador, part of the White House inner circle. Power and her ilk have themselves done much to foster the conspiratorial group-think that informs Washington’s increasingly dangerous posture toward Russia’s purported motivations and alleged actions underpinning its strategic foreign policy. As with Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan—another of the Beltway’s infamous power couples and fully paid-up subscribers of that same anti-Russian, anti-Putin cabal—we can only speculate as to the pillow talk. Oh to be the proverbial on the wall therein.)
Given any such development, whilst one is tempted to say “rightly so”, one is also left with more evidence—if it was required—that this president pulled off one of America’s greatest conspiratorial gambits (cons?) himself by getting his ass elected from the off considering his campaign shill. It is also tempting to muse on why Sunstein and Vermeule, after making these Constitution-defying proposals, didn’t go the ‘full hog’ as it were and advocate theorists be clamped in the stocks in the town square sans habeas corpus, legal representation and due process, and then have the townsfolk pelt rotten vegetables at them. And if they persisted, [then] have them tarred and feathered and run out of town!
OK, I digress again, but am hoping readers will forgive my sardonic proclivities on this occasion. Yet one of those contentious areas we might expect Sunstein and Vermeule to address is the following. The authors, along with the general coterie of conspiracy debunkers and denialists, eschew any consideration of the reality that governments’, organisations’ and institutions’ general recidivistic inclination towards subterfuge, secrecy and subterfuge itself is arguably the leading cause of conspiratorial theorising. They are either confusing or ignoring the principle of cause and effect. In short, these guys appear to ‘putting the horse behind the cart’ as it were.
Moreover, the failure or refusal of those same governments and/or their successors to satisfactorily respond to the issues at the heart of the theorising—usually premised on the basis of that old chestnut ‘national security’—is inevitably going to fuel even more theorising, not just about a particular theory, but about as yet any event for which there is considered to be less than satisfactory explanations. And of the latter, from the distant past to the present, it probably goes without saying there is no shortage.
— Noble Lies & Ignoble Truths —
For the not quite so polite though there are still any number of descriptors for those who disbelieve or simply question official accounts of events, and (this being a ‘family show’), I’ll leave that for curious readers to Google.
Yet, it’s notable the not-long-departed John Judge, long-time stalwart of the JFK research and conference community, and alternative-media personality, was reportedly quite content to be labelled a “conspiracy theorist”. By all accounts he wore the label well. Judge, who did his share in restoring a badly needed measure of respect into research of the conspiracy phenomenon itself and specific conspiracies, did so however by reserving the right to call those labeling him a “conspiracy theorist”, [as] “coincidence theorists”.
(The reasons for his passing aside, one imagines “The Judge” would be more than happy for the specifics of said demise to be the subject of a future conspiracy theory more so than a “coincidence theory”. I’m sure he’d appreciate the irony, to say nothing of the dark amusement his friends, admirers and family might derive from such a development in the collective remembrance of his legacy.)
Now the humorless, indignant mindset of the righteous conspiracy ‘defilers‘ is such that Judge’s response would hardly have registered a ripple. But for those prepared to consider that some of those official explanations may not be ‘halal’, his riposte is an entirely legitimate and acceptable one. Judge’s distinction between “conspiracy” and “coincidence” (or design v accident) is singularly apposite to any view of history’s big events and turning points. Indeed, one might posit the idea that ultimately our insight into history—and the lessons to be learned from it—is premised on whether events were driven by either design or accident, with the truth in varying cases being, likely, more or less falling somewhere in between.
In both cases then, there is a lot to be learned to be sure. But given the antipathy most people have towards even the most plausible of conspiracy theories, we could be forgiven for thinking otherwise. To disregard a “conspiracy” as both precursor and consequence of events is to disregard all possibilities out of hand. It is notable that it is often eminent historians, investigative journalists and others who should know better who are the worst offenders in this respect. Certainly not the Sherlock Holmes way then!
As one Foster Gamble has noted, conspiracies are sometimes “philosophically justified” by those who perpetrate them via the notion of the “noble lie”. One suspects though this happens only when the noble lie has eventually been indisputably outed by some intrepid theorist or investigative journalist, and is generally deemed with the benefit of such hindsight to have been less than noble after all. A text-book case-study of such might be the Iran-Contra Affair, although there is no dearth of examples.
Gamble says that the term “noble lie” was coined by Leo Strauss, the philosophical ‘godfather’ of the neo-conservative movement. No surprises there one supposes, and especially so when we consider where Leo’s devotees still strutting the political stage today have brought us all thus far via their unending if not always unerring secretive and subversive machinations. Strauss advocated state political propaganda and covert actions no less to “protect a society’s traditional beliefs” from “unrestrained inquiries“—or in other words—”conspiratorial theorizing.” Herein it is safe to assume that Sunstein, Vermeule et. al. and their ilk proudly include themselves amongst the Straussian cabal of devotees. As Gamble sees it:
‘Strauss believed that scientific criticism of official accounts of important historical events, even when those criticisms were true, undermined respect for the nation’s laws and traditional beliefs. ‘Weapons of Mass Destruction’ and ‘regime change’ are examples of “noble lies”—untruths put forth to achieve an end goal that could not be achieved without manufactured evidence (e.g. a false-flag operation) to sway public opinion.” [My emphasis]
Yet when it comes to all things conspiratorial, even ‘Honest’ Abe Lincoln—a man whose own murder is the subject of much (some entirely plausible) theorising—threw his iconic stovepipe hat into the ring. From the following we can surmise that he in life may have been at least a closet conspiracy theorist, to wit:
‘When we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out of different times and places, and by different workmen…..and when we see those timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house, in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that…..all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan, drawn up before the first blow was struck.’ [My emphasis]
Clearly, when speaking of conspiracy, Abe was onto something methinks. Given the circumstances of his assassination, in death then we can further assume he’d be even more inclined toward this view!
And not to be outdone, one of his estimable successors Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR)—by accounts no stranger to the odd conspiracy both of his own construct, and, most definitely of those who might have conspired against him—felt compelled to weigh into the fray, albeit with a less enigmatic, more ‘thrifty’ (to be expected given the times one supposes) theory of his own. He had this to say: ‘In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.’
With all this in mind then, now may be a good time for some slightly ‘off piste’ theorising about theorising.
— Once Upon a Paranoid Time (In Mediaeval La Mancha) —
In Miguel Cervantes’ great literary epic The Ingenious Gentleman Don Quixote of La Mancha (aka Don Quixote), when the eponymous hero saw some windmills in his travels remarked to Sancho Panza, his devoted, yet long-suffering squire, the following: ‘Those giants that you can see over there Sancho, with long arms: there are giants with arms almost six miles long.’
Sancho replied: ‘What giants? Those aren’t giants, they’re windmills, and what look to you like arms are sails—when the wind turns them they make the millstones go round.’
To which Don Quixote responded: ‘It is perfectly clear, that you are but a raw novice in this matter of adventures. They are giants; and if you are frightened, you can take yourself and say your prayers while I engage them in fierce, arduous combat.’
With this exchange in mind, the outward adventures and the inner imaginings of Cervantes’ iconic and woefully idealistic protagonist provide us a rich reservoir of allusions to, and insights into, the conspiracy-theory construct. We might begin by viewing The ‘Don’ himself as the novel’s conspiracy theorist-in-residence, and Sancho as the conspiracy debunker (or at least skeptic). Either way, key memes and motifs evident in this hugely influential novel are useful to gaining a better understanding of any real or imagined conspiracy itself.
For his part Quixote sees corruption, decadence and un-gentlemanly conduct everywhere while others appear either oblivious or indifferent to—or even defensive of—this state of affairs. He sees unwelcoming, fortified castles where people see welcoming inns; he sees monstrous, menacing giants where others see innocuous windmills. And he pursues seemingly noble, virtuous quests that, for all their drifting pointlessness, ‘predictably’ produce very little of personal worth or insight for the novel’s eponymous hero or any of the characters. Or so it seems.
At its core, Don Quixote (the novel) is at once a solemn meditation on self-delusion and disillusion, the real and the imagined, [the difference between] reality and fantasy, sanity and madness, [and] between what is real and what is phony (a la Catcher in the Rye). Only Don Quixote (the character) is able to remain constantly moral and upright (more or less), while the world around him is persistently and infuriatingly immoral, perverse, self-serving, possibly beyond redemption. For his part ‘The Don’ doesn’t understand the world as it is, only how he sees it should be. And “the world” returns the favour. Indeed the knight-errant might be thought too delusional—a caballero without a full suit of armour as it were. To possess such morality and idealism reveals more about the world than it does about Quixote himself, not only about the nature of truth in the world and the certainty of our place in it, but about the nature of human existence and the inherent purpose of said existence.
Y’know what I’m saying here dear reader—the ‘meaning-of-life’ shit.
So much of Quixote’s view on the world is a figment of his supposedly delusional musing on the possibilities of existence and his wild-eyed imaginings, which themselves inspire his meandering adventures, his adventures in turn, doubtless fueling more imaginings. A personality-specific feedback loop of sorts. The descriptor “quixotic”—along with meaning idealistic, impractical, or unrealistic, also describes behaviour of someone following beliefs even though they are foolish or unreachable goals—is derived from the book’s character of course. This is itself a testament to its enormous literary, cultural, philosophical and, one suggests herein, political impact.
The Don then is caught up in the romance of noble deeds and the self-less pursuit of unattainable goals; idealistic without regard to practicality or allowing for the lack of idealism in others; and undertaking adventures along the sometimes rough and rocky high moral road unaccompanied and unencumbered by a leavening sense of reality, pragmatism and obvious purpose. The Don’s commitment to living chivalrously, with honour and good intentions toward all men (although less than perfect himself, ‘natch’), and with his moral compass unerringly pointing ‘north’, forbids him to allow wrongs to go uncorrected.
All up then, if the Mediaeval Iberians had a term for ‘whack-job’ or ‘loony-toon’, ‘The Don’ would’ve ‘made the team’ without breaking a sweat. On the face of it his behaviour is irrational to many of those with whom he comes into contact, his apparently vague, elusive, at best ambiguous aims and goals driven by a curiously anomalous, yet inexplicable, mix of paranoia and idealism with a smidgen of wishful thinking thrown into the mix for good measure. And his imaginings and pursuits are the butt of unkind practical jokes by other characters in the novel.
In short, the novel’s themes and memes concerning the nature of reality, deception, personal illumination, determination, [the] courage of one’s convictions, and simply doing the right thing, are especially applicable to the conspiracy construct. They are also, by definition, apposite to the inherent worth to the rest of us [of] the conspiracy theorists’ own motivations, imaginings and insights. As it is to the worth of the theory itself, whatever that theory might be.
As noted, ‘The Don’ is the ‘knight-errant’—the ‘do-gooder’ trying to preserve the “universal” moral code. He attempts to strong-arm those around him and whom he meets on his ‘quixotic’ exploits, to face their own failure to maintain—or preparedness to preserve—the ‘old school’ system of virtue, of morality, of ‘proper conduct’. To use the contemporary vernacular, we might say The Don sees the world going to Hades in a hand basket. This is what drives him forward, seemingly against all odds, a significant number of which may be of his own making. Yet as noted—and this is where the exercise gets interesting—Don Quixote’s ironclad (sorry) commitment to courtesy, honour, truth and justice eventually does not go entirely unnoticed by those around him—even those who formerly sneered at his behaviour or found it naive, absurd even.
Now readers who have come this far should be able to see where this is going. If he was around today, one suspects The Don would gladly cop the conspiracy-theorist rap, and like John Judge, wear it as a badge of honour. He would see threatening giants on the Grassy Knoll, the Stemmons Freeway Underpass, the rooftop of the Texas School Book Depository and maybe even in the storm-water drains underneath Dealey Plaza—where others don’t, or won’t.
And it is here of course that we bring the discussion full circle. Are conspiracy theorists—like the Don—’tilting at windmills’, or is there something more to their ‘gameplan’? Might we all have something to learn from them, just like the Don? In essence then, this is what this exercise is all about! For it is the divide that Cervantes so symbolically and yet at once, eloquently portrayed—the gulf of perception if one likes—between believers (theorists or truth-seekers) on the one hand, and non-believers (debunkers or truth deniers) on the other, that must be at the heart of this discussion from the off. This is particularly so if we are to better understand our history and the grand (and not-so-grand) political drivers of that overarching historical ‘chronicle’ and especially the motivations and machinations of the dramatis personae ‘populating’ that narrative.
— With A Bodyguard of Lies (Protecting the Truth) —
At the outset, it should be noted that one of the most prevalent—and least benevolent—flaws characteristic of the human condition is our easy propensity to conspire—against family, friends, neighbours, colleagues, etc. When we consider that the etymological roots of the “C” word itself (i.e., from the phrase, “to conspire”), derives from the Latin word “conspirare” which means to “breathe”, our “easy propensity” in this regard should require little further explication.
In the process of exploring the subject of conspiracy, it is important we look at some of the common critiques folks have against conspiracy theories and their proponents. UK writer and presenter Andy Thomas, after noting that by “courting hopes for earth-shattering events beyond their control”, [conspiracy theorists] are “simultaneously saved from having to make changes to their own lives”.
In his book Conspiracies — The Facts, The Theories, The Evidence, Thomas plays devil’s advocate and poses the following hypothetical question:
‘Why do anything to improve [your] existence when something might soon come along to turn it upside down and press the reset button anyway? This abdication of self-responsibility can be seen in the thinking behind [the pursuit of interest in] a number of conspiracy theories….’
This observation appears to be held near and dear by those predisposed to penning anti-conspiracist diatribes based on some purported, authentic intellectual or psychological insight into the minds of the conspiracist fraternity, the sort of de rigeuer one-size-fits-all stereotyping that more dispassionate, self-respecting analysts and psychologists would eschew as a matter of course.
Nonetheless, Thomas’ book gives us pause to consider what drives our interest in conspiracy; as well, he also allows us room to more consciously and legitimately rationalise the value of taking an active interest in conspiracy—or at least the events central to any given conspiracy—whilst impressing upon us the importance of such historical contemplation and political inquiry, regardless of the outcome.
Put simply, one should be open to exploring the facts and circumstances surrounding the more plausible theories, and one should be able to do so without risking the stereotypical knee-jerk reaction from folks less inclined. Yet such is the intrinsic nature of the pejorative associated with doing so, this is sometimes easier said than done.
The author further provides some clearer insight that enables us to keep exploring the subject with a more coherent view of what is at stake. As one reviewer has observed, ‘Thomas lays out a solid case as to why the conspiracy or alternative approach to history carries more explanatory power than does the incidental/accidental view’, and it is difficult to fault this assessment.
As well, our concerns in this regard should not just relate to the personal/private considerations; they are applicable to the more political/public ones as well. And it is this consideration that seems the most significant herein. Herein again, Thomas’ insights are useful:
‘The propensity to retreat in the face of unexpected confirmation is [that] the tracking of clues and new information can become an absorbing hobby for easier-minded researchers, but the more world-weary feel the weight of such a potentially huge deception in quite a different way, aghast to learn that humanity might have allowed itself to be so manipulated, and wanting in turn to expose the situation for the long-term betterment of civilization.’ [My emphasis]
As we have noted, the conspiracy-theory term is one that can be all too frequently—and disingenuously it must be said—employed with derogatory, counter-productive and misguided intent, and forms the very basis upon which the whole conspiracy construct is viewed in the pejorative within the contemporary political milieu.
For his part James Corbett in the Corbett Report in April 2010 had this to say about false flags, one of the most frequently recurring motifs of the conspiracy-theory construct and certainly one of the frequently recurring realities of the ‘Real McCoy’, and it would not be too difficult to guess which event he had in mind:
‘Those who have studied history know… nothing invigorates and empowers an authoritarian regime more than a spectacular act of violence, some sudden and senseless loss of life that allows the autocrat to stand on the smoking rubble and identify himself as the hero. It is at moments like this that the public—still in shock from the horror of the tragedy that has just unfolded before them—can be led into the most ruthless despotism: despotism that now bears the mantle of ‘security’. Acts of terror and violence never benefit the average man or woman. They only ever benefit those in positions of power.’ [My emphasis]
— From Conspiracy Theory to Counter-Subversive Hypothesis —
In place of “conspiracy theorist” then I now propose a more politically correct (in the absolute true sense of the phrase) substitute, to wit: ‘counter-subversive hypothetician’. A bit of a mouthful I confess, and I may or may not have my tongue in my cheek (which is what it almost sounds like when you pronounce it). Either way, with this in mind, further explication is required going forward.
After some research into the whole conspiracy-theory construct, its history and its underlying political subtext (and after having satisfied myself via a measure of modest self-reflection I’m not after all a bull-goose, loony-toon loner avec too much time on his hands and an over active paranoid imagination), I have surmised the old term may no longer adequately describes one’s pursuit of truth regarding the past and present machinations of the Power Elites and of the sub rosa goals and objectives of the Deep State, the Invisible (or Shadow) Government, and/or the National Security/Police State.
We can safely say now the utility and currency of “conspiracy theory” as an encompassing phrase passed its UBD decades ago. The term has been debased to the point of being meaningless, albeit by a very clever, concerted psyops campaign orchestrated by the trenchcoat ‘n trilby tribe down on the Langley reservation with backup from their many fellow travellers, especially those in the mainstream media (MSM), and assorted, co-opted academics, researchers, intellectuals, opportunistic politicians, and think-tankers.
All of which is to say that the amorphous entity that is the US National Security and Surveillance State (comprising as it does numerous sub-entities such as the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); the National Security Agency (NSA); the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and many others), and other agents of the Dark Forces (e.g. the globalist MSM, the rapacious corporate plutocracy, and the monolithic, vampiric, too-big-to-fail financial cabals, et. al.), got hold of it and began using it to tool up their (ahem) patriotic, constitutionally inspired defence of unfettered, coast-to-coast democracy, truth, justice, freedom, civil liberties, universal human rights, the rule of law and other assorted, self-evident myths, fables and intangible constructs of the overarching American historical-cum-political narrative.
Moreover, this new terminology has been coined partly to dispel any misconceptions upon the part of certain folk that your humble author is losing his sense of humour (or for that matter other cerebral faculties key to maintaining the perception amongst one’s peers, associates, friends, loved ones and occasional if not always reliable admirers that one hasn’t totally lost the plot and therefore should be given a wide berth and/or prescribed different medication), as a result of my journey of discovery into—and investigation of—the “dark, subversive, malevolent, conspiratorial forces” that have shaped our world and continue to do so.
‘To think that such staged provocations and false-flag attacks no longer occur would be as unrealistic as believing that human nature itself has changed, that powerful people no longer seek to increase their power, that influence is never used for deceit or manipulation, that lies are no longer told to satisfy greed or slake the thirst for control. It is to believe that our society is immune from those things that we have seen in every other society in every other era. In short, it is a dangerous delusion.” [My emphasis]
And yes readers, as much as I hate to disillusion you and disturb your doubtless hard-earned, richly deserved, but ultimately misplaced, sense of sanguine complacency and modern suburban comfort, these “Dark Forces” etc. indeed do exist, the evidence infinitely more substantial than circumstantial.
They are rendered even ‘darker’ by the fact they have actually convinced themselves they know what’s best for the rest of us, and made more subversive by virtue of the fact that they have been able to pull the wool over the eyes of most of us all this time.
Any continued rejection of this reality surely means one may need to get out more and ‘get a check-up from the neck-up’ while you’re at it. And I ain’t necessarily talking about yours truly, although as already hinted, I’m not rejecting the possibility I might benefit from—nor indeed be averse to—additional psychological scrutiny and/or enhanced pharmacological intervention albeit for completely separate reasons. Those pithy old one-liners about “you don’t need to be paranoid, but it helps”, or “just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they are not out to get you”, are especially apposite herein methinks. Or as noted above, a variation on the theme to be sure: “If you not paranoid, you need to get out more!”
With all of this in mind then, if you have come this far, one now hopes most readers will never look a conspiracy theorist in the eye again without feeling a compulsive urge to apologise for all the times they dismissed them and their ilk as “bull-goose, loony-toon, screw-loose, time-rich, whack-jobs” with a preference for Comalco headwear, or some variation on the theme. I would consider that no minor civic service, and even though he’s not even my “Uncle”, a thank you of sorts to Uncle Sam for all the good things he has done for us, one I feel sure he would sure he would appreciate. Or not! And if not, hopefully by the end of Part Three, we will have achieved my objective in any event.
— Meanwhile, Back at “The Farm” —
OK, I have to go now. The phone’s running hot again. That’ll be the Langley Gang calling. Can’t keep the Spy v Spy mob waiting. I’m hoping they’ll magnanimously provide some more conspiracy theories for me to digest, ponder, expand on and proliferate. Or they may just want to experiment with some new and innovative, enhanced-interrogation techniques. In this latter respect however I’m not sure that I’ll be of much assistance to them as I don’t know much about anything really, but I expect that’s unlikely to be of any great concern to them. If as the saying goes, “practice makes perfect”, as recent revelations would indicate, they need all the “practice” they can get (or not)! And who better to “practice” on than a ‘fly-in-the-ointment’, ‘pain-in-the-ass’, “counter-subversive hypothetician” like your humble scribe? Not that I’m volunteering mind you. I’m too old for that shit!
Oh, and a couple more things. If perchance “Part Three” doesn’t materialise and you never hear from me again, I invite all and sundry to begin authoring your own theories (hypotheses?) of my ultimate fate, regardless of what my autopsy report or death certificate says. The more outlandish, outrageous and over-the-top the better. Like John Judge would I expect, I’d be more than happy to leave behind a lasting legacy that was coloured and flavoured by all manner of popular conspiracy theories as to the specifics of my untimely demise and the motivations behind it. There may be better ways to achieve a measure of immortality, but as of this mo’, given all is said and done, I’m hard pressed to think of any.
I urge readers though not to believe a goddamned word of anything that comes out of the mouths of the intrepid Gang down on The Farm in Virginny! We should well and truly know by now their track record for telling the truth is full of potholes, and their moral universe pitted with black holes! Their truth in war and—now just as much it seems—in peace is almost always escorted by a Praetorian (body) Guard of lies, armed to the teeth with everything from Reaper drones, Enhanced Sniper Rifles and TASER Shockwave, the threat of torture, rendition and permanent incarceration, themselves all accompanied by more or less equal parts ulterior motive and extreme prejudice!
Notwithstanding the agency’s positioning statement, “the truth shall set you free”—etched in marble in the foyer of its Langley fortress so everyone gets the point—the “truth” as most of us counter-subversive hypotheticians have come to know and love it, clearly has limits. It’s either that or the CIA —and one imagines their partners-in-crime the mainstream media (MSM) along with of course their political masters past and present—long ago developed its own definition of said “truth” and is keeping that to itself for a ‘rainy day’.
Put simply, the Langley ‘farmhands’ don’t like having alternative realities to their own singularly versioned “truth” aired anywhere in the broad public domain.
See you next week (fingers crossed, and fingernails intact).
– End Part Two –
© Greg Maybury, 2014-2015.
Author Note: An earlier version of this post appeared in 2014 in Op Ed News.
Next Week: Once Upon a Paranoid Time (In America): Part Three