The Stuff of Which Conspiracy Theories Are Made
People like solutions. People do not like such questions as "Why would someone do that?" left hanging, even though, in life, there's almost NEVER an actual answer. But people want to resolve the question, so they come up with label crap like "He's Gay," or "His mother abused him," or "He hates America."
And then everyone goes, "Oh, yeah. I figured it had to be something like that."
So when Michael Cherkoff, the director of Homeland Security attends a meeting of chemical manufacturers last month and says not one word of criticism or even good-natured chiding about how none of them have done zip to improve security around their chemical plants, makes one wonder.
So first we have to ask, "Does he just not care?
And if he doesn't care, then why not? Why wouldn't he be nervous about 30 tons of phosgene gas being released into downtown Denver?
At which point we begin to generate many imaginary scenarios, the most persistent of which is this:
HE KNOWS THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE ATTACKS.
Which would have to mean that the muckety mucks -- and Cherkoff is/was a long-time close pal of Bushie ("Doin' a heck of a job, Bushie") -- were collaborative or complicit or indulgent of or knew in advance* that SOMETHING was going to happen to pull Bushie's ratings back up out of the toilet they were in on NINE-TEN-2001, and allow them to impose all the authoritarian faith-based Big Brother controls they could imagine.
To be fair, perhaps they assumed it was just going to be the American Embassy in Paris, and that 7 minutes was the result of "Whaaa? They weren't supposed to do THAT!!!"
But it's that blithe blissful blase attitude that makes people wonder about how far into the game our people were.
When you add in the fact that we have satellites that can read license plates from orbit but we can't find Osama ben Ladn -- and as long as BenLadn is out there, they can keep telling us to be O000-eee-ooo scared.
But as my dear old pal Fletcher said to me when I first talked with him about this "It's not that we think theyDID it ... but we're certain they're the kind of people who ARE CAPABLE of doing such a thing."
This could be total crap, of course.
I'm merely pointing out why and how people think in terms of conspiracy.
And since we KNOW Bushie and Blairie DID conspire ( CON+SPIRE breathe together) to fabricate reasons justifying a desired war in Iraq, there's plenty of fuel to add to that fire.
And, I think, if someone decides he WANTS to go to war regardless of there being no threat from the people he's going to war against, but just because HE WANTS TO -- wouldn't that be mass murder? Or in deference to the high and mighty-ness of a head of state, the more polite term: Crimes Against Humanity?
Is that all it's about? Money? Oil? Water? Wanting more more More MORE!?
You see how it goes? Because once we start thinking conspiracy**,
then it's almost mandatory to start filling in the details.
And the beauty of conspiracies is this:
First of all, it allows us the comfort of thinking SOMEONE'S in charge of this mess.
And if there's no conspiracy, there's no evidence.
But if there IS a conspiracy, then there won't be evidence either because it's been covered up and destroyed.
(If you remember, that was the way Redrum Rumsfeld played it -- remember? When he said words to the effect that "The fact that we can't find any WMD's is not proof that there aren't WMD's.")
Of course not.
**********************************************
*SOMEONE called Willie Brown, then Mayor of SF, on 9-10 and told him -- strongly -- "Do NOT fly tomorrow."
** Why, would you prefer we go with David Icke's theory that they're all flesh-eating lizard-people from outer space and have been controlling us for thousands of years through The Illuminati?
I prefer to think in human terms, i.e., plain old greed and fear of the future equals willingness to suspend conscience "for a greater good" and kill a few thousand here and there.
Rationalized by considering how you're saving the world.
Which may be why John Cage wrote the lovely broadsheet titled:
How to Save the World: You'll Only Make it Worse."
But maybe mommy and daddy will be impressed.
And then everyone goes, "Oh, yeah. I figured it had to be something like that."
So when Michael Cherkoff, the director of Homeland Security attends a meeting of chemical manufacturers last month and says not one word of criticism or even good-natured chiding about how none of them have done zip to improve security around their chemical plants, makes one wonder.
So first we have to ask, "Does he just not care?
And if he doesn't care, then why not? Why wouldn't he be nervous about 30 tons of phosgene gas being released into downtown Denver?
At which point we begin to generate many imaginary scenarios, the most persistent of which is this:
HE KNOWS THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE ATTACKS.
Which would have to mean that the muckety mucks -- and Cherkoff is/was a long-time close pal of Bushie ("Doin' a heck of a job, Bushie") -- were collaborative or complicit or indulgent of or knew in advance* that SOMETHING was going to happen to pull Bushie's ratings back up out of the toilet they were in on NINE-TEN-2001, and allow them to impose all the authoritarian faith-based Big Brother controls they could imagine.
To be fair, perhaps they assumed it was just going to be the American Embassy in Paris, and that 7 minutes was the result of "Whaaa? They weren't supposed to do THAT!!!"
But it's that blithe blissful blase attitude that makes people wonder about how far into the game our people were.
When you add in the fact that we have satellites that can read license plates from orbit but we can't find Osama ben Ladn -- and as long as BenLadn is out there, they can keep telling us to be O000-eee-ooo scared.
But as my dear old pal Fletcher said to me when I first talked with him about this "It's not that we think theyDID it ... but we're certain they're the kind of people who ARE CAPABLE of doing such a thing."
This could be total crap, of course.
I'm merely pointing out why and how people think in terms of conspiracy.
And since we KNOW Bushie and Blairie DID conspire ( CON+SPIRE breathe together) to fabricate reasons justifying a desired war in Iraq, there's plenty of fuel to add to that fire.
And, I think, if someone decides he WANTS to go to war regardless of there being no threat from the people he's going to war against, but just because HE WANTS TO -- wouldn't that be mass murder? Or in deference to the high and mighty-ness of a head of state, the more polite term: Crimes Against Humanity?
Is that all it's about? Money? Oil? Water? Wanting more more More MORE!?
You see how it goes? Because once we start thinking conspiracy**,
then it's almost mandatory to start filling in the details.
And the beauty of conspiracies is this:
First of all, it allows us the comfort of thinking SOMEONE'S in charge of this mess.
And if there's no conspiracy, there's no evidence.
But if there IS a conspiracy, then there won't be evidence either because it's been covered up and destroyed.
(If you remember, that was the way Redrum Rumsfeld played it -- remember? When he said words to the effect that "The fact that we can't find any WMD's is not proof that there aren't WMD's.")
Of course not.
**********************************************
*SOMEONE called Willie Brown, then Mayor of SF, on 9-10 and told him -- strongly -- "Do NOT fly tomorrow."
** Why, would you prefer we go with David Icke's theory that they're all flesh-eating lizard-people from outer space and have been controlling us for thousands of years through The Illuminati?
I prefer to think in human terms, i.e., plain old greed and fear of the future equals willingness to suspend conscience "for a greater good" and kill a few thousand here and there.
Rationalized by considering how you're saving the world.
Which may be why John Cage wrote the lovely broadsheet titled:
How to Save the World: You'll Only Make it Worse."
But maybe mommy and daddy will be impressed.
posted by Saintperle at
1:39 PM
