it a Conspiracy? Yes, No, Still Vacillating 'Twixt the Two
April 27, 2002
I believe in human nature. Sometimes good, sometimes evil,
that is the dichotomy we all face in trying to make sense
of this crazy mixed up world. Neither black, nor white, the
truth exists in the world of gray.
I read "None Dare Call it a Conspiracy" when I was about
14 years old, some 25 years ago (yes I'm 39 years old - a
la Jack Benny). While I could have agreed on some of the book's
assertions. It reminded me way too much of the James Bond
books I was reading at the same time. If I recall right, that
was also one of the arguments in the book. Ian Fleming had
been an intelligence operative and he knew what he was talking
about. But I couldn't see the Trilateral Commission as SPECTRE.
Or identify who Blofield was, Kissinger maybe?
There once was a psychological experiment where they ask
volunteers to decipher the pattern of a series of flashing
lights. Yet there was no pattern. Upon exit interviews, once
told that there was no pattern, those with the most complicated
theories refused to believe the testers and were adamantly
defending their theoretical constructs. After all how could
they be wrong? The final treatise of the experiment pointed
out that the more complicated, or convoluted, the explanations
posited, the stronger the ties to emotional involvement in
the testees belief. Emotional investment solidifies belief.
This goes a long way in explaining the beliefs of conspiracy
theorists, fundamentalist, and an X-File fans.
Regarding Bush's planning on overthrowing the Constitution
and establishing a dictatorship on the pretext of 9/11, I
find that flying in the face of human nature. Many who worked
in WTC were of his party. If not Republicans, they were ideologically
leaning towards his economic policies, and were likely his
type of campaign contributors. The risk vs. reward of this
kind plotting makes no sense. The man may be dumb as a cactus
but he is shrewd. And who knows what would happen when the
posse catches up, if it ever came to light.
Remember the movie Armageddon, and that other non-memorable
meteor-will-destroy earth-film where they decide we can't
let the public know because the panic will be destructive.
Maybe there was no intelligence failure. Maybe they thought
they could contain it. Oops, there was an intelligence failure
but not on part of the intelligence community. That could
explain why the White House doesn't want an investigation.
Bush has a record of covering up past mistakes and hiding
the evidence of such.
This might explain why we get constant terror alerts. They
are terrified of screwing up again. We are constantly at yellow
alert. Yes, they turned yella', what would happen if the truth
But then again, I read articles like this:
early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted
plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism
in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against
named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included
the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats
of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing
up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism
in U.S. Cities The plans were developed as ways to trick
the American public and the international community into
supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist
top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military
casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. Ship in Guantanamo
Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers
would cause a helpful wave of national indignation." ...
Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of
astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an
American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba,
the documents show.
the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective
is to provide irrevocable proof ... that the fault lies
with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]." ...
secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the
military leadership about their civilian leadership, with
leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal,
insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the
same time, however, there real were concerns in American
society about their military overstepping its bounds.
were reports U.S. Military leaders had encouraged their
subordinates to vote conservative during the election....
of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered
all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed,
says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.
scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years
after," says Bamford
the entire article here.
Does this sound familiar? Is this a repeat of history or
an aberration of Cold War history??
I read constantly from both sides of extremist's point of
view. I adjudicate based on my understanding of human nature,
read between the lines, as it were. This is how one deciphers
the nature of man.
Hobbes said, "And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty,
brutish, and short." If this is the state of nature, men have
strong reasons to avoid it.
Yet Rousseau said differently, "This common liberty results
from the nature of man. His first law is to provide for his
own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes
to himself; and, as soon as he reaches years of discretion,
he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself,
and consequently becomes his own master."
So which argument carries more favor? "Humans are selfish
and must be constrained" or, "Humans are innocent and can
be strive for perfection." It's Pepsi vs. Coke. It's Capitalism
vs. Communism. But I don't see the world in terms of black
and white. Nor do I have an emotional attachment to either.
I see many shades of gray. And sometimes I dream in color.