-Caveat Lector-
An excerpt from:
AntiShyster Vol.8 No.3
Reprinted with permission from
AntiShyster
POB 540786
Dallas, Texas, 75354-0786
800 477-5508
Annual Subscriptions
(6 issues/$30)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----
Another fine issue is on the stands now. A taste.
Om
K
-----
Democracy Spawns
Conspiracy Theories
by Alfred Adask
I grew up in the 1950s and 1960s pledging allegiance "to the flag of the
United States of America and to the Republic -for which it stands... ." Today,
I'm not sure anyone takes that Pledge anymore and, strangely, the last
President to publicly call this nation a "Republic" was John F. Kennedy. Since
JFK, all Presidents have referred to our nation as a "democracy".
Coincidentally, widespread public belief in conspiracies began with JFK's
assassination in 1963. Between the "single bullet theory," Oswald's murder,
and the statistically improbable number of witnesses who died in the first few
years after the assassination, it's clear to most Americans that the whole
truth was intentionally concealed by the Warren Report.
Before the JFK assassination, virtu-ally all Americans automatically trusted
government. Since the Warren Report, that trust has soured into wariness. As
we are assaulted by one unsolved "mystery" after another (Waco, Oklahoma City,
Vince Foster, Flight 800), public distrust has grown until today, government
(actually the economy) may win our approval but never our trust. For many
Americans, it's simply taken for granted that government is cor-rupt,
scheming, and when necessary, conspiratorial. Always has been.
For others, especially those in positions of power, the public's conspiracy
theories are routinely dismissed as delusions or fabrications by "right-wing
extremists".
Unfortunately, both sides are at least partially right. Conspiracy theories
are valid because government is corrupt and scheming. Conspiracy theories are
also invalid because they often express the paranoid delusions of extremists
or cynical exaggerations of special interests both within and, without
goverment.
However, even when conspiracy theories sound like the work of wackos, they
can take on a life of their own animated primarily by fear. As a result, those
people who are most fearful are also most susceptible to conspiracy theories.
On the other hand, people who are "well-adjusted", have good jobs, homes and
families are least likely to believe conspiracy theories.
Unfortunately, whether we are welladjusted or raving paranoiacs has little
bearing on whether a particular conspiracy theory is true. Sometimes the
nicest, friendliest people are too blinded by their own prosperity to see the
truth. Sometimes the loonies are right even more than they fear.
Conspiracy theories are strangely fas-cinating because they're based more on
be-lief than observation. Why? Because, in-evitably, conspiracy theories
depend on in-formation that's not available. Somebody (typically in a position
of power) refuses (or appears to refuse) to tell us the truth, denies obvious
truths and, in sum, sustains a level of secrecy that average people can't
penetrate. The CIA (almost) never confirms or denies. The Pentagon hides
behind "na-tional security". Prosecutors use evidence provided by undercover
officers or snitches who "can't be identified without risking their lives".
Denied access to facts, our imagination (and fears) can run wild and paint
conspiracy theories as bizarre as Dali's dreams.
There is more to conspiracy than secrecy, but secrecy is essential. As a
result, any government or institution that insists on operating in secret
guarantees that right or wrong it will be accused of conspiracies.
Likewise, people denied access to truth inevitably become suspicious,
distrustful and inclined to believe in conspiracies.
Let's examine a few conspiracies and see if we can tell which are real,
fabricated, or absolutely nuts:
Blacks, lose right to vote
Here's an amusing little conspiracy theory reported by Sam Fulwood in the LA.
Times:
"WASHINGTON-For more than a year, Internet messages have raised alarms among
blacks that Congress plans to repeal the Voting Rights Act in 2007.
"During 1997, Black lawmakers received hundreds of calls from blacks who were
genuinely alarmed ... The rumor became so credible among Blacks, that Black
lawmakers, took the unusual step of publicly denying it. They explained that a
portion of the 1965 [voting rightsl law ... [will] be reviewed. in 2007, and
then extended, perhaps up to 50 years. However, Congress has no plan or power
to repeal the Blacks' right to vote." [Emph. add.]
The rumor that blacks would lose the right to vote in 2007 displays several
elements common to conspiracy theories:
* First, the rumored, conspiracy is based on a grain of truth (the 1965 Voting
Rights Act will be modified in 2007).
* Second, the alleged conspiracy is threatening because, if fully implemented,
it will deprive us of something we want or value (in this case, the right to
vote). I.e., conspiracies must be personally relevant to be regarded as truth.
Being White it's easy for me to dismiss Black conspiracy theories as nonsense.
This doesn't mean the Black's are wrong, it merely means that it's their
problem, not mine. I see no personal .threat, and thus no "conspiracy".
However, if Blacks look silly in their breathless embrace of a voting rights
conspiracy, few Americans are immune to similar infatuations. Remember the
Cold War? The Soviet Union's "Evil Empire"? How 'bout the National Teachers
Association's conspiracy to "dumb-down" American youth or the conservative
Baptists' conspiracy to seize control of the Baptist church? These are just a
few of the conspiracy theories that populate our lives and right or wrong
all of us believe some of them.
* Third, the conspiracy is executed by people and forces more powerful than
ourselves. A good conspiracy theory leaves us with an "abused child" feeling
of helplessness. (Somebody's always pickin' on us little guy, hmm?)
As a result, any minority group (racial, political or religious) is naturally
susceptible to conspiracy theories. For example, Jews, Blacks, and
Constitutionalism are all minorities who share varying degrees of persecution
complex and are thereby predisposed to embrace conspiracy theories. But
technically, even Republicans, Democrats and the ACLU are minorities (special
interest groups) who are similarly convinced that "they" are out to get "us".
* Fourth, facts are not available to refute the conspiracy theory. Often, the
facts are intentionally shrouded in secrecy ("national security"). However,
because the alleged "conspiracy to suppress Black voting rights" can't be
enacted until 2007, it can't be disproved until 2007, either. Since none of us
can absolutely say what will really happen in 2007, who can absolutely refute
the Black's conspiracy theory? The facts are concealed by time itself.
* Fifth, you can't prove a negative. if I (or government) declare there's a
conspiracy, under the rule of logic, you can not prove a conspiracy does not
exist. Conspiracy theories are thus immune to reason, often take on a
superstitious quality and, become articles of faith almost a religion
within some groups.
* Sixth, conspiracy theories have a peculiar "democratic" quality in that
they are defined by the number of people who believe them. I.e., if one person
has a crazy idea, he's nuts; if two people share a crazy idea, they're
conspiracy theorists. If one million people believe a conspiracy theory, it's
becomes a political issue. If 30 million believe, it's a political party.
As ye believe, so be it
Remember Jonestown in British Guyana? Led by Pastor Jim Jones, several hundred
men, women and children voluntarily consumed cyanide-laced Koolade[sic] and
died. Clearly, their faith in God was overcome by a belief in conspiracies.
In fact, belief in conspiracy theories is often the glue that binds some
groups together. Members of the Klu Klux Klan may dream Congress would cancel
Black's voting rights, but otherwise dismiss that Black conspiracy fears as
absurd. Why? Because ... the Klan knows Congress is secretly plotting to
restrict the voting rights ... of all White people that's why!
Ironically, a belief in a conspiracy against Blacks unites Black radicals
while a simultaneous belief in a virtually opposite conspiracy against Whites
helps unify the Klan. Is this an example of universal stupidity? Ile cynical
use of conspiracy theories by extremists to unite their followers? Or evidence
of a sophisticated government conspiracy to rule by dividing us into easily
conquered minorities and special interests?
Your answer depends on which conspiracy theories you choose to believe. I
cling to my conspiracy theories, you to yours, and generally no amount of
facts will convince either of us that the other side is right. As a result,
every conspiracy takes on a "home team" flavor similar to a football rivalry
between two high schools.
According to this next conspiracy theory (promoted over the Internet), "Juno"
(an Internet Service Provider which is presumably one of "their agents) is out
to "get" people who merely believe in conspiracies. That is, by showing any
sign that you believe in conspiracy theories, you become one of "their"
targets (whoever "they" might be):
"WARNING TO CONSPIRACY THEORISTS! If you are a conspiracy theorist or run a
conspiracy page, BEWARE of [ISPI Juno. Several conspiracy sites have been shut
down, the defining characteristic in all cases is each webmaster received a
message from someone on Juno.com. The most widely reported E-mail address
associated with the Juno conspiracy, is [EMAIL PROTECTED] (who has
disappeared recently).... Although so far the only sites to be shut down are
ones that carry this link, it could spread to another site. Good luck."
Somebody believes Websites are being mysteriously "shut down" merely because
they espouse conspiracy theories. It's almost too bizarre.
Curb your journalist
Not all conspiracy theories are amusing, harmless or absurd. For example,
according to Sherman H. Skolnick, the editor and publisher of Conspiracy
Times,
"WHITE HOUSE TO MUZZLE PRESS. Using little-known special teams, the Clinton
White House intends to muzzle members of the press corps who have put
interesting and incriminating details in their reports. Clinton White House
senior advisor Rahm Emanuel, a reported top operative of Israeli intelligence,
the Mossad, has ostensibly ordered the following;
"1)An intensive review of the psychological profiles of reporters assigned to
the White House. Any so-called "flaw" in their background will be leaked to
press outlets friendly to Clinton....
"2)Pressed into service ... are special teams of FBI Division Five,
counterintelligence, in the past accused of "dirty tricks," as well as little-
known teams of Defense Industrial Security Command (DISC)... . In foreign
press reports, DISC, in the name of nuclear facility security, has engaged in
apparent assassinations of dissidents."
Mr. Skolnick's allegations are backed up with enough names, times, and facts
to seem plausible. Still, it's impossible to say if his allegations are true,
false or mixed. After all, the heart of any good conspiracy theory is secrecy,
restricted information. As a result, by definition, the facts necessary to
prove or disprove any conspiracy can't be found. Surely, President Clinton
will not admit instituting a program to harass his critics. In fact, given all
his recent troubles, it's hard to imagine that Clinton would be dumb enough to
cause more problems with plans to "get" the press. On the other hand, Clinton
is emotional, undisciplined and given to unpredictable tantrums, so maybe Mr.
Skolnick is right.
Theorists find facts
If government secrecy and TV programs like the X-Files were all we saw,
virtually all conspiracy theories would be dismissed like Hollywood monster
movies. They'd be seen as a little too scary for kids, but otherwise
entertaining and harmless fun for adults. However, some conspiracy theorists
are not content watching the X-Files. Instead, they actually study the law and
often find curious, even suspicious anomalies.
. For example, one Email attributed to Ralph Winterrowd II advises:
"Go to the United States Code (regular or annotated) and proof that the Bill
of rights is DEAD is there for all to see in the front part of the code, under
BILL OF RIGHTS AND AMENDMENTS. There, each Amendment (Article) is listed as:
Article [I], Article [II], Article [III], etc. up to Article [XII], and then
changes to Article XIII, Article XIV, Article XV, Article XVI, and changes
back to, Article [XVII], Article [XVIII], etc.
"Note that some of the Amendments are identified in [brackets]; others are
not. According to the government style manual, legal secretary manuals,
dictionaries, etc., bracketed text is used in law only for informational
purposes or deletions. While bracketed information may help readers to
understand the total document, bracketed text is not considered to be a legal
part of the official document ......
"Those Amendments that are bracketed appear to have been deleted from the
legal portion of the official document. I.e., bracketed amendments are still
published as historical artifacts of the original Constitution, but carry no
legal effect within the United States Code."
Well, maybe Yes and maybe No. It's hard to believe that government would
openly publish evidence that portions of the original Constitution have been
suspended. On the other hand, if the bracketing convention does not apply in
the U.S.C., why are some Amendments bracketed when others are not? The
brackets must signify something, so what is it?
We can give our secretive government the benefit of the doubt and assume
there's no dark meaning behind bracketing some (but not all) Constitutional
Amendments. But even so, how smart do officials have to be to realize that
they can't tamper with the text of the Constitution (no matter how innocent
their reasons) without inciting public distrust and conspiracy theories?
National security spawns X-Files
In a recent episode of TV series X-Files, one of the characters explained,
"FEMA allows the White House to suspend constitutional government upon
declaration of a national emergency. It allows creation of a nonelected
government. Think about that, Agent Mulder."
The Washington Post made fun of the TV claim, and dismissed those who believe
in .,conspiratorial government power as kooks. According to a FEMA spokesman:
"It is not realistic to think that we can convince them [the conspiracy
theorists] otherwise and it is advisable not to enter into debate on the
subject. [We] emphati-cally state that FEMA does not have, never has had, nor
will ever seek, the authority to
suspend the Constitution. "
In response, the Progressive Review published "Mind Wars: X-Files Gets It
Right; Post Gets It Wrong". This article reports that FEMA's denial of
authority to suspend the Constitution, "is just plain untrue. Not only have
there been. past plans for FEMA and the military to assume an extra-
constitutional role, but a recent presidential directive suggests that it is
still a possibility not far from the Clinton administration's thoughts.
Presidential Decision Directive #63 on 'critical infrastructure protection'
specifically assigns FEMA the task of 'continuity of government services: the
precise term used in previous plans for an anti-constitutional takeover in a
time of crisis. Further ... the Clinton order is stunningly silent on any role
in such an emergency for the legislative and judicial branches or for state
and local government." [Emph. add.]
So the X-Files (and constitutionalists) might not be so "kooky" after all.
Yer in the Army now!
Parameters is the journal of the Army War College. According to that
publication:
"Strategic leaders can take solace in the lessons learned from military
participation in domestic disaster relief, for the record indicates that legal
niceties or strict construction of prohibited conduct will be a minor concern.
The exigencies of the situation seem to overcome legal proscriptions arguably
applicable to our soldiers' conduct. Pragmatism appears to prevail when
American soldiers help their fellow citizens."
Read closely, the Parameter com-ment seems like a tongue-in-cheek, wink-
wink, joke for "insiders". Are we to understand that our "strategic leaders"
secretly long for a time when "legal niceties" and"strict construction of
prohibited conduct" will be a "minor concern"? ,
Because government routinely operates in secrecy, we will never really know if
the Parameter article exposed the military's contempt for law or was simply a
poor choice of words. But if government must operate in secrecy, then
government must learn to be precise in everything it writes. Any imprecision,
ambiguity or insensitivity can lead to socially destabilizing reactions
(conspiracy theories.
For example, in response to the Parameter claim that, "Pragmatism appears to
prevail when American soldiers help their fellow citizens:' the Progressive
Review asked, "Will this be the same sort of 'help' that was provided to the
college kids at Kent State in 1970, the Weaver family at Ruby Ridge, and to
the Branch Davidians in Waco?"
We don't know if the Army is up to something, but in our modem democracy of
special interests (the Army being one), they could be. And that's a huge
problem: the inevitable competition and conflict between special interests
makes all conspiracy theories, no matter how bizarre, possible.
The New World Lobby
Historically, most conspiracies occurred in secret, However, under a
democracy, some conspiracies have been sufficiently legalized to operate
openly.
For example, in a democracy, the inevitable goal of all political lobbyists is
to secure unearned advantage for their special interest at public expense.
Since the public who would not knowingly provide that advantage, lobbying is
often so dependant[sic] on public ignorance (a form of secrecy) that it
becomes indistinguishable from conspiracy. However, in appearance (by acting
mostly under the color of law) lobbyists enjoy a presumption of innocence that
evades the technical label of "conspiracy"- but still makes most folks' eyes
narrow.
For example, according to July 15, 1998, Washington Post: "Representative Bob
Ney, R-Ohio, said an official of Proctor & Gamble 'in no uncertain terms'
threatened to cut off contributions to his campaign because he cast votes
against Fast Track and Most Favored Nation (MFN) trade status for China. Rep.
Ney accused [lobbyist] Scott Miller, who heads the Proctor & Gamble's
political action arm, of trying to 'extort or intimidate' him into voting for
Fast Track and MFN trade status for China."
If conspiracies to coerce Congressmen seem unlikely, they are indirectly
confirmed by conspiracies of foreign nations. In early 1998, the media buzzed
with reports that in 1996 the national Democrat Party and Clinton
administration accepted huge political campaign contributions from the Red
Army of Communist China. Later, secret technology was released to Red China,
which enabled their nuclear missiles to strike the USA. The Clinton
administration denied any linkage between China's political contributions and
the subsequent release of top secret technology, but any conspiracy nut worth
his salt knows Clinton engaged in treason.
Columnist William Safire (7/16/98) agrees:
"Attorney General Janet Reno told the Senate Judiciary Committee's Arlen
Specter yesterday she was prepared to take and in reality evade-his questions
about Chinese penetration of the White House I until hell freezes over'. . . .
[E]ven after the FBI reported a connection to Beijing intelligence, the Reno
Justice Department hid its head in the sand [The Justice Department] indicted
small fry identified earlier in press reports but then hastily bailed out as
the trail led into the White House."
And so, while Ken Starr struggled to prove Clinton lied about Lewinsky, no one
investigated the more damning evidence of treason. Can anyone watch this farce
and not suspect another government conspiracy?
Not just for kooks anymore
Of course, government officials dismiss virtually all of the public's
"government conspiracy theories" as work of fanatics, extremists or the
mentally unbalanced. Nevertheless, government is quick to use conspiracy
theories to justify its own unconstitutional acts. For example, allegations of
child abuse were used to justify the Waco assault on the Branch Davidians.
Were those allegations true? Were they sincere? (After all, government
ultimately killed many of the children it allegedly sought to protect). Or was
the whole child abuse scenario just part of a conspiracy to kill the
Davidians? And in a larger, more dangerous sense, to what degree are the
former Cold War and current "terrorist" threats just "conspiracy theories"
created by government to promote increasingly unconstitutional laws and a
slide to fascism?
If anyone thinks conspiracy theories can be routinely dismissed as the work of
disenfranchised wackos, consider Hilary Clinton's comments on NBC's "Today
Show" (Jan. 27, 1998) that there is:
". . . this vast right-wing conspiracy conspiring against my husband since the
day he announced for President. A few journalists have kind of caught on to it
and explained it, but it has not yet been fully revealed to the American
public.
Ah-hahhh ... a "vast, right-wing conspiracy:' hmm? That conspiracy theory is
absurd. What the Clinton's felt was not a right-wing conspiracy so much as a
spontaneous expression of populist disgust. Although people critical of
Clinton tend to congregate on the right side of the political spectrum, they
no more "conspired" to "get" Bill than miners of the 1849 Gold Rush
"conspired" to invade California people merely respond similarly to
identical stimulus or information. If the media reports gold at Sutter's Mill,
a lot of folks will move to California. If the Internet reports offal in the
Oral Office, a lot of folks will demand the White House be cleaned. Reacting
simultaneously does not prove acting in conspiracy.
Nevertheless, the fact that the First Lady promoted a conspiracy theory
validates the public's belief in conspiracies.
. And Hilary's not alone. Washington is full of conspiracy advocates. For
example, Representative Henry Hyde heads the Judiciary Committee which voted
to launch official impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. Prior to
that vote, Rep. Hyde was "exposed" for having an adulterous affair 30 years
ago. Rep. Hyde (and ,several other Congressman) Angrily dismissed this
exposure as the result of a brazen White House conspiracy to discredit or stop
the impeachment hearings.
Clearly, conspiracy theories aren't just for kooks anymore'. Men, women,
Blacks, Jews, Constitutionalism Democrats, Republicans, Congressmen and even
the President and First Lady all agree: you better watch it 'cuz "they" (the
various conspirators) are absolutely out to get "us".
We all believe in conspiracies. We just disagree about who "they" and "us"
really are.
Democracy's whirlwind
I've pledged my allegiance "to the flag of the United States of America and to
the Republic for which it stands:' so I'm no fan of our current "democracy". A
Republic tends to guarantee broad personal freedoms and minimal government
that serves all of us equally. But once a government dispenses a reasonable
level of justice and services for all, it can only grow by offering special
advantages to limited special interests, Democracy's big government is not a
massive monolithic bureaucracy that treats us all like clones. Big government
is a carnival midway of individual bureaucracies, each hustling suckers into
special interest constituencies with promises of easy money. But the us-
against-them nature of special interests ultimately encourages social
fragmentation and personal isolation. Conspiracy theories are symptom of that
fragmentation and isolation.
Those who nevertheless advocate democracy should at least recognize its
cardinal principle is not the right to vote but the right to know. Without
complete information on a particular issue, our votes are meaningless. Insofar
as government secrecy deprives the electorate of information necessary to cast
an informed vote, that secrecy is antidemocratic.
However, secrecy is not the primary cause of our modem susceptibility to
conspiracy theories. In our multi-cultural, special interest democracy, we're
all pitted against each other in a battle for benefits. As a result, we've
lost the secure feeling of common interests and "community" pro-' vided by a
Republic's limited capacity for special interest legislation. Under a
Republic, it's difficult to pass special interest legislation and thereby
divide the body politic into anxious competitors. Thus, in a Republic,
conspiracy theories are improbable.
But in a democracy's scramble for benefits, we're divided into hundreds of
thousands of special interests each competing and effectively conspiring
to gain advantage at our neighbor's expense. In a democracy, the conspiracies
of special interests aren't prohibited, they're expected. If you're not
conspiring to exploit someone, you're bound to be exploited by everyone.
How many special interest groups do you belong to? Three? Five? Twenty? It
doesn't matter; your handful of memberships are arrayed against thousands of
competing special interests. You are so badly outnumbered that you'd have to
be nuts not to be paranoid. Democracy inevitably makes each of us feel
isolated, alienated, threatened and anxious because we have no protection
against "them". If "they" vote to take our homes, jobs, money or kids, "they"
can do it. And we don't even know who "they" are.
Are Republicans conspiring against you? Sure. Right this minute, Republicans
are conspiring in Washington to fool you into voting for them in the 2000
election. And so are the Democrats, Communists, Catholics, Jews, Elks, CIA and
Boy Scouts. Insofar as each of these groups sees itself as a special interest,
they necessarily see themselves as isolated from the nation at large. That
isolation not only reduces any moral reluctance to exploit the nation, it
actually mandates that exploitation. After all, if they don't build up their
own power by exploiting others, it's just a matter of time before the "others"
with exploit them. Special interests is a kind of addiction. The more
advantages you have, the more someone will want to take them from you. And so,
to protect yourself, you must gain even more advantages, which makes you a
bigger target, which . . .
Worse, although democracy is supposedly based on "majority rule:' I don't
believe there is a majority anymore silent, moral or otherwise. The
"majority" hasn't decided a national election in my lifetime. in the 1992
three-way election, Bill Clinton was elected by less than half the people who
bothered to vote, and less than a quarter of those eligible to vote Is this
democracy's "majority rule"? 'No. This is rule by some unknown special
interests, rule by "them".
As a democracy, this nation has disintegrated into a mob of special interests
competing for preferential legislation. Every time our democracy passes
another law, it's not to serve the nonexistent majority but rather to exploit
them to serve some minority. If Washington passes 10,O00 laws this year, how
many will serve you? Almost none. How many will serve, the, entire nation?
Zero. So is it surprising if we become obsessed by the idea that "they" are
out to get "us"? It's not a conspiracy theory it's a fact and inevitable
consequence of the politicized "special interest" competition spawned by our
democracy
If we live in a democracy, "they" will be but to get "us".
Just as "we" will be out to get "them".
Anyone who disagrees is obviously conspiring against us.
Pps. 6-10
-----
Aloha, He'Ping,
Om, Shalom, Salaam.
Em Hotep, Peace Be,
Omnia Bona Bonis,
All My Relations.
Adieu, Adios, Aloha.
Amen.
Roads End
Kris
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substancenot soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
