What "Conspiracy" Do You Believe?
July 8, 2005
6:48 a.m., MT

I've a very dear friend who seems to be akin to Mel Gibson's character in the movie Conspiracy Theory. He isn't as flaky as that character, nor (outwardly, anyway) as paranoid, but he appears to believe that "the government" is pulling lots of strings behind the scenes, with the help of a cabal of rich and very influential families. I'm tempted to dismiss his claims a nontrivial portion of the time, because often a conspiracy explanation not only goes against Occam's Razor, it simply seems too implausible -- too much needs to be going on behind the scenes for the conspiracy to be likely, and for it to stay secret.

But ... he was in the military years ago, and saw things I'll never see. He's smart and has a memory that seems to never lose facts, and reads things that I wouldn't know exist, if not for him. Maybe they're the products of other conspiracy theorists, maybe not. I don't have the tools and time to adequately evaluate that, and probably never will; it isn't a question I'm interested in doing the grunt work required to answer. So even as I turn away, the thought He may be right remains, tickling my brain.

It's very interesting to note that so many individuals apparently unquestioningly accept the proffered attribution of responsibility to Islamic terrorists. A Reuters UK news story puts it most interestingly:

Officials have not yet said who may have been behind the attacks but a previously unknown group, the "Secret Group of al Qaeda's Jihad in Europe", claimed responsibility for al Qaeda.

The claim, which Italy's ANSA news agency reported was made on the "el qal3ah.com" website, could not be verified and did not appear on any of the Web sites normally used by al Qaeda.

"That's not the most important thing. The most important thing is the impact on public opinion," said Roland Jacquard, head of the International Terrorism Observatory in Paris.

Indeed it is. Britons have been ramping up their opposition to the national ID that's being shoved down their throats, but that momentum may be lost in the aftermath of the bombings. A "security expert", one Michael Clarke, slyly works in a call for more "screening" in a Guardian story, while speaking of construction for the Olympics:

Prof Clarke also warned of terrorists trying to infiltrate construction firms and said it was likely all employees would have to be "screened" to guard against security breaches.

"Just as the security services try to infiltrate terrorist groups, so terrorist groups try to infiltrate construction firms and contract bodies," he said.

I've read enough about Ruby Ridge and Waco -- and keep well in mind the Tuskegee Airmen -- to know that the state runs conspiracies and coverups. Why is it apparently so easy for otherwise thinking people to accept the "announcement" of responsibility by a previously unknown group [what is all that so-called intelligence doing, anyway, besides wasting taxpayer dollars?]? Should the first announcement be believed, or the third? Hell, I could announce that I'm responsible -- doesn't make it true, though, does it? So why automatically, unthinkingly believe any of the others without any shred of evidence to support the claim?

I think many people do because it would be too unsettling to admit the slightest sliver of possibility that the statists who think they've the right to rule you could do such things. But they have, and they do, even today. You think they've stopped lying and hiding and pretending just because you're on the planet now? Chump. The state, with its amassed power and the often-eager accomplice of the mainstream media, is selling you a bill of goods.

As usual, Butler Shaffer says this much better than I just have. An excerpt from his article Cui Bono Revisited:

The facility with which politicians, media spokesmen, and other statists were able to inculcate gullible minds in the catechism of "Islamic terrorism," illustrates the dangerous nature of mass-mindedness. Efforts to contrast "terrorism" and governmental behavior only create distinctions without meaning. Each group uses terror - consisting of violence and the threat of violence - to accomplish their respective ends. American planes bomb Baghdad in a program named "shock and awe," while Iraqi insurgents retaliate with suicide bombers. Each effort is designed to terrorize the Iraqi people into obedience to one side or the other.

Intelligent minds - such as those who might have had a basic course in physics in their youth - ought to recognize Newton’s "third law of motion" playing out in all of this. If Al-Qaeda activists were responsible for 9/11, their motivation in having done so is more plausibly to be found in reactions to American foreign policy, than in some collective Islamic envy over the cell-phones, blue jeans, popular music, and Hollywood movies that represent so much of American culture. I have a difficult time imagining a suicide bomber crashing into his target with his last thoughts being "take that, Howard Stern!"

The statists, of course, don’t want you to understand how such forces of butchery are causally connected to each other; how they necessarily derive from the very nature of coercive power.

Of course, that isn't really a conspiracy -- it's simply the way statism works. But as so few seem to see through the charade, it may as well be one. Does it come as any surprise that I describe myself as an individualist-anarchist? ... with increasing emphasis on the "individual".



Is that a tickling in your brain, whispering She may be right? Good.

Sunni

Comments: 5 people have spoken!

On Friday, July 8th, at approximately 11:34 a.m. Mountain time, freeman said:

Your friend may indeed be right, although none of us can really know for sure. I may not hold the same opinions as this guy and others like him, but I respect them for having such opinions. And yes, you may be right too.

What gets on my nerves are those who ridicule and dismiss conspiracy theorists as being nutjobs or whatever, as if these people somehow have a better grasp of the truth than everyone else. I believe that people who are quick to dismiss such people are a detriment to the general search for truth, for you never know what rock the truth might really be under.

Aside from the examples you mentioned, there is also the Operation Northwoods documents that prove that the State, even the American State, is capable of drafting and sometimes carrying out conspiracies against innocent people.

Oh, and Butler Shaffer comes up with a great piece once again!

On Friday, July 8th, at approximately 12:03 p.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Hi Freeman. Y'know, I don't care all that much if I'm right or wrong -- I'd just like to see more critical thinking, especially in situations like this when high emotions make it easier to cover or twist what's happened.

And I don't know what's wrong with my brain, but every time I want a conspiracy example, the only one it comes up with is Tuskegee ... so thanks for the reminder of Operation Northwoods. Maybe that'll help.

On Friday, July 8th, at approximately 1:52 p.m. Mountain time, Scott said:

What exactly do you mean by "anarchist"--or rather, what does that mean to you? And what is an "individual-anarchist"?

Cheers.

On Friday, July 8th, at approximately 4:02 p.m. Mountain time, Fran said:

Sunni, you say, "it simply seems too implausible -- too much needs to be going on behind the scenes for the conspiracy to be likely, and for it to stay secret". I don't think that the PTB even worry about getting caught anymore. They do as they please knowing that 90+% of the populace will take their version as the truth. Only a complete imbicile would believe that governments are above conspiracy. One only needs to look at the national elections to see evidence of this. Not only are you offered two puppets to choose from, but frequently their is also evidence of vote fraud with regard to counting the votes. When I hear stories that don't sound kosher, I ask myself who has the most to gain. In the recent London bombings, who will gain the most- Islamics, or governments? I conclude that governments will parlay these attacks into greater infringements on our freedoms - which means greater control by governments and more "global control". I still believe that governemnt was either responsible for or complicit in the 911 disasters. In that disaster, who had the most to gain? OK, so I believe in conpiracies...sue me.

On Saturday, July 9th, at approximately 5:51 a.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Hi, Scott. To me, anarchism means abolishing the state in order to enable individuals to govern themselves, and to exchange goods and services voluntarily.

I use the "individualist" adjective to emphasize my belief that institutions do not help individuals achieve their goals -- especially not anarchists. The only way for individuals to achieve liberty is for each, individually, to create it.

[Edited to add the following] I just re-found a quotation that sums up my view of anarchy very nicely: "'Anarchy' is an expression of social behavior that reflects the individualized nature of life. Only as living beings are free to pursue their particular interests in the unique circumstances in which they find themselves, can conditions for the well-being of all be attained. Anarchy presumes decentralized and cooperative systems that serve the mutual interests of the individuals comprising them, without the systems ever becoming their own reasons for being. It is this thinking, and the practices that result therefrom, that is alone responsible for whatever peace and order exists in society."

It's from the article What Is Anarchy? by Butler Shaffer.

Home
Previous entry: "Two Things Worth Celebrating"
Next entry: "Fair Warning"