The Complete Post Modern, New Age Idiots’ Guide to the Dark, Subversive, Malevolent, Conspiratorial Forces that Shape the New World Order we Live In
‘If a conspiracy theory is simply a theory which posits a conspiracy, then every politically and historically literate person is a big-time conspiracy theorist, since every such person subscribes to a vast range of conspiracy theories. That is, historically literate people believe organised bodies of propositions that explain alleged facts by positing conspiracies. [T]here are many facts which admit of no non-conspiratorial explanation and many conspiracy theories that are well established to qualify as knowledge. This affords us a deductive argument for the claim that it is not irrational to believe in some conspiracy theories, an argument that proceeds from premises that it is difficult to rationally deny.’
— Extract from: Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom Revisited, Dr Charles Pigden, U of Otago, 2014
‘There’s never been a conspiracy in this country.’
— Duane (Dewey) Clarridge, former senior CIA ‘black ops’ spook/counter-terrorism supervisor, pardoned by George HW Bush for his role in the Iran-Contra conspiracy, exercising the CIA’s bespoke prerogative aka “plausible deniability”.
‘The left cerebral hemisphere (LCH) is largely responsible for creating a coherent belief system in order to maintain a sense of continuity towards [how we live] our lives. New experiences get folded into the preexisting belief system. When they don’t fit they’re simply denied. Counterbalancing this is the right cerebral hemisphere (RCH), which has the opposite tendency. Whereas the LCH tries to preserve the model, the RCH is constantly challenging the status quo. When the discrepant anomalies become too large, the RCH forces a revision in our world view. However when our beliefs are too strong, the RCH may not succeed in overriding our denial.’
— “Athene” (aka Bachir Boumaaza), The Theory of Everything (Documentary) 2015.
Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives…I think we’re being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I’m liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That’s what’s insane about it.
— John Lennon, on “insanity”.
Dedicated to Gary Webb (RIP 2004), Investigative Journalist, Author, Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion
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 ‘rehab’ the brand of the much-maligned “conspiracy theory”, and go in to bat on behalf of its many practitioners. In this final instalment of an epic 3 parter, we again 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 Movements of Suspicious Discontent —
In one of his more earnest ruminations on the peculiar psycho-pathology of his fellow man, the great American satirist and closet misanthrope Ambrose Bierce—author of the deliciously sardonic Devil’s Dictionary—opined that,
‘Doubt, indulged and cherished, is in danger of becoming denial; but if honest, and bent on thorough investigation, it may soon lead to full establishment of the truth.’
Likewise, Mark Twain drolly suggested that ‘Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.’
With these thoughts in mind then, we should consider the following when examining the conspiracy construct. Although they might be in the minority, human history is still ‘littered’ with the mortal remains of outliers who at first doubted then courageously defied the ‘received ignorance’ of the era and/or rejected the rigid beliefs, holy writs and entrenched prejudices of their contemporaries, only to have the passage of time vindicate, elevate and then revere them on the one hand and—on the other—relegate and condemn their detractors and persecutors to the trash bin of that same history.
Oh what might have been then for humanity and the civilised world had the ‘history’ of the era listened more closely to the “outliers”—in a sense the doubting Thomas’ of secular history—and paid less attention to their detractors and defended them from their persecutors. We might safely say these “outliers” included many a derided, loony-toon conspiracy theorist, with or without the tin-foil headwear.
As a corollary to the above ruminations on legitimate doubt—the first port of call for any budding conspiracy theorist—it is incumbent upon us to consider another key element herein, which is the courage to express that doubt and query the assumptions that give rise to it. To underscore this, the father of modern conservatism Edmund Burke famously once said that ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.’ Moreover, along with noting that ‘condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance’, in the spirit of Burke, Albert Einstein found time to descend from his lofty heights to similarly reflect on the conspiratorial nature and predisposition of his fellow man, in particular in this instance, our willingness to allow harmful conspiracies to proliferate and go unopposed:
‘The world is a dangerous place to live; not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.’
What Einstein—and many others who’ve riffed on this same motif—is suggesting here, albeit indirectly, goes to the very heart of the matter methinks, and it raises a question that seems to be frequently missing from the broad discussion over the conspiracy construct and why conspiracy theories flourish.
The answer is fundamentally a simple one, but we need to consider the following as a preamble.
As regards key events and revelations about possible conspiracies related to them, even when a conspiracy is strongly suspected (as in 9/11 or JFK) or even inarguably outed (as in the Iran-Contra Scandal or Iraq’s WMDs), in those cases where they do occur, not only are official responses to them inadequate and any investigations into them incomplete and/or unsatisfactory, in few cases are the real culprits and/or most culpable offenders identified much less brought to justice. It’s not an insignificant point to make that with two of the aforementioned examples, the investigations were only undertaken because of considerable public and political pressure, not because those who might be held accountable were chomping at the bit to find the truth.
And then there is the obvious cover-up, one that is repudiated by all and sundry until the evidence for the conspiracy reaches critical mass it can no longer be denied or explained away. Or if they are, the variety and degree of “justice” rarely matches the not unreasonable expectations of the otherwise law abiding public wishing to see those people responsible duly held to account—without fear or favour—for all manner of official nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance. Which is to say, that unholy trinity of human imperfection, to wit: cowardice, ineptitude and malevolence.
With this in mind, for those of us inclined to disbelieve conspiracy and dismiss the adherents—or for those skeptics—it is here that a few pertinent questions should be asked in respect of governments, institutions, organisations, corporations etc. that have been and are inclined toward grand conspiracy.
Who amongst us would have thought that the US National Security Agency (NSA) would spend billions of American taxpayer dollars conspiring to secretly and illegally—and with seeming impunity—monitor, record, store and scrutinise the emails, phone calls and text messages and other communications data of billions of people around the planet including of course its own citizens and those of the leaders of its supposedly democratic allies all the while engaging in that age old defence against accusations of conspiracy to do so, of plausible deniability, and that the individual who revealed this conspiracy would be vilified by his government to the point of having to leave the country for fear of being tried for treason and incarcerated for life?
Who amongst us might have believed that numerous major corporations past and present—even household names and pillars of the international community of brands and corporate financial and non-financial entities—would conspire between and amidst themselves to flout the law at a multitude of levels and in any number of areas (taxation, health and safety, environment, employment, consumer, business, corporate governance, social responsibility etc.), engage in widespread and ongoing corruption of government and bureaucratic officials; undermine the democratic process and civil rights, consumer rights and human rights; and feloniously defraud and deceive their customers at one end and their suppliers at the other end and many others along the supply chain, with few if any of these conspirators being held to account legally much less facing jail time?
Who amongst us would have thought that the corporate/mainstream media (MSM) would have allowed itself to not just be co-opted by, but to actively conspire with, vested corporate, government, organisational and institutional interests to subvert democracy, curtail freedoms and liberties guaranteed legally by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and for decades serially withhold crucial information that is in the interest of citizens and [is] their right to know about—by shackling the freedom of its own journalists so as to keep the high crimes and not-so-petty misdemeanours of the power elites and various national security state actors from ever seeing the light of day thereby in the process creating another conspiracy to cover up existing conspiracies?
Who would have thought that in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs debacle in 1961 and the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, the national security state mindset would reach such fever pitch the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their cheer squad in the CIA would concoct and seriously promote a grand covert plan—the notoriously ill-conceived but thankfully ill-fated Operation Northwoods—that involved amongst other things perpetrating major false-flag attacks on American soil against innocent American citizens including bombing selected, well known landmarks, blowing up and/or hijacking US passenger airliners and ships, and engaging in all manner of seemingly random terrorist attacks, covert provocations, contrived paramilitary black ops, and large-scale sabotage against numerous civilian and military targets on U.S. soil, the aim in mind of which was to blame it all on the Cubans so as to provide a pretext for invading and occupying the country, removing its leaders from office, and installing a more U.S. (read: “corporate”) user-friendly regime?
Who amongst us would have thought that Ronald Reagan‘s historic, game changing landslide win over Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential race would (via one of two so-called “October Surprises” that changed the course of U.S. history), have been orchestrated by members of his own campaign team including former CIA director, vice presidential nominee and future US president George HW Bush, in collusion with many others within and across the power elites and national security state treasonously conspiring to bribe senior Iranian officials—with tens of millions of US taxpayer sourced dollars and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons, ammunition and assorted military hardware—to withhold release of the US Embassy hostages in Tehran until well after the November US election so as to undermine the incumbent president’s efforts to seek and obtain the hostages release, and in the successful execution of said conspiracy, so guarantee Carter’s defeat in the presidential election?
And who amongst us would have thought that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), in conjunction with MI6, NATO, the Vatican, along with numerous Western European governments and their respective intelligence agencies—under what came to be broadly known as Operation Gladio, one which in all but name is still functioning today—would initiate, fund, and maintain over decades from 1945, a rolling clandestine campaign of false flag terror, black ops, psy-ops, cognitive infiltration, media manipulation, assassinations, ‘death-squadding’, bombings, sabotage, electoral fraud, regime change, and rampant political agitation and destabilisation within and across Europe all carried out covertly by paramilitary and/or mercenary ‘stay-behind’ groups all largely designed to undermine democratically elected governments and attribute the blame for this terror campaign onto left-wing groups? (The CIA’s exploits and their consequences—intended or unintended—will be explored at length in a forthcoming series.)
These of course are just a random— and necessarily short—’medley’ of The Empire’s ‘Greatest Hits’ in hard-core conspiratorial endeavour…
— Paranoid Substance or Paranoid Style? —
With this in mind, a word or three about conspiracies in the context of the overarching American historical narrative and ongoing geo-political discourse is essential. No discussion of conspiracy would be complete without reference to U.S. historian Richard Hofstadter, a man who, as far back as 1964, famously defined what he called the ‘Paranoid Style in American Politics‘, and is the person most often identified with fomenting the pejorative predisposition of the skeptics and the denialists towards those who might engage in conspiracist musings, albeit with considerable assistance from the spooks in the CIA and the corporate media via Operation Mockingbird. He certainly gave them plenty of fodder, although it’s people like Cass Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule (See Part Two) who today doubtless dine out on the Hofstadter thesis and continue his ‘work’.
First published in Harper’s Magazine in 1964, this article is considered one of the most influential in the iconic magazine’s history, which, in and of itself, is a significant pointer to the centrality and endurance of conspiracy in the American political narrative. In this seminal work, Hofstadter defined conspiracy theory pejoratively and attached negative connotations to those predisposed to theorizing about all manner of institutional, corporate and/or political malfeasance, even before the spooks at Langley began tinkering with it. In “Paranoid Style” Hofstadter openly declared the phrase is “meant to be” viewed pejoratively. After noting that ‘the paranoid style has a greater affinity for bad causes than good’, Hofstadter went on to add that, ‘[the] style has more to do with the way in which ideas are believed than with the truth or falsity of their content’. As he said, he was,
‘… [more] interested in getting at our political psychology through our political rhetoric. The paranoid style is an old and recurrent phenomenon in our public life which has been frequently linked with movements of suspicious discontent’ [my emphasis].
Although clearly not a fan of the conspiracy construct as a useful guide to history then, it would still be interesting to speculate on what Hofstadter, if he was still on the right side of the grass, would have to say now about our “political psychology” and how it has evolved since his heyday. This might especially be so as it relates to our “political rhetoric” and, in fact, the whole nine yards of the global politico-economic zeitgeist. All of which is to say we know a hell of a lot more now about the crypto-statists predisposition for deception, duplicity, disinformation along with subterfuge, [and for] secretive, subversive behaviour and “institutional malfeasance” than we did back in 1964. In so many ways and on so many levels, we are where we are because of it!
And if we do indeed know more about this “predisposition” and its effects on the course of history, it would be then largely—and thankfully we might say—because of the “movements of suspicious discontent” that Hofstadter so easily and breezily derided, along with the ‘crippled epistemologists of conspiracy’ that populate and propel these “movements”.
Two examples suffice to support this. It is precisely because of these “movements” that many more Americans believe there was a conspiracy to off President John Kennedy than don’t, with those that still accept the official ‘conspiracy theory’ of 9/11, if not exactly approaching minority status, are seriously beginning to question many important aspects of the events of that day. In 1971, another iconic tome appeared on the scene called None Dare Call it Conspiracy, written by Gary Allen and Larry Abraham. It’s much more difficult to know where to begin with this book than it is to know when and where to ‘end’ with it. This is not to suggest that Allen was totally off the mark in all of his assertions or his historical recollections of people and events. And there was no doubting its impact at the time.
His accounts of international financiers and merchant bankers’ involvement in the establishment of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913 (along with its indisputable status as a bona fide conspiracy, arguably the greatest one of them all), steering America’s entry into World War One, and the bankrolling of both the Bolshevik Revolution and the rise of the Nazis, to name a few, are now generally accepted to be more or less on the money, no pun intended.
Moreover, his elucidations about the degree to which American industry and capital effectively supported—from technological, intellectual and economic standpoints—the Soviet system prior to and even throughout much of the Cold War was also something that was possibly for its time revelatory. Such historical insights were certainly not what one would have expected to find in your stock-standard high school history text-book, or if he had one, Uncle Sam’s Official Website!
But it should be noted herein Allen drew on much of the pioneering and meticulous research work of Anthony Sutton, with little it appears to offer by way of his own research.
(Ed. Note: Sutton’s work will be the subject of a future separate post.)
One of the other major sources for Allen’s book was Dr Carroll Quigley‘s work, in particular his seminal and oft-referenced 1966 book Tragedy and Hope. Yet even here Quigley himself reportedly repudiated much of what Allen has said in his name. (Quigley’s biggest ‘claim to fame’ may be the much-touted influence he had on a young Rhodes scholar by the name of William Jefferson Clinton, an influence one suspects that if he was alive today, Quigley might ruefully disdain. A story for another time.)
Allen’s book certainly put paid to any notion some people seem to hold that it is those of the left who have cornered the market on conspiracy theorising, yet it’s here we might argue that Allen’s book comes unstuck. He might have been right in being paranoid, but possibly painted an incomplete picture of the ideological motivations of those fueling the paranoia. In Allen’s world it was those on the political left engaging in most if not all the conspiratorial behaviour, as distinct from theorising about others doing so.
In this respect, the sudden collapse of the USSR provided for most objective observers enough evidence the Soviets were never really as much of a threat as consistently portrayed. It was certainly not anywhere near enough to justify the trillions spent on ‘fighting’ the so-called Cold War and in the process bring the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation. This, without taking into account the body count (itself unquantifiable, but easily in the tens of millions), and the massively deep-seated and widespread economic destruction, social dislocation (incalculable, period), and general global ill-will.
And whilst a story for another time, we’re still suffering from the Cold War hangover, in more ways than one! That’s generally what happens when conspiracy theories turn out to be real conspiracies. And the bigger the conspiracy, the bigger the hangover.
— Talking John Birch Paranoid Blues —
For his part, Allen himself was a member of, and official shill for, the John Birch Society (JBS), being arguably one of America’s most unapologetically extreme right-wing groups (still ‘Johnny Walker’ by the way). This organization did much to keep the anti-Communist fervour alive throughout the halcyon daze (sic) of the Cold War. The JBS—uproariously satirised and dubiously immortalised in an early Bob Dylan song called Talking John Birch Paranoid Blues—was in essence an organization founded on—and sustained by—a conspiracy theory; that being there were Commies under every second bed in America waiting to rise up and consign American democracy and freedom to the trash bin of history.
To the improbable extent this was ever true and/or whether the communist movement as a whole could ever have achieved its purported aims is now itself a conspiracy theory we might safely debunk. Like capitalism, communism as practiced by the Soviets at least, also contained within the seeds of its own mortality, the difference being that the Soviets reaped an earlier harvest as it were. Along with the aforesaid establishment of the US Federal Reserve—and with it the unconditional, and to all intents and purposes it would appear, irreversible relinquishment of control of the financial system to private interests—the faux ideological divide between East and West and/or right and left was itself arguably one of history’s greatest, and most irrefutable conspiratorial constructions.
Herein we’re not talking strictly from the point of view of the Bolsheviks and assorted godless ‘communistas‘ that followed in their wake. This “divide” helped birth the so-named military-industrial complex, one that has since morphed into the even more monolithic, malevolent, indeed Orwellian, National Security and Surveillance State, the very entity that literally keeps the Good Ship America afloat.
As for the Birchers and their ilk, they were at the forefront of putting meat on the bones of that creation. To illustrate, the Birchers didn’t just disagree with the aims and objectives of the Civil Rights movement; such was the depth of their paranoia they even promoted it as being a front for the Comintern. This again is another mythical conspiratorial construct that a never-ending conga line of politicians, journalists and military folks dined out on throughout the movement’s heyday, and is also itself one we can now safely consign to said “dustbin”.
One of the things Allen’s book did do was highlight the role in geopolitical affairs of various organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group and the Trilateral Commission. The raison d’être of these and assorted affiliate organizations would be well known to fans of the inimitable and irrepressible Alex Jones himself, for better or worse, the ‘go-to’ man on all things conspiratorial, especially so when it comes to the “globalist agenda”. So in this respect then, Allen’s book still was ahead of its time. He did indeed alert people to the powerful forces at play in world politics and world economics, especially that of the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers and the Wall Street/City of London financial cabals. We’re talking here the New World Order shit!
However these beliefs and ideas are now as much a part of the thinking of those on the left as they are on the right. Yet it’s not as if Allen’s warnings were that well heeded, as these forces are more powerful and entrenched – and indeed, less accountable—than ever, some four-plus decades after his book was published. This is despite the reality that more and more people—again interestingly right across the political spectrum—are now much more aware of the respective and collective power and influence of such organisations.
And regardless of what people think of Jones and his self-styled “Infowars” crusade, there is no doubting his appeal crosses notional political and even ideological lines of demarcation. This is particularly the case with 9/11, another of the great conspiracy theories that from the off has appealed to both people up and down and across the political spectrum. And one might opine for good reason. As for the 9/11 Thing being an integral and undeniable part of the conspiratorial zeitgeist, Webster G Tarpley‘s 911: Synthetic Terror — Made in the USA, states the following:
‘… [O]bjections to the 9/11 official version are often dismissed as conspiracy theories. Supporters of the official version use this as a term of contempt, even though it is clear that to label a point of view as a conspiracy theory is in no way to refute it…’.
Tarpley leaves us in no doubt as to where he stands. In his view the ‘accusation’ or ‘insult’ of conspiracy theory is not only “demagogical”, it is also “intellectually dishonest”, since any official version represents a conspiracy theory of a “peculiarly fantastic type”. For those of us at least skeptical if not indeed dismissive of the official 9/11 narrative, this is something that’s easily digestible. Tarpley further adds,
‘… [I]mplicit in this procedure is the assumption that a conspiracy theory which is endorsed and embraced by the corporate [mainstream] media is no longer a conspiracy theory, but rather respectable, and presumed true. Minority views which are not supported by the corporate media remain conspiracy theories, and cannot be credible, no matter how true they can be shown to be’. [my emphasis].
On a broader level removed from the events of 9/11 and its aftermath, the following is instructive in this respect. After first observing that conspiracy theories—and actual conspiracies—have played a vital role in shaping the course of American history [yet are] often dismissed as the delusions of extremists, cultural historian David Brion Davis says ‘the possibility of a conspiracy has repeatedly been at center stage in U.S. politics and culture.’ In his Forward to Conspiracy Theories in American History — An Encyclopaedia, by Peter Knight (Ed.)—and echoing a recurring theme of those with a more nuanced view of all things conspiratorial—Davis notes the following:
“In short, conspiracy theories are a popular explanation of the workings of power, responsibility, and causality in the unfolding of events. They have appealed to the Left and the Right, both the uneducated and intellectuals, and have been told both by and about those at the very heart of power. They are sometimes without foundation, and at others beyond doubt. As many agree, conspiracy theories have long been identified as a peculiarly American obsession…” [my emphasis].
The Paranoid Style indeed!
— (Idiots in the Arena) of Conventional Wisdom —
Viewed in the broad scheme of things then, it might be said we are all conspiracy theorists, whether we realize it or not. In support of this—and at the same time riffing further on the epigraph above—New Zealand academic Charles Pigden has offered the following twin premises for our consideration:
‘Unless you believe that the reports of history books and the nightly news are largely false, you are a conspiracy theorist (since history and the nightly news are choc-a-bloc-with conspiracies). If you do believe that the reports of history books and the nightly news are largely false, you are a conspiracy theorist (since you presumably believe that somebody has conspired to fake them).’
From these premises Pigden states—one suspects with his tongue softly (as distinct from firmly) planted in cheek—“if you’re not a conspiracy theorist, you are an idiot”. The descriptor “idiot” in this case he is careful to stress is used somewhat differently than the epithet might normally be used, that being, to wit:
‘The only people not impaled on the horns of this dilemma are idiots in the Greek sense of the word – people who take so slight an interest in public affairs they have no opinion as to whether history and the nightly news have been systematically falsified or not.’
Pigden does ‘generously’ concede one can be a conspiracy theorist and “still be an idiot”, in either the Greek or the modern senses of the word. But he says, the only way to avoid being a conspiracy theorist of some kind ‘… is to wrap yourself in such a thick shroud of ignorance and insensibility, as to render yourself incapable of political thought or action.’ And although one might suggest the following view is not necessarily an unpalatable one for most, Pigden goes on to say that Washington indeed would “cease to function, certainly as we have come to know it” were it not for the ordinary, everyday, garden-variety conspiracy. Herein he defines “conspiracy” simply as ‘… two or more people reaching an agreement the details of which they then agree to withhold from others and/or keep to themselves.’
Of course the reasons for this reluctance to share the details of their cozy arrangements outside themselves is lest they perceive they may be “judged harshly on grounds of ethics, morality, principle, or legality”. Presumably though, not sufficiently so as to induce excessive guilt or anguish thereby causing them to engage in burdensome soul-searching about whether or not to enter into the conspiratorial agreement (however it might be defined) from the off. Or for that matter, to do so even after the fact.
A simple way to test Pigden’s hypothesis and the premises upon which it is based is to—after taking a deep breath—do the following. Turn on the nightly news and see if there isn’t at least one report (let’s say of a political and/or controversial nature) whose subtext does not by way of some small measure of perspicacious insight, deductive reasoning, objective analysis, or logical inference on the viewer’s part suggest some simple conspiracy—even if that “simple conspiracy” is solely confined to the reporter’s decision—itself made in collusion with his/her editor or producer—on what salient aspects of the story to report on/emphasise and what not to report on/emphasise so as to cause unsuspecting news consumers to receive and accept a message that’s wholly or partly in keeping with the reporter’s own bias and/or that of the preferred political or editorial stance of the media outlet’s ultimate owner(s) and therefore reporter’s paymaster(s).
Once this is done, for most of us, acceptance of the ubiquity and prevalence of conspiracy in the political—or indeed institutional or corporate—sphere as the norm rather than the exception is a cakewalk in the ballpark.
In ruminating on conspiracy theories then, there is much to savour for those already inclined to be suspicious of official explanations of key events. For those who pooh-pooh conspiracy theories and narratives on the one hand (but retain something of an open mind), much the same can be said. Even for those who consider themselves already converted will find much within Pigden’s piece to enable you to argue your case more effectively the next time someone dismisses you as “just another conspiracy nutter.” And that can’t be a bad thing now, can it? And for the die-hard ‘walking dead’, those who reject outright the conspiracy construct despite all evidence to the contrary? Well there be slim pickings in these pieces!
Whether it is The JFK Thing or The 911 Thing or any of the other significant blots on the crypto-scatological landscape of historical subversion and political machination, we would all do well to keep the above in mind when it comes to assessing the reality against the fantasy, the truth against the fiction, of these and other still as-yet to be revealed, much less fully explored and properly explained events and occurrences. As the late, great American comedian and relentlessly acerbic social critic George Carlin once said after ‘riffing’ for comic effect in one of his routines on any number of conspiracy theories, “I don’t believe anything the fucking government tells me!”
Methinks George was onto something, and we would all do well to heed the advice implicit in this deceptively simplistic, ‘cut to the chase’ avowal. That “advice” being, “Nor should you!” That it was no ordinary philosophical fashion statement or comedic one-liner should be obvious to all but the most ignorant, delusional and naive of our fellow human beings.
Does all this make moi a ‘conspiracy theorist’? I hope so! Although I do prefer my newly coined descriptor—that being: “counter-subversive hypothetician”; along with its undeniable political correctness, it adds some much-needed gravitas for the zeitgeist. Whatever we choose to call them, either way, it seems to me we could do with more of them than less. The more the merrier I say so as to keep the crypto-statists at their plausibly deniable best. Folks who profess to be indifferent to this “reality” or predisposed to reject it out of hand are also by definition indifferent to the future well-being of your children and their children, either going forward as we speak or even after you yourselves are no longer on the right side of the turf, whenever that might be.
And even if you don’t have children (or grandchildren), someone you know and love dearly almost certainly does. At the risk of getting overly philosophical on my readers’ respective asses, think about that next time you lay yourself down to sleep after praying [to] the Good Lord your soul to keep. In short, it isn’t just about your soul. Or my own!
Put simply, even if there is such an other worldly entity as a “Good Lord”, given the prevailing power and previous impact of said “Dark Forces”, He/he/She/she has got a lot to answer for, not least of which is the descriptor “good”. That is unless of course He/he/She/she was engaging in some divinely warped ironic humour, a cosmic practical joke of sorts. If so, the joke is definitely on our children, their children, and us. And it won’t be of the “ha, ha” variety! And God him/herself becomes just another conspiracy theory.
That said, we might name-check George Carlin herein once more: Whilst not necessarily addressing conspiracy theory per se (although it’s quite possible he had it in mind), the following seems an apposite observation about our propensity to either reject or accept the possibility of any or all manner of conspiracy, real or imagined, proven or unproven, plausible or risible.
‘Tell them there’s an invisible man in the sky who created the universe, and the vast majority believe you! Tell them the paint is wet, and they have to touch it to be sure’.
In short, God if you be up there old son, it’s time you got your celestial ass down here and sorted this shit out, ’cause your attention to detail be leaving a lot to be desired. If by some accounts you indeed made Homo Sap in your image, said “image” be in need of an extreme makeover.
— Dangerous Delusions Ahead – Abundance of Caution Required —
In summary then, to paraphrase (albeit via Winston Churchill) arguably one of the most accomplished and Machiavellian conspirators of the modern age—Donald Rumsfeld—a ‘bodyguard of lies’ always accompanies uncertain truths, shaky facts and suspect realities. My ambition was always to penetrate this praetorian barricade of bullshit, and do as much damage as I can before they take me out!
I will and must say this: if this is the desired outcome and I am generally perceived to have achieved it, your humble author will not lay claim to being the first or only person presenting any—and certainly not all—of any of the insights herein. As they say, I have stood on the shoulders of people braver, more determined and much more insightful than I could hope to be. I trust though that I have consistently and duly acknowledged this ‘debt’ throughout, as it is something for which I will be forever grateful, as should you dear reader. Indeed, this acknowledgement is key to achieving the “desired outcome”, for if there is one thing that is crucial to achieving it, it will be that readers undertake their own journey of discovery on all things conspiratorial.
In fact as we have seen repeatedly herein and elsewhere, their propensity for doing so—that is, laying claim to such “integrity”—is occurring in inverse proportion to their ability, propensity, and/or willingness to deliver the goods, and we only have to look at the current president of the United States here in order to appreciate this reality. There may be a lot of very brave people out there fighting the good fight (and as I have discovered, there are), and they are in some way shape or form paying a premium for the ‘privilege’, some indeed with their lives. But “a lot” does not necessarily translate to enough by any stretch. Given what is at stake and the enormous challenge inherent in it, too many though may never be enough.
In discussing conspiracy and conspiracy theory in general but in the specific context of 9/11, James Corbett cited one of the recurring motifs that form the basis of many a conspiracy—that of the “false flag” or “staged provocation”. He cautioned against adopting any false sense of security by arbitrarily denying or rejecting conspiracy theories or for that matter even being skeptical of them. He had this to say:
‘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.”
Enlighten yourselves folks (in whatever way floats your boat). That’s not so easy I admit, but very little of true value comes from “easy”. Google may help you collect the pieces, but you will have to put them together. And if you don’t have the time, then fine. Or not (so fine)!
But at least in the interim, allow me the opportunity to guide you in the direction of at least a measure of enlightenment. After that you’re on your ‘Pat’, unless of course you choose not to be.
And I assume that if you have come thus far, then I’m in with half a chance. Repeat after me—“we are not conspiracy theorists—we are all counter-subversive hypotheticians now”. Which I guess runs counter to Mark Twain’s refrain from the opening paragraphs about being ‘in the majority’. No problemo! On this occasion, it may just be time for the debunkers to do some pausing and reflecting, since according to them, it’s the theorists who are decidedly in the minority, the flies in the ointment of truth as it were.
At least that’s what they continue to have us believe…..
Good luck on your journey.
© Greg Maybury, October, 2015.
Endquote: From the point of view of absolute truth a cube or a circle are invariable geometrical figures, rigorously defined by certain formulas. From the point of view of the impression they make on our eye these geometrical figures may assume very varied shapes. By perspective the cube may be transformed into a pyramid or a square, the circle into an ellipse or a straight line. Moreover, the consideration of these fictitious shapes is far more important than that of the real shapes, for it is they and they alone that we see and that can be reproduced by photography or in pictures. In certain cases there is more truth in the unreal than in the real. To present objects with their exact geometrical forms would be to distort nature and render it unrecognisable. If we imagine a world whose inhabitants could only copy or photograph objects, but were unable to touch them, it would be very difficult for such persons to attain to an exact idea of their form. Moreover, the knowledge of this form, accessible only to a small number of learned men, would present but a very minor interest.
The Crowd, A Study of the Popular Mind by Gustave le Bon
— End Part Three (and the Series*) —
[*Ed. Note: It is anticipated that conspiracies themselves—and presumably the theories, if not the series—will still be ongoing.]
For further exploration
— CIA Admits to Cover-up in JFK Assassination Probe – Including Prior Contact with Lee Harvey Oswald
— Youtube’s “Greatest Hits” Conspiracy Theories
— The disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 370
One year after Malaysia Airlines Flight MH 370 disappeared, en route to Beijing, with a total of 239 passengers, there is still no sign of the missing Boeing 777. Malaysia’s transport minister Liow Tiong Lai has stated that he remains hopeful the search for flight MH 370 will produce results. However, the Malaysian government have now formally declared the case an accident and all passengers are presumed deceased. Meanwhile there are plenty of conspiracy theories that attempt to explain the disappearance of flight MH 370.
This video highlights a selection of just some of the theories……
— Athene’s Theory of Everything – (Ed. Note: Make of this what you will.)
— Additional Miscellaneous Links