cj#723> a complaint about cj topics


Richard Moore

Dear cj,

Over the past month the number of cj subscribers jumped suddenly from 750
to 850.  I'd appreciate it if some of the new subscribers would let me know
how they heard about cj and what their expectations are...


Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1997
Sender: Frank Scott <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: cj#719> back online; "Impressions of Ireland" (resend)

There is a tendency to go from the specific to the general and back again,
with clarity lacking as to connection, when the issue of "conspiracy" is
discussed by rkm. In response to a question about specific conspiracy-
Princess (or whatever she was) Diana was done in by mysterious forces????-
rkm indicates that we often are shaped by media mind control to accept
certain info and are unable to question or criticize it, having been
mind-washed. Often true, but not bearing on my question.

Corporate capital runs the show, of that there should be little doubt. But
when we run, often helter-skelter, after almost anything that seems to be
less than truth in what we are told, we run the risk of missing the fact
that almost everything we are told is less than truth. So?

 What is the importance of, say, TWA having crashed, been shot down by
in-air pirates, or whatever, or Princess (?) Diana having been murdered or
died of a broken heart or been stricken with auto-crash-syndrome? In the
face of a deteriorating social and natural environment that has everything
to do with anti-democratic market forces in pursuit of private profits with
the public -national-municipal entity to be damned in the process??

The often clear analysis offered of the global situation is not helped by
the almost as often descent into near hysterical acceptance of conspiracies
with far, far, far less material evidence offered than is available for,
say, the JFK murder, for one incident of masses being misled by power.

I mean, really, knocking off a president is worth thinking about. But an
airliner or a princess? Am inclined to agree with the criticism of the
lefties cited in global revolution talk - which is cheap, all around- but
they sound more logical than anyone who really believes, or accepts the
belief, that sinister forces had to murder a tall thin rich woman in order
to....protect the royal family? the land mine business? high fashion
over-pricing? And even if this were so, in the face of the incredible
machinations of the market forces mentioned before and their impact on the
entire race and planet...so what?



Hi Frank - you seem to be upset by my not always choosing, in my writing, a
Chomsky-level (so to speak) posture.

There are many reasons for this.  One is that I've "said my piece"
re/global analysis so many times in different words that I sometimes need
to talk about other things, include some humor or human interest, or
whatever.  Often there seems to be more reader interest (measured by number
of responses) to the lighter pieces.

Truth is in the rose petal just as much as it is in the super nova.  And cj
is not limited to global-perspective pieces, it has some flavor also of a
more general magazine.

TWA and Diana, at least for a time, were "hot topic" subjects that the
media was putting out lots of disinformation about, and it seemed
appropriate to use those as examples to talk about related issues that I
considered important.

One of the themes I developed was what I call "scenario analysis".  That
is, instead of trying to "prove" a TWA conpspiracy, one can write down the
various plausible scenarios and assign "likelihood ratings" to each
scenario based on various criteria (motive, evidence, opportunity, modus
operandi, etc.).  From this perspective, one might say "friendly fire" is
the "most likely scenario" without taking on the burden of "proving" that

My point here is: Why should we take the official story as the de-facto
truth, and require all other theories to present iron-clad arguments?
Especially when the official story is the one most full of holes?

This is a point that is relevant to the general question of "reading
between the lines of mass-media propaganda" - not just relevant to
conspiracy theories.  And there were other general points developed as well
- TWA & Diana were vehicles of investigation, not primary topics in their
own right.

For the most part you seem to be dismissing conspiracy discussions as being
unworthy of our time.  But you also seem to be arguing that a conspiracy in
Diana's case is unlikely - in other words you're delving into a conspiracy
discussion yourself.  In this regard, please re-read what was posted on the
Diana topic.  Very specific motivations were suggested, and your quip about
"high fashion over-pricing" indicates you must have missed them.