Calling an observation a conspiracy theory is, I think, a glandular
reaction and not an adequate argument.
The world bustles with conspiracies from parents hiding Christmas
presents from their kids to Bush Sr. and Gov. Clinton trading arms
for drugs. Calling either act a conspiracy theory doesn't not address
the validity of the facts.
Nor does the existence of plans and strategies that are hidden from
most people mean that elites do not fight amongst themselves, an
assertion I did not write. The poster child for elite in-fighting is
Deep Throat, who turned out to not have been a patriot after all but
a pissed off FBI bigwig mad at Nixon for passing him over for FBI
chief. The in-fighting didn't make much of a news story, certainly
not as much as his family life and his end-of-life issues did. Deep
Throat's role in Cointelpro and the destruction of citizen groups
like the Black Panthers and disrupting and spying on peace and civil
rights activists were completely ignored. This kind of intra-mural
fighting among elites is interesting but does not go to the core of
the problems facing Americans today. It's diversion.
The Taliban was a creation of the CIA, funded through the ISI of
Pakistan, also funded and kept alive by the CIA, traceable as far
back as the Carter administration. Not only is the Bin Laden family
longtime friends and business associates of the Bush family, but his
role in Afghanistan to tumble the Soviet Union's economics is well
documented. These are conspiracies, not theories.
When the American press shines its yellow light on whether or not the
Bush Administration paid attention to the CIA's warnings about Al
Queda's intent to sabotage American buildings, they ignore, at the
same time, the role the CIA itself played in creating Al Queda. The
fact (if it's true) that they fight amongst themselves is irrelevant
and diversionary.
When Tom Paine returned from his role in the French Revolution, the
John Adams administration had a standing army and the Alien and
Sedition Acts had been passed. Paine wrote an open letter to the
American people* in which he accused Adams of not only lying to the
people but of not caring whether the people later learned he was
lying. The analogy he used was that of a fisherman at sea in a small
boat being hassled by a whale. The fisherman, Paine wrote, simply
throws a tub overboard. The whale will go after it. The fisherman
doesn't care that the whale eventually figures out it's just a tub
when it no longer amuses him. The fisherman is going about his other
business, unfettered. (And unseen.)
It is no conspiracy that the media, the government and the
corporations that own them work hand in hand to keep the American
people flitting from issue to issue, rendering them ineffective at
making significant changes in the issues of governance that actually
affect their lives.
Dan Scanlan
* Paine's letter can be found in the final chapter, as I recall, of
Editor John Dos Passos' book of Paine's selected writings.
On Oct 14, 2005, at 9:03 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
On 10/12/05, Dan Scanlan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I spent a lot of hours on planes and in airports the last few days
and was able to read Michael Chossudovsky's War and Globalization. I
think he's made a very good case that stories like the one cited
below from SLATE is the result of strawman diversion orchestrated by
the CIA. Discussions about incorrect analysis and failure to pay
attention are discussions the bad guys want us to have. Issues like
this keep us from seeing their own responsibility for 911 and other
chaos that is fostered to keep arms sales up, oil controls in place,
plain folks subjugated and progressives sidetracked. If we weren't
discussing this, we might be creating strategies for prosecuting the
CIA and its cohorts in the House, Senate, Executive and media for
creating Al Queda in the first place and funding Bush family buddy
Osama Bin Laden, etc.
this sounds a lot like conspiracy theory to me. I find that kind of
theory to be pretty bad. There are conspiracies now and then, of
course. (What would the CIA be without secret manipulations?) But in
fact the ruling elite that is supposely steering the historical
process represents the shifting coalition of different interest groups
(some of which hate each other[*]) working within a well-entrenched
social system (capitalism, patriarchy, white ethnic privilege) that
exists outside of the elite's control. Further, the elite doesn't
always get what it wants, as in Iraq. Not only are the neo-con
strategic objectives being served poorly there, but a lot of the
special interest goals aren't working out that well.
[*] For example, I would bet that Paul Wolfowitz and the fundies hate
each other. There are also splits between Yalies and Harvardoids, etc.
--
Jim Devine
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let
people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
