conspiracies everywhere you look?

2002-01-18

Richard Moore

============================================================================
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:32:46 EST
Subject: Re: 9-11
To: •••@••.•••

Richard,

We don't really have an argument in theory.  I've already
said there's nothing I'd put past the USG.  But I still
reserve the right to judge each case as it comes along. 
What's the alternative?  And where would that lead one?

In solidarity,
Bill

PS Thanks again for the globalization-imperialism
comparison.  It's a great help, a brilliant crystallization.
 I forget, what ever happened to your book plans? 
Serialized in journals instead?

==========

Dear Bill,

re/ book plans:

I'll post another message tomorrow about book plans.  I'd welcome feedback.

---

re/ globalization-imperialism comparison:

It was honor to receive that query from you, and it's
probably the topic that has been at the center of my work. 
I've found that the many differences - between globalization
and the long-running regime that preceded it - serve as
indicators to reveal the essential structures of both the
old and new regimes.

---

re/ conspiracies:

You said:
    > We don't really have an argument in theory.  I've already
    said there's nothing I'd put past the USG.  But I still
    reserve the right to judge each case as it comes along. 
    What's the alternative?  And where would that lead one?

Yes of course, every case must be judged on its own merits. 
That's exactly what I do.  But you're not the only one who
assumes that I have a knee-jerk 'blame a conspiracy'
reaction. But there's a reason why this particular period of
history is conspiracy rich.  The fact is that we are now in
a rapid-move chess game - the final construction phase of a
new world order.  And since the creation of this new order
is not something the media talks about, or that officials
acknowledge, every one of the chess moves is bound to be
more or less conspiratorial. You ignore the game at your
peril; but if you pay attention to the moves, then you are
observing lots of conspiracies.

For example, it is plain to see that the Patriot
(Anti-Terrorism) Bill is aimed at stifling dissent and
suppressing opposition - a kind of neo-McCarthyism only
worse.  Even if the Bill is 'opportunistic' - and the WTC
disaster was unexpected - these police state measures are
nonetheless conspiratorial.  The cover story is terrorism,
and the real objective is tighter control over the
population.

And we've been building up to this police-state regime for
some time, with the 'war on drugs' and the erosion of civil
liberties which accompanied that.  That too was
conspiratorial - the cover story was fighting drugs, the
reality was undermining the Bill of Rights.  How could a
government seriously fight drugs, when its CIA is deeply
involved in managing the global drug trade, and when its
leading banks are busy laundering drug money?

Similarly, it is plain to see that the current wave of
military interventionism is aimed at achieving geopolitical
/ economic objectives.  We all know about the importance of
Caspian oil, and the need for a secure pipeline.  If it were
really terrorists they were going after, they'd be starting
with Saudi Arabia, where the alleged hijackers mostly came
from.  But, no, the oil of Saudi Arabia is already being
adequately managed.  Thus, Bush's interventionism as a whole
is a conspiratorial venture.  Under the cover story of
terrorism, military and economic objectives are being
pursued.

And again, we've been building up to this intensified
interventionist climate for some time.  I date the project
back to the invasions of Grenada and Panama.  Those were the
prototypes: blitzkrieg warfare, minimal American casualties,
managed media coverage, phony excuses, and most of the real
objectives accomplished via so-called 'collateral damage'
incidents.  Iraq provided the testing ground for refining
the technology, the media coverage, and the apparent
seduction of global public opinion.  All of this is
conspiratorial activity, and it paved the way for the
devastation of Yugoslavia and now Afghanistan.

Yes, judge each case on its merits - a knee-jerk response is
inappropriate whether it be for or against conspiracies. 
What most people seem to do is to take everything that sounds
at all like a high-level conspiracy, and put it in a general
'dubious' category - "could be true, could be false, no way
to know, forget it."  This is a knee-jerk reaction in the
direction of 'know nothingness'.

It is like putting on a blindfold while crossing a highway. 
You can't see what's going on, even though you can feel the
rumble of danger all around you.  I've tried to show above
that lots of obvious conspiracies are going on all the time.
 ~Standard~ government procedure is to pursue unannounced
objectives, and to justify each action by some kind of phony
PR explanation.  If we recognize how prevalent such
conspiracies are - so prevalent that we take them for
granted and don't think of them as conspiracies - then we
can begin to take a more objective attitude in examining
more controversial cases.

Those who adopt the common 'know nothing' strategy exile
themselves to the matrix, a land of illusion, where the real
demons can be neither seen nor overcome.  

all the best,
rkm

============================================================================
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:31:13 EST
Subject: follow-up query
To: •••@••.•••

Richard,

I need a clarification.  Re your conspiracy theory
concerning Sept. 11: At what point in the scenario do you
mean to imply that the USG authorities became aware of the
true nature of the terrorists' plan? While it was still in
the planning stage? When they boarded the planes? After the
first plane crashed? Or when?

The degree of culpability of the USG, and the degree of
conspiracy, are a function of the answer to this question,
wouldn't you agree?

=============

Dear Bill, 

I must protest your use of this term 'conspiracy theory'. 
When Bush says that Al Qeada conspired to attack the WTC, we
don't call that a 'conspiracy theory'.  Instead, we say
something like, "He has identified the most likely suspect."
Every investigation of a crime (involving more than one
person) is an investigation into who conspired with whom,
and we don't usually accuse the police of engaging in
'conspiracy theories' when they try to solve a bank robbery.
Why do you and others pull out the dismissive term
'conspiracy theory' when the suspects happen to hold high
office in a Western nation?  Certainly it isn't because such
people never conspire!

In solving any crime, we look at the possible scenarios,
eliminate those that don't fit the facts, and then examine
more closely the remaining alternatives...

  Scenario 1:  Al Qeada managed to plan and carry out the WTC
  attack, completely surprising everyone, and air defenses
  bungled their response through incompetence or red tape of
  some kind.
  
    This scenario just doesn't match the facts.  I won't
    enumerate the inconsistencies yet again, as we've published
    numerous very credible analyses, including the one about
    'cover stories' to which you are responding.  Nonetheless,
    this is the scenario that nearly everyone in the world seems
    willing to accept.  Boggles the mind.
    

  Scenario 2: Al Qeada managed to hijack the planes,
  completely surprising everyone, and Bush (or the CIA or
  whoever) opportunistically decided to let the attack proceed
  so they could pursue their own objectives.
 
    I've never seen anyone put this scenario forward until you
    did above, and it doesn't make any sense.  No one would have
    known what the targets were, and no one could be sure the
    outcome would fit their hastily concocted plans.  And no one
    could respond so quickly to such an unexpected emergency and
    pull together in a few hours a consensus at the highest
    levels to follow such a risky path.
  

  Scenario 3: The CIA (or other intelligence agency) got wind
  of Al Qeada's plans early on and this came to the attention
  of the highest levels in Washington. A decision was made to
  covertly nurture the project so that it could be used as an
  'outrage incident' to justify unlimited interventionism and
  the installation of a police state.  While Al Qeada was
  proceeding with its plans, Washington was putting together
  its plans for the follow-up.
  
    This scenario fits all of the facts, and is consistent with
    the standard US protocol for engaging in major acts of war -
    used in ~every~ war the US has ever been involved in.  It
    explains why FBI investigations of Al Qeada were squashed
    from Washington, why bin Laden was not arrested when the
    opportunity was presented (multiple times), why standard air
    defense measures were not followed, why Bush and other high
    officials sat out the whole affair, why the identity of the
    perpetrators and their organization were known within hours,
    and why the War on Terrorism was fully worked out and funded
    within days of the attack.  Finally, Washington's motives
    for this scenario are all too clear.


Why do you dismiss scenario 3 as a fanciful 'conspiracy
theory', when it is the other scenarios that beggar belief? 
 I can only explain that as 'sheep mentality', and I know
that doesn't apply to you.  Please explain!

rkm

============================================================================
Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.•••
From: •••@••.•••
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:59:57 EST
Subject: Re: Why not seek reform??
To: •••@••.•••

Richard,

Can you please give me one or two examples of what you mean
here?
  > You'd need to withdraw from most of the free trade
  treaties, which are designed specifically to prevent the
  kind of reforms we're talking about here.

Thanks,
Bill

==========

Bill,

Unlike the question about globalization vs. imperialism, I'm
surprised you ask this one.  Isn't it obvious?  Let's start
with the WTO.  The WTO gets its authority from free-trade
treaties, beginning with the Uruguay Round of negotiations
(1995?).  The WTO has the authority to overturn any member
nation's laws if they are deemed to be 'restrictions on
trade'.  It has in fact exercised this authority on many
occasions, as when it forced the US to permit dangerous
additives in gasoline.  The whole point of free-trade
treaties is to prevent national governments from regulating
or restricting the activity of corporations.  Withdrawing
from these treaties would be the obvious first step for any
nation which wanted to seriously reform its economy and
bring it back under national control.  This is so obvious
that I must have misunderstood your question.

puzzled,
rkm

-- 

============================================================================
Richard K Moore
Wexford, Ireland
Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance 
email: •••@••.••• 
website & list archives: http://cyberjournal.org
content-searchable archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/

    "A Guidebook: How the world works and how we can change it"
    http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/

    A community will evolve only when
    the people control their means of communication.
            -- Frantz Fanon

    Capitalism is the relentless accumulation of capital for the
    acquisition of profit.  Capitalism is a carnivore.  It
    cannot be made over into a herbivore without gutting it,
    i.e., abolishing it.
    - Warren Wagar,  Professor of History, State University 
      of New York at Binghamton

Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT 
include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits,
and notices - including this one.
============================================================================

.

Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com