cj#651> The Police State Conspiracy; Lessons from Ghandi


Richard Moore


            The Police State Conspiracy; Lessons from Ghandi

Conspiracy analysis considered pointless
The following personal note, I believe, fairly characterizes the reaction
of many, perhaps the silent majority, to the kinds of discussion found in
the recent series of postings on TWA 800, the media, and conspiracy
analysis.  Allow me to use it as a motivating introduction for this latest
in the series...

"...In fact, as in any case of charges leveled that cannot be disproved, a
theory of extra-terrestrial responsiblity for the  disaster is as acceptable
- and unprovable, so far- as the friendly fire theory.

"As to conspiracy in general, of course people do conspire to do things, and
sometimes the conspiracies are great enough to affect national and
international affairs. But they are also explainable without having to
suppose that all manner of people, government bodies, institutions, etc.,
have somehow conspired, without understanding that there is no need for ,
say, the media to conspire with official establishment versions of reality,
given that media is part of that reality and therefore-generally-is composed
of workers who see no other reality.

"It is far more important, I believe, to deal with institutional forces-such
as you often speak of in your messages not involving TWA- that are more
discernible than the often mysterious-cabal-like tales of conspiracy that
can captivate without confronting reality in a way that offers hope of
changing that reality. While this particular story has invited some
thoughtfulness, I believe it has also involved what I'd call specious
reasoning, at best, and dangerous side-tracks of the kind that simply feed
into an X-files notion of "them" controlling everything, but with no idea of
what "they" might be, other than an almost voodoo-like conspiratorial force
able to control any and everything at all times and in all places.

"Thus, conjecture on arranging such a disaster in order to create more
restrictions on first amendment liberty, when such liberty is and has been
under assault by more obvious forces than necessary to arrange such an
attack. Or countless points-here and elsewhere-about media distorting
reality as indications of this particular conspiracy, when media has been
distorting reality since long before either of us was born!..."

Conspiracies considered Institutional; the media
[Responding in the second person, because it seems natural]... Thanks for
taking the time to explain in some depth your reasons for preferring to
steer away from conspiracies.  It sounds like - and these are admittedly my
own words - you find conspiracy-thinking disempowering and
counter-productive - compared to, let's say, institutional analysis - as a
means of spreading enlightenment.

For the most part, I concur.  My "major" articles, such as "America and the
New World Order" (found on Cyberlib, and published in New Dawn magazine)
avoid conspiracies as much as possible.  Most of what "is being done to us"
is being done very openly, and can be exposed and opposed without reference
to conspiracies.  I'd say Chomsky exemplifies the efficacy of this approach
very nicely (although we might ask why and how Chomsky's views and
revelations come to be totally ignored by the media).

But conspiracies are so all-pervasive that they cannot be avoided forever.
For example - when one discusses trends, such as globalization, especially
from an historical perspective, sooner or later one must observe that there
are people and organizations intentionally pushing an agenda, and that
their collaborative efforts are not widely publicized, and are in some
cases kept rather secret.  There is in fact a "them" - the antagonist to we
protagonists - and to pretend "they" don't exist can eventually make one
crazy (as does any systematic distortion of reality).

Even from an "institutional" perspective, any discussion of the media and
its role, in my opinion, must include as a central observation the fact
that the corporate-dominated media is first-and-foremost an
institutionalized propaganda channel.  To put it another way, the media is
in fact an ongoing, systematic, multi-layered conspiracy to misinform and
mislead - and to create desired/designed mindsets in intentonally targetted
population segments.  No comprehensive institutional analysis of the
current scene can avoid dealing with such institutionalized conpiratorial
behavior, if only to take into account its consequences, including the
difficulty created for those wanting to study the other forces and players.

In some sense, the media are the only conspiracy going - what they choose
to reveal is "known" and whatever they don't reveal then becomes, by
definition I suppose, a "conspiracy".  Or, to characterize the situation
from the opposite angle: our whole establishment system - in both
government and corporations - is run routinely as an interlocking set of
conspiracies: the media then tells us stories about events and about the
establishment - not what is actually going on, but what they'd like us to
think, in our separate little focus-group targetted constituencies.

In my series on TWA 800 I'm trying to give people a tool to get better
information out of what they see in the media.  The propaganda is so
well-crafted and systematic, that one can actually tell a lot, if one is
observant, about what is being covered up and why (kind of like monitoring
the enemy's radar).  It was not possible to develop this thinking without
delving into the murky details of a particular conspiracy/cover-up, to
provide the data which could then be analyzed.

I find your skepticism about friendly fire, given that you seem to have
read most of the reports, perplexing.  If hundreds of witnesses had seen
UFO's hovering around TWA 800, then yes, I might entertain an
extraterristial scenario - but such isn't the case.  Many witnesses _did_
report a missile; a missile test facility exists where the plane went down;
the plane was flying in normally restricted airspace; initial news
bulletins included missile reports and were then suddenly silent on the
issue; the official reports are apallingly and suspiciously unresponsive to
the evidence; analysis of debris distribution points to a missile impact.
I can only dismiss your skepticism as whimsical stubborness (:>), in
absence of some kind of supporting argument.

The Police State Conspiracy; the "forces" destroying our liberties
The "conjecture" on "arranging such a disaster in order to create more
restrictions on first amendment liberty" is, I agree, a different matter
altogether.  It is asking a lot more of an observer, in terms of how far
away that scenario is from concensus/media reality.  It also calls for
looking at a broad range of evidence, over a period of time, and noticing
the patterns.  But, it turns out, there is a great deal of convicing
evidence to be found, some of which has appeared in this series on TWA 800,
more can be found in Cyberlib, in the literature at your local bookstore,

You mention that "such liberty is and has been under assault by more
obvious forces".  Just how obvious are the forces?  What forces do you
include?  I've been carefully observing the systematic erosion of the Bill
of Rights, a process whose current phase I date from the release of the
movie "Dirty Harry".  Without trying to provide documentation here, I'll
describe what I see as the "forces" that are destroying our liberties:

(1) Destruction via legislation & litigation
        Decades ago Edward Kennedy was already championing a bill called
"Senate Bill One" which included many of the provisions we've finally seen
enacted in the Terrorism Bill, related legislation, and related court
decisions.  There has been in fact a lengthy, cross-party, multi-faceted
campaign in Washington to achieve these repressive measures, and in the end
the achievement has been significantly assisted by seemingly coincidental
dramatic events (World Trade Center bombing, Oklahoma bombing, TWA 800)
each of which occurred under highly suspicious circumstances, far from
adequately explained even now.  More about these later.

(2) Destruction via media propaganda
        Ever since Dirty Harry, there is a constant scenario that has been
reinforced in countless films and television shows.  That scenario involves
the honest cop or soldier who is held back from stopping crime or defeating
the evil enemy - held back by bureaucratic restrictions - restrictions
based on namby-pamby compulsive-concern with "rights".  The scenario
usually also includes a whining sociopathic scum-bag criminal/terrorist
shown to be cynically demanding his "rights", much as a spoiled child might
try to manipulate a weak parent.

        The propagation of this scenario, in the corporate-dominated media,
was apparently designed to undermine respect and support for the Bill of
Rights, and the theme's pervasive repetition (the Big Lie technique) has
been extremely effective in that mind-control mission.  We've gotten to the
point where the ACLU's efforts to uphold our nation's Constitution can be
characterized in the media, with considerable credence given, as
"pro-crime" lobbying.  And we've gotten to the point where U.S. military
imperialist adventurism is broadly perceived as "unleashing the noble
Rambo" against the forces of evil (with the black hat being shuffled among
various bad guys as the geopolitical agenda dictates).

(3) Destruction via phony Drug War
        Faced with what appears to be a major social "drug problem" - a
problem both of public health and of criminal activity - we are repeatedly
told by our leaders and the media that the answers to "the problem" all lie
in the direction of stricter enforcement: stronger laws, high-handed police
behavior, arbitrary seizure of property, and a general lessening of
personal rights and liberties.  We are being told, to put it in straight
terms, that only a police state can deal with the drug problem, and that we
need fear nothing as such a state is being imposed - it will be used only
against "criminals".

        If these repressive measures actually succeeded in reducing the
drug problems, then I suppose we'd have to take up the challenge of proving
that Constitutional liberties are sacrosant regardless, and show there are
other ways to solve the drug problem.  But ironically the measures aren't
at all effective.  Drug-related problems continue to get worse - indeed are
usually directly aggravated - as the repressive policies come online.
There isn't even much of a theoretical justification for most of the
measures, from a criminology perspective - just the raw unexamined claim
(sometimes sincere and sometimes cynically manipulative) that tough
problems can always be solved with tough laws (as if Prohibition had never

        The fact is that the only clear result of these Drug-War-inspired
measures is the erosion of the Consitution and the slippery slide toward a
police state.  One cannot lightly dismiss the all-too-obvious hypothesis
that the purpose of this led-from-the-top Drug War is to act as a
supporting operation for the "destruction via legislation & litigation"

        Furthermore, the underlying drug problem itself - the widespread
black-market availability of drugs of all kinds - turns out to be largely
attributable to the machinations of the CIA.  The evidence here, even if
largely ignored by the media, is substantial and unarguable.  From Air
America and the Montgnard Tribesmen, to the re-establisment of the Drug
Banking System in Panama after Noriega, to the ongoing tolerance of drug
dealing by regimes receiving U.S. assistance, to the latest N.Y. Times
publication of the Crack Cocaine episode - and there are numerous
well-documented books on the drug trade - the conclusion is inescapable
that the drug trade is managed, directly and indirectly, from the very same
power-nexus that orchestrates the War on Drugs and gleefully architects the
police state that will make the exercise of their power all that more

So, as best I've been able to determine, all the major forces destroying
our liberties turn out to be based on rather non-trivial interlocking
conspiracies.  The prevalence of conspiracy should not be surprizing in
this context - the fact is that "destroying liberties" does not make a very
appealing platform for a politician or an official to espouse.  "Progress"
toward this diabolical objective, in an allegedly democratic system, can
only be achieved via conspiracy.  Conditions need to be created and then
exploited in certain ways - responsible authorities respond to media-framed
problems with media-endorsed solutions and the desired result is obtained
as "collateral damage" from measures ostensibly serving other goals.
Historically speaking, it's not a novel game, we're simply living with its
latest and most sophisticated incarnation.

Is it credible that domestic covert violence is part of the pattern?
If the seemingly coincidental disasters (WTC, Oklahoma, TWA 800) were
actually coordinated support operations, "they" would indeed be playing
hardball - knocking down airliners and public buildings like so many pawns
in their global & domestic chess games.  One can ask, in fairness, (1) if
such measures would be reasonalbly necessary even from their perspective;
one can also ask (2) if any individuals/group really could be so diabolical
in their means & ends analysis.  However, one can hardly ask, I claim, if
such opearations are possible/feasible.  They are, and this can be
discussed if desired, well within the state of the covert art.

As to question (2), regarding moral capacity for diabolical acts, I would
merely remind you of the kind of operators we're talking about here - the
kind who start a major deadly war by faking a torpedo incident in the Gulf
of Tonkin, the kind who train latin-american police forces in torture
techniques and wink at mass disappearances, the kind who sell truckloads of
weapons and crack to L.A. gangs, the kind who pick out two cities in Japan
to be spared bombing so that they can serve as live-target test sites for
the first operational U-235 and plutonium bombs (one site for each), and
then block surrender communications from Japan in order to insure the
second test gets carried out.

        I can only conclude that the morality of the situation, as you and
I might frame it, is of no consequence to those involved.  As Kissinger (a
bona fide representative of "them") so cleverly quipped, when criticized
for selling out the Kurds to the Iraqis (in some pre-Gulf-War power play),
"You can't make omelletes without breaking eggs".

        What would be new, perhaps, is the boldness of bringing the
violence home to American shores - crossing the Rubicon with dealdly covert
operations.  One might view this new benchmark as part of the general trend
toward downsizing America in the direction of Third-World standards; one
might also take it as a sign of arrogance, almost a showing off of their
mastery of the public mind with their focus-group sampling and
sound-video-bite proficiency.

But those observations don't speak to question (1) - the "necessity" of
domestic covert violence; they merely underscore that such operations may
no longer seem as prohibitively risky as they might once have.  For
"necessity", I think we need to look at the political climate, and the kind
of President Games currently being played.

        I'm no careful follower of Congressional groupings and legislative
squabbles, but I would grant that most of the police-state legislation
might have been achievable with less dramatic measures, with lobbying,
scare-mongering, etc.  But, if this had been pursued, the repressive
legislation would have been perceived (at least partly) as a
civil-liberties issue, and Clinton would have to do battle with the likes
of the ACLU - and this would have tarnished his "liberal" image.

        Through the staging of phony terrorism events, if that's what they
were, what we got was a situation where an an intensely emotional
anti-terrorist climate was created - and the legislation sailed through
with minimal opposition and with Clinton being perceived as "hard on
terrorism", with negligible "anti liberty" smudges.  Many who would
normally have spoken out against the measures had to bite their tongues
lest they be perceived as soft on terrorism, and uncaring of innocent
victims.  Sooner would one have wanted to appear pro-Japanese following
Pearl Harbor, or pro-Redskin following the Little Big Horn.

        Thus the necessity of the extreme measures would not have been
primarily, I surmise, to insure passage of the legislation, but more to
maintain political equilibrium and protect the useful image of our Mr.
Clinton, who somehow manages to keep people thinking he has a liberal thumb
in the dike, keeping out the sea of right-wing baddies, while in fact he
delivers the bacon (NAFTA, WTO, Police State, Death of Social Safety Net,
etc.) to his corporate masters, and to his colleagues at the Council on
Foreign Relations, with as much dispatch as could any Dole.  Liberal folks
(still the majority by the way) are generally kept quiet under Clinton's
regime, and that's just fine with those running the show - his liberal
rhetoric mollifies without arousing.

Is this kind of investigation helpful to effective activism?
You question the wisdom of spending time with this kind of investigation -
pursuing "tales of conspiracy that can captivate without confronting
reality in a way that offers hope of changing that reality."  My own
experience has been that one must "know one's enemy" before one can prevail
against them, especially when the odds appear to be stacked against you.
This hardly-original observation has been phrased in other ways, such as
"You need to understand the problem before you can solve it" or "You can't
get out of prison until you acknowledge that you're in prison", or "My name
is Joe Citizen and I'm a recovering dupe".  Shrinking from squarely facing
your objective conditions, although it may enable a false hope to be more
easily maintained, ultimately disarms you, and you won't be prepared to
play your "walk-on part in the war".

Furthermore - as I've endeavored to demonstrate - if one can get past the
"if" of conspiracies in general, and get on with the "why", "who", and
"how" of those conspiracies that exist and affect us - one can hope to
learn much about the designs, vulnerabilities, and tactics of those who are
actively seeking to destroy our liberties and our democracies.  Such
information is vital to us, it is part of the "strategic intelligence"
informing any attempt - and time is running short - to mount counter

Lessons from Ghandi - Affirming our reality; Doing the Right Thing
Ghandi's stategy was rooted in a reframing of reality.  Instead of
accepting the concensus reality of his day -
                India is a British Colony.
                Our only hope is to request better treatment from our masters.
- Ghandi formulated his own perception of reality -
                India is a country at war.
                It is presently occupied by a foreign power.
                We must join this ongoing war and reclaim our land.

One of his tactics was to project this paradigm reality shift to his
growing constituency, which he accomplished by means of carefully selected
dramatic initiatives, such as the people's saltworks project, and the
boycott of imported linens.  Through such initiatives - or battles - people
perceived themselves as being at war, and found themselves capable of
actually shifting the imperial Lion, through well-chosen actions - actions
appropriate to the time, place, and circumstances.

Perhaps we can borrow from Ghandi's book by refusing the concensus reality
offered to us -
                The global system is run by corporations and their
                   subservient politico fronts.
                Our only hope is to seek accomodation via the channels
                   offered to us, such as voting for tweedly dee or dum.
- and forumulating our own reality, possibly along these lines -
                Corporate capitalism has declared war on
                   liberty and democracy.
                Our democratic institutions are presently infiltrated
                   by corporate agents.
                We must join this ongoing war and reclaim our democracies.

Ghandi's primary heroic virtue, if I may be so bold, was not his charisma -
which was certainly formidable, nor his moral stature - which was indeed
adequate to his mission; greater than these was his genius for creative
strategic combat.  Though he operated on a different kind of battlefield,
his sense of opportunity and timing, his study of his opponenents'
vulnerable points, his ability to frame negotiations when such became
appropriate - these were skills that could have been understood and
appreciated by the likes of an Alexander.

The phrase "join the war" did not to Ghandi imply mounting armed guerilla
warfare against the British, just as the phrase, today, does not imply
joining the Patriot Militia.  Either such approach would be - in its
respective context - a futile, self-destructive, non strategy.  Ghandi's
passive-resistance stance, like that of Martin Luther King later, was a
case of wise strategic positioning under the circumstances, not an
inviolable moral necessity.

"Join the war" - allow me to humbly suggest - means to sober up, face
awesome reality straight on, take stock of the resources available to us,
join with our compatriots, and pursue together bold but achievable
objectives that incrementally build solidarity and momentum and make
palpable the reality we as free men and women choose as our perspective on
our future.

Violence would be as senseless for us now as it was for Ghandi's India -
the British then - and the U.S. establishment now - are masters of that
game.  We have paper democracies and the right to organize politically and
economically and along all kinds of affinity lines - but aiming at overall
solidarity.  It is time to seize the opportunities still available to us
and make proud and bold use of them.



Posted by Richard K. Moore - •••@••.••• - PO Box 26 - Wexford, Ireland
  Cyberlib:  ftp://ftp.iol.ie/users/rkmoore/cyberlib        (USA Citizen)