Call it a Conspiracy? Yes, No, Still Vacillating 'Twixt the Two
April 27, 2002
By Scaramouche

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 gets out.

But then again, I read articles like this:

In the 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 Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban �migr�s, 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 Fidel Castro.

America's 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." ...

The 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.

Should 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]." ...

The 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.

There were reports U.S. Military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election....

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford

Read 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.