Conspiracism & Wikileaks
Conspiracism
A conspiracist is someone who reaches first for the conspiracy explanation, then seeks out support for his or her presupposition.
Wikileaks’ latest release of a mountain of diplomatic chit-chat has provoked more than a government attack on Wikileaks. It has provoked more than a diplomatic emergency for Secretary of State Clinton. Wikileaks has unleashed a flurry of conspiracy theories – the main one being that the entire drama around the release of documents is a government–run disinformation campaign. These are illogical allegations; but more than that, they are a kind of Rorschach blot that can give us some insight into this whole conspiracist predisposition.
When I use the term conspiracist here, I am referring to the tendency to explain things with conspiracies first. I am not saying there are no such things as government conspiracies. I wrote at length this year about the US conspiracy to undermine Latin American independence initiatives, and US involvement in the 2009 Honduras coup.
In fact, Wikileaks’ documents from the US Embassy in Honduras confirm – as I had suggested in Hillary’s Bones – A Coup Tutorial – that Ambassador Hugo Llorens and Secretary Clinton both knew that the coup was illegal, and that the US concealed that determination from the public to avoid obeying US law and cutting off military aid to the coup government. This is at least grounds for some intrepid attorneys to prefer charges against the Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, et al., for refusal to obey the Constitution.
This is precisely the value of Wikileaks, the details and all the pieces they become of other puzzles.
The Need
A conspiracist is someone who reaches first for the conspiracy explanation, then seeks out support for his or her presupposition. A conspiracist generally has one identified enemy in the world, an enemy that is responsible for all our ills… an enemy that is secretive and all-powerful.
Many conspiracists have chosen the United States Government as that enemy, as the government that is unified, intentional, omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. The fact that the government is secretive and powerful lends credibility to unexamined premise that this secrecy is hermetic and this power absolute.
Wikileaks exposes that fallacy along with many others, because the nature of most of the memos and messages shows the government to be exactly what it is, a plodding, reactive, scheming maze of bureaucracy, with policy makers the captive of their own agendas, their own careers, and their own bullshit.
Much of the anti-establishment red-flagging of Wikileaks seems to have more to do with how these cables have undermined pet fantasies of the Great Oz government. Banal reality threatens tightly-held convictions about a more dramatic and discernable world. Without this vast and hyper-competent conspiracy of secret councils whose hands are firmly on the levers of power, the universe is rendered unintelligible, chaotic.
Fatal Attraction
The problem with this kind of argument – right now – is that it is as attractive to some as it is wrong. Given that the executive branch for the last ten years has been so aggressive at pushing an agenda of increased executive power; and given that the government has engaged in numerous conspiracies; and given that the disruption in the economy has made things tangibly much worse for a lot of people, there is a gold mine of anecdotal – if decontextualized – evidence to suggest support for the claim that there is a single-minded conspiracy cell that runs the world, and that this cell wields an infinite capacity to deceive.
If “the enemy” has an infinite capacity to deceive, then they might be behind everything we see and hear, and we have to be hyper-vigilant. When we see something that looks like it has beaten the Great Oz, then it must be an illusion. It has to be the Great Oz himself who is behind it, trying to trick us again.
Hyper-vigilance is a symptom of post-traumatic shock, and it is understandable when we live in a period that might be symbolized by a blood-drenched question-mark about the future. But is it no substitute for a modicum of the intellectual rigor which acts as a prophylaxis against paranoia.
Paranoia
While associated with mental illness, paranoid ideas are rarely symptoms of schizophrenia. Paranoia is an attitude forged in a world where anxieties are so ubiquitously cultivated on behalf of agendas that we have adopted the premise that to pursue an agenda effectively, one has to mobilize the fears of others. That this is a fallacious premise does not take anything away from its power, because the premise is unexamined.
Once we are in the habit of mobilizing fear (usually followed by hatred of the feared enemy to remobilize after the fear breaks you down), we begin to assume that anyone who questions this fear is the enemy.
Jesus said, “Those who are not against us are for us.” The modern view is the opposite. Those who are not for us, we will be against. This habit of thought is widely shared, and the paranoia-advocates are but a subset. But it’s easy to understand paranoia-advocacy, when this is a common starting point in the thinking of so many politically attentive people.
My idea-history is similar to many conspiracists, an uprooted history of ideas. Trained by schools and TV, I bought the establishment line… fell for several crackpots in my seeking (my childhood crackpot was Ayn Rand)… discovered a few outrageous truths that destabilized me,…reached for answers, and found some better than others… and some more attractive than others whether they were better or not. Hey, let’s be honest, we are all bumbling through, and only arrogance can blind us to that. But in this seeking, there is a path down which you encounter this brand of paranoia I’m trying to put my finger on.
A good conspiracy is attractive. We can feed an obsession to understand more – with more information than we have the appropriate analytical models to cope with.
More than that, it is instrumental paranoia, the cultivation of paranoia, not pathological paranoia. The story that this paranoia expresses is eschatological. The hope that is concealed under the fear is that if the problem is a giant, then the giant can be killed. With the destruction of the giant, all things will return to some proper order.
War
Social eschatology is an essential ingredient in any call to arms. And that is what underlies this instrumental paranoia. I’m not saying that conspiracists are conspiring to go to war. I’m saying they have largely decided that some disorder on the order of war is inevitable, even if they are bitter that a dramatic and decisive life-during-wartime has not ripened for them. There is an apocalyptic edge to their speech that is clearly eschatological; and it is signaling to others of like mind… I’m down if you’re down, when the time is right. This never develops, and so the possibility becomes freighted with fantasy. Martial fantasy (male fantasy, even though some females partake).
On the left, we had a term for this: adventurism. The affinity for war out of a fascination for its drama.
Adventurism bears close watching, because it presents the real government with real opportunities to discredit those who appear to be real threats. And not to add to the general paranoia, but old union organizers will tell you that you can sometimes find the company rats by seeing who calls for the most extreme actions.
And one of the edges that appears in the most frightfully earnest of these conspiracist circles is anti-Semitism. I have seen this too many times, in person, to ignore it. A world conspiracy maps easily onto the oldest world conspiracy lie of our time – the Jewish conspiracy for world domination.
This survivalist element among conspiracists actually shares a good deal of space with many of the food praxis types I associate with nowadays. Survivalists and foodies see some serious changes on the horizon, and both of these elements share a belief that food sovereignty is an urgent issue. I am hopeful that the practices associated with food sovereignty efforts will tame the savage breast somewhat.
I am also afraid. Logic seems to have little effect on some of these folks, so the I’m-down-with-the-real-revolution attitude is pretty scary. Boys get caught up in this one-up-manship, and it’s not pretty.
Fallacious Thinking
In the Assange/Wikileaks case, the conspiracist thinking as explicated by various people reaches way beyond facts for its conclusions. Interestingly, the lack of facts to support a conclusion can easily be explained as concealment of the conspiracy. Then every fact is assessed for its verity by whether or not it supports the conclusion.
There is not a single fact that I’ve read that so far even remotely suggests collusion between the government and Wikileaks. There is not a single fact suggesting Army whistleblower Bradley Manning is colluding with the government. Wikileaks came by the documents by way of Brad Manning, and if there is no hint of collusion there, then the only option left is to assume the government planted the documents. That would require the government’s foreknowledge that Manning would leak, and bundling the exact traffic to be stored in his intel shop’s computers. Since the CIA started Wikileaks four years ago, and Brad Manning is, what, maybe 23? – that means the CIA may have been grooming young Manning since he was 19 years old to participate in the greatest disinformation conspiracy in history.
Presumably, he is in a beach house right now, while “they” tell us that this lad is in prison.
Even the cover story, the mysterious Assange fleeing the murderous CIA, working to save the world is lame. WikiLeaks is lame. Please, everyone, go to the site and read everything there. I have seen more confidential information on a weather report. Assange is hardly a James Bond figure. Woody Allen is masculine in comparison.
Journalists all get leaks, and frankly, we don’t print most of them. Some we can’t trust. Some are just too dangerous. Some are simply illegal. Some are blatantly self serving Israeli propaganda coated with a veneer of anti-Americanism. This is “Wiki-leaks” material. What is important is what they don’t print. The only things that come out about Israel, the country most vulnerable to leaks, the country always up to the most skulduggery, is an occasional harmless story like their major leak on East Jerusalem settlements. It hit the New York Times first.
This from Veterans Today and Gordon Duff. Some veterans are very susceptible to these ideas. The martial language calls to them, a distant opportunity to reclaim some mythical manhood.
Here’s an agenda-easy one from Pakistan:
Recently Wikileaks has made startling revelation that the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) has been assisting the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in fighting the American and NATO invaders.
Wikileaks which become famous when in April, it released a video footage from an American helicopter cockpit showing a deadly 2007 aerial strike in the Iraqi capital that killed 12 civilians, including two journalists from the Reuters news agency, thus building a reputation as a publisher of classified videos and documents.
We know there are thousands of videos which already exist on the internet which have captured American soldiers crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but for some mysterious reasons the video which was released by the Wikileaks was propagated with a zeal, the mainstream media projected Wikileaks as a authentic source, which is working to propagate truth, without any involvement with any intelligence services, to build this public image of Wikileaks, Wikileaks released video was used as a building block, thus the public mindset was now ready to except (sic) anything Wikileaks published. CIA propaganda through Wikileaks about the Pakistan (ISI) and the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan is a follow up on the United States Secretary of State Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton claiming that Amir ul Momineen Mullah Mohammad Omar Mujahid and Sheikh Osama bin Laden were in Pakistan.
…but for some mysterious reason…
When you see this, look out. The mystery is about to be “solved.”
Here’s the Northern Truthseeker blog:
I have stated clearly since the original Wikileaks “documentations” were released last summer that it is nothing more than a massive propaganda campaign and disinformation to feed lies to people and to lead people away from the real truths. Nothing since then has come forward to change my stance….
Nothing has proven to me that what I said is not true.
This is the CCF, the Central Conspiracist Fallacy, and it is impregnable. The reason it is impregnable is quite simple. You cannot prove a negative. You cannot prove that it what they claim is not true, therefore it must be true. One cannot find evidence for the nonexistent. The old example that you can’t prove a negative is, Prove there is no God.
It’s a closed system.
From the standpoint of reason, there is only one way to establish the facticity of a thing, and that is by proving a positive. If the challenge is, Prove that there is a God, then we can say that someone proved or failed to prove. Because the challenge to prove in the positive, “prove that there is chlorine in that water,” e.g., is a challenge with the possibility of proof. We can find chlorine in the water, and we have a proven fact… for the time being.
I know a good number of people who still believe 9-11 was a government job. Many are sane people who simply don’t understand or appreciate some key variables. Many 9-11 buffs, however, are incensed that the Wikileaks’ releases did nothing to support their theory; and of course moved from there immediately to the presumption that Wikileaks is a CIA operation designed to continue the cover-up.
The rule is, never, ever, ever question the core assumption of The Conspiracy. If something doesn’t fit, make it. It does, however, in the age of the internet, go viral.
The first major leak released earlier this year by Assange was about occupied Afghanistan in the form of more than 92,000 documents. These docs included secret files about civilian killings by the US and NATO along with boogeyman stories about the long-dead Osama Bin Laden, garbage regarding the Taliban acquiring ground-to-air missiles, and plenty of lies about Pakistans intelligence agency, the ISI (2). There wasnt a single document about the Israeli training of the Taliban (3), the massive drug profiteering by the Mossad (4), the CIA (5) and the US-puppet Hamid Karzai and his brother (6), Karzais connections to Unocal and Zionist war criminal Henry Kissinger (7), the clandestine Israeli business operations set up to take control of the oil fields in neighboring Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan (8), or the Russian-Jewish mafia, fully protected by the Zionist entity, selling guns to US-backed Afghan warlords (9). Why werent any of these massively important, critically damning events and operations mentioned? Because by doing so, it would incriminate the already internationally condemned Zionist regime. Journalists, bloggers and activists, from occupied Afghanistan and abroad, have been reporting on the vast civilian casualties in Afghanistan since US intervention began more than 30 years ago. Wikileaks revealed nothing that wasnt already known; however, it did reinforce Zionist propaganda regarding the illegal war on terror.
That was from Johnathan Azazia at a blog called Newsvine.
Does this person believe that diplomatic communications are accurate, unbiased? It doesn’t matter, because in this case, Osama bin Laden is a myth, so any mention of him constitutes proof of the conspiracy to maintain the myth.
And again, we see some Conspiracist Playbook 101 stuff: Negative evidence to prove negatives. The communiqués failed to contain certain prescribed conspiracist materials, therefore the absence of those materials proves an intention to conceal or deceive. Every failure to prove the initial theory then becomes part of the conspiracy.
Here’s a new (old) rule: Just because you can’t think of any other explanation than your own, that doesn’t mean no other explanation exists.
My favorite argument is that “the fact that Assange is alive says it all.”
I’m not making this up, but this line is in the mouth of the protagonist in the film, Conspiracy Theory. Mel Gibson’s character – the broken-minded Jerry – is nearly as out-there as Gibson’s more offensive off-screen persona; and in the film, he claims that Oliver Stone is an illuminati-like character, someone deep within the secret society. His proof? “With everything he says, the fact that he’s alive says it all.” Something to that effect.
That is exactly what one thesis says. The government’s failure to kill Assange is proof that Assange is a government agent. This, obviously, assumes two things: (1) the government kills all its enemies, and (2) the government has the unlimited capacity to kill anyone it wants. Neither of those presuppositions is true.
It’s not unique to conpsiracists, this bypassing of the rudiments of logic. Logic has been devalued in this culture. It’s true that Logic’s history is freighted, and any of its claims to ultimate authority are rightfully challenged; but logic is extremely valuable when it is used appropriately, i.e., in evidentiary debates and investigations. Demagogues have no interest in cultivating logic in the culture, and our politics has become completely demagogic,so it’s no surprise that logic has so atrophied. Scoring points and clever repartee are more important to us than plodding logic, and no wonder. It is so seldom used.
It is ironic that many conpsiracists actually level a critique against the wider culture for its failure to think critically, while they violate these most basic standards of intellectual rigor.
We hear this criticism in the language of misanthropy.
Self De-Selective Misanthropy
This culture doesn’t think critically… like I do. Critical thinking means thinking that concludes the same things I conclude.
I’m okay, you’re not okay. Sorry, I’m a child of the 60s, and with the old transactional analysis model we can get to the essence of political misanthropy, which is characteristic of conspiracists, but which is also shared by a large number of disaffected middle-class people, again, mostly men.
When the world does not conform to our expectations, we should always consider the possibility that the problem might be as much with our expectations as with the world. Most people would agree, for example, that getting mad about inconvenient weather may wind you up pretty good, but it doesn’t change the fact that the weather will not obey you. Our expectations of people can be likewise grandiose; because we really know far too little about most people to have an informed expectation at all. Here is the misanthropy trap.
If people do not do what I want them to do, even after I tell them what I want them to do, then the problem cannot be that I do not understand them. Since the problem cannot be that I do not understand them, then the real problem must be that they do not understand me. Since I am right, their failure to understand me can only be the outcome of their sheep-like stupidity. Since most people seem disinclined to do what I want them to do, that means that most people are stupid… and that is why things go wrong, because if they’d only listen to me and do what I want them to do, that would demonstrate that they are not stupid. But they don’t, so they are stupid, and I am one of the few who are not-stupid but are sidelined by the magnitude of human stupidity that engulfs me.
There’s biological determinism hiding in that trope somewhere; and it says I am genetically superior to the rest.
I’m going to go slightly biographical here, and say that I have met a lot of different people from a lot of different places for a long time now, and of all those I have met, the overwhelming majority are very smart and creative. All different kinds of smarts and all different kinds of creativity, in spite of being misled by a kaleidoscope of competing agendas about some ideas. People are packed with potential and creativity, and they are trapped by circumstances, ideas being one of those circumstances. But human beings are not stupid.
Anyone can do a stupid thing. That’s different than saying people are stupid… saying they are “the sheeple,” because they refuse to be in my flock.
This misanthropy not only lends itself to a kind of bitter schadenfreude when we see people suffer, it blinds one to the true complexity of our circumstances and provides a ready excuse for inaction.
Some will object that in asserting one’s own perspective, a person is indulging the I’m-smarter-than-them conviction, but that’s a misplaced comparison. The “I’m smarter” part is built into the “they are stupid” part, because one has already divided the world into smart and stupid. Challenging a position in a debate is not asserting that your opponent is stupid; and asserting a minority position does not assume that most people are stupid, only uncomprehending of the details of one’s argument. There is a real and vast difference.
Just as there are differences between people who adhere to conspiracy theories about Wikileaks.
The Shift
Some people believe a lot of conspiracy theories, and some have one or two pet theories. This does not make them stupid. Conspiracists I have known are usually bright, curious, and well-read to boot.
In the face of challenges to conspiracism, some conspiracists have altered their language. They have left the character of the Giant Oz government intact – monolithic, omniscient, omnipotent – and changed their language. They refer to the “ruling class,” a valid category in my opinion; but they are talking about a giant, disciplined conspiracy cell nonetheless, which is different than most people who use this term mean.
Ruling class is a term from radical social theory to describe a dominant class as a whole. Socialists and anarchists and other “lefties” do not assume that it is organized as a secret cell with a single mind, but that it is the outcome of historical self-organization over time, with changing material conditions as the primary driver of change, not a secret global domination committee.
This shift in terminology by conspiracists carries a shift in meaning that goes back to the defaults: we can still kill a giant and get what we want, the world is still easily intelligible, the future heroic conflict is still on, and the same self-insulating logical fallacies can be given free-reign.
Summary with Disclaimers
When you paint in broad strokes, you miss a lot of details. I know that my representations here are overly general and ignorant of the many permutations and exceptions to what I’ve written. I’ll just own that.
I want to reiterate, in case I didn’t give it enough emphasis, that I don’t think everyone who believes in some unproven conspiracy is a fool or a manipulator. I don’t think conspiracists are bad people, but I do believe a few of them to be mentally ill. I also know Marxists and Democrats and Methodists who are mentally ill, because any set of ideas can be refracted in an unsettled or broken mind. That said, I don’t believe there is a psychiatric (read: medical) explanation for conspiracism. I believe it is a habit of thought, borne of the same circumstances that we all experience.
My pop psychology above is as much self-analysis as anything else. I impute motivations in a very general way, and I admit to imputing them – again – in an overly general way. My critique of the smart-stupid dichotomy is not a psychological critique; it is a critique of the biological determinism lurking inside the assumptions of the dichotomy and of arrogance – a character flaw not yet listed in the DSM-IV.
I might be accused of arrogance for the content or the tone of this rant, or because I believe I am right and the conspiracists are wrong. I think this is quite possible with regard to tone – though I honestly don’t mean to – but it is sophistry to compare “I believe I am right and you are wrong” to “You are stupid.” The former remains open to change, and the latter forecloses the topic.
I might be accused of valorizing logic, then departing from logical claims in the text of the rant. That would be true. I don’t think logic is adequate to describe many things, even though it is necessary to test the validity of certain questions.
Now I need to tell the story of my own conspiracy theory, this one about 9-11. When the September 11, 2001 attack happened, I was appalled at how quickly and cynically the government moved to take advantage of that terrible day. My suspicion alarm went off, and I suggested that the whole thing was fishy – with a long list of reasons why – and I posted my suspicions on a list. One list member became enthusiastic about my rant there, and he published it across the internet. What was meant as the contribution to a private list discussion went viral, and pretty soon I was fighting a false impression that lasted long past the time when I had had time to study and reflect and rule out my original suspicion. And for three years, when I was writing for “From the Wilderness,” I was the only one among my colleagues who apparently did not believe the US government planned the attacks of 9-11. No biggie, because Mike Ruppert, the editor, treated me well, accepted my writing with very little editorial guidance, and paid a fair price for my output.
While I was there, at Mike’s behest, I began writing about another government conspiracy, the Pat Tillman cover-up. One article caused the family to contact me, and then we wrote a series, called The Tillman Files, that attempted to make sense of around 2,000 pages of highly-redacted documents from three Army investigations provided by Pat’s mom, Mary Tillman. Since then, the investigation forced a Congressional hearing, and has been brought to life by Amir Bar Lev in his engaging and sensitive film, The Tillman Story.
Even during this investigation, and even after we published serial pieces, a summary with Counterpunch, and Mary’s book, Boots on the Ground by Dusk, we still heard a chorus of insistent voices suggesting that Pat was assassinated because he has criticized the war. This was an intractable belief by many, even when we presented deeply-researched and detailed reasons why this was not possible.
People became angry with me when I pointed out the reasons why, and some – alas – decided that I too was part of the cover-up. After all, I worked for the government for a long time.
Marcilla Elizabeth Smith:
In the Jain belief, there is a thing called “syadvada” which is roughly “the assertion of possibilities.” There are seven statements that follow from syadvada:
“in some ways it is”
5 December 2010, 9:46 am“in some ways it is not”
“in some ways it is and it is not”
“in some ways it is and it is indescribable”
“in some ways it is not and it is indescribable”
“in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable”
“in some ways it is indescribable”
Curt:
Why has no one examined the the US Army ruling that Col Westhusing committed suicide. I know that his family must be as skeptical of this claim that I am.
5 December 2010, 1:59 pmI would not rule it our entirely but it seems highly implausible. I do find it a bit hard to swallow that an Army officer would submit to pressure and right a false report for the brass but it has happened before.
The Guardian newspaper reported that some wikileaks cables showed that the English government promised the US government that the Englsih inverstigation of how Enland got involved in the Iraq war would not embarrass the US government. The only way fo that to happen is to steer the direction of the investigation. The only way for that to happen is that some people have to prevent to the truth from comming to the light of day.
The only conclusion that I can draw is that it is not all that hard to get people to cover up a crime for thier rulers even though they may have not taken part in the crime. I myself might even do it. I think that it would depend on the nature of the crime. Maybe I am just kidding myself.
Curt:
Overall this was a very thought provoking article.
5 December 2010, 2:02 pmGuy Montag:
I’ve never looked into the 911 conspiracy theories much (although I did read thru one of Ray Griffin’s books a few years ago). As a firefighter, I could never quite understand the fixation with explosive charges taking down the Twin Towers (once fire reaches exposed metal roof supports, roofs and buildings can fail/fall rapidly). However, I’ve never ruled out the possibility, that at some level, there was foreknowledge of the terrorist plan and someone “let it happen” (e.g. as with Pearl Harbor) like not following up on the Minneapolis FBI office info passed up to HQ.
I had some personal encounters with Congress’s and the New York Time’s role in the cover-up of Pat Tillman’s friendly-fire death. Alas, like Stan, during my investigations I’ve found you just can’t reason with those folks that are fixated on the Tillman assasination theory. Sure, I understand the idea, when I first started learning about the Tillman story I had that suspicion, but the more I learned about what happened from Stan’s research,others, and looking at source documents the more improbable/impossible that theory appeared.
If you’re interested, my efforts to explain the role of Congress and President Obama (and a side trip to the Yoni Netanyahu & Rachel Corrie connection) in the Tillman cover-up can be found at http://www.feralfirefighter.blogspot.com I would also second Stan’s suggestion to watch “The Tillman Story” and read “Boots on the Ground by Dusk”.
Jon Krakauer’s “Where Men Win Glory” is a mixed work. Jon lost the trust of the Tillman family so the biographical part of his book is a bit weak. But Krakauer’s account of the friendly-fire incident and the Army’s cover-up & Gen. McChrystal’s role is useful (see the paperback edition which has 50 new pages). Unfortuntely, Jon used my research to update his book without explaining how the Democratic Congress’s “investigation” was a sham. For some reason, Krakauer let Congress off the hook, especially folks like Senator McCain, Carl Levin, and James Webb. Maybe he’s got an ego problem or is a partisan Democrat?
5 December 2010, 3:30 pmMichael Anderson:
Seems like a lot of what is described as “Conspiracy Theory” comes out looking like, after a bit of investigation, “business as usual”—much more banal and uninteresting indeed…but dangerous nonetheless.
5 December 2010, 3:53 pmHenry:
To Orwellian Governments Around the Globe
Censoring = Fortifying the Censored!
By Reggie Middleton
December 05, 2010 “Zerohedge” – - I must admit that I am quite perturbed by the sheer amount of effort concentrated at not only censoring Wikileaks, but the censoring of media outlets that meerely comment on Wikileaks! It has become truly Orwellian in stature, and the worst part is that the attempts to censor something as distributed and collective in intellectual capital as the Internet is futile. All it has done has created ample bad will for governments worldwide, and those corporations that bowed to the pressure of said governments yet refuse to admit it. The bad will has gotten to the point where even I am pulling my patronage from Amazon (that means colored Nooks from now on, not Kindles, Barnes & Nobles for books and not Amazon.com, and Netflix for streaming content in lieu of Video on Demand). I can understand the need to bow to the pressure of the US government if you need to stay in business, but to cowtow and lie takes it a step to far.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27001.htm
5 December 2010, 8:42 pmsam:
Where I live there is fair amount of conspiracy theory programming on the radio, including the Alex Jones show, which is the most popular program of its kind, and fairly representative of far-right conspiracy theorist culture. Jones preaches fire and brimstone to his listeners that they are engaged in an “Info War” against the government, the media, and, for the most part, anyone who disagrees with him.
Jones’s only ammunition, however, is information he cherry picks from the aforementioned nemeses and uses out of context to bolster his conspiracy theories. In other words, everything “they” say is a lie, unless it supports “the truth” according to Alex Jones. Then this shrapnel can be recycled and reused against “them”. So the Info War rages on…
These sorts of arbitrary logical leaps are at the core of the conspiracy theorist mentality, which is marked by a tendency to salvage only the facts that support the theory and disregard the rest as lies. Faith in the theory supersedes all facts; no debunking allowed! Lest you be labeled a sheep, straw man or “N.W.O. shill” as Noam Chomsky was when he came on the Alex Jones show and dared to differ with him.
Lately, Jones has been talking about WikiLeaks, and is highly suspicious. I’m sure if anything emerges that clashes with his beliefs, it will be promptly written off as disinformation. Personally, I doubt the government is wasting time trying to poison a well that they are going all out to shut down asap anyway.
5 December 2010, 11:19 pmld:
A great essay, one of the best you’re written in a while (IMO, of course). There are so many insightful sections — I was heartened to see your thoughts on survivalist/conspiracist ranks/tendencies in the much broader food sovereignty movement. Sometimes I (probably wrongly?) fear that your embrace of the food sovereignty movement too often lacks a certain political-theoretical angle (but yes, I realize this lack is by conscious design). This piece assuages those fears (not that your outlook on things should be based on assuaging my fears, ha ha!). Anyway, wonderful and refreshing to read, all around. (For some reason it reminds me a lot of Feral Scholar circa 2007-2008, roughly.)
6 December 2010, 8:54 ams.n.:
i’m an agnostic on wikileaks but i will say in defense of conspiratology in general that all of Karl Marx’s approach to the study of world history can be summarised in just two Latin words: “cui bono?”. I don’t know why the wikileaks saga should be immune from this approach. Certainly Manning & Assange could be acting in good faith and still be manipulated. And who does indeed benefit from this latest wiki trove? It’s odd to me that this polemic above makes no mention whatsoever of the remarks by Zbignew Brzezisnki, which I came across in Pablo Escobar’s column –sceptical of conspiracy claims – of last Thursday
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL04Ak02.html
“….Under this framework it is very enlightening to listen to what eminent Cold Warrior Zbigniew Brzezinski has to say. He told the US Public Broadcasting Service that cablegate is “seeded” with “surprisingly pointed” information, and that “seeding” is too easy to accomplish.
“….Dr Zbig says that WikiLeaks may have been manipulated by intelligence services with “very specific objectives”. They could be, as he hints, internal US elements who want to embarass the Barack Obama administration. But he also suspects “foreign elements”. In this case, the first on the list would be none other than the state of Israel.
“….As conspiracy theories go, this one is a cracker; could WikiLeaks be the head of a real invisible “snake” – a massive Israeli disinformation campaign? Evidence would include cables seriously compromising the US-Turkey relationship; the cumulative cables painting a picture of a Sunni Arab-wide consensus for attacking Iran; and the fact that the cables reveal nothing that demonstrates how Israel has jeopardized US interests in the Middle East over and over again…..”
6 December 2010, 9:25 amCharles:
In rush, skimming, so I don’t know if u mentioned this
6 December 2010, 2:48 pmCharles:
Oops u might want to google it
Julian Assange and the Computer Conspiracy; “To destroy this invisible government”
Posted by zunguzungu on November 29, 2010
(en Español)
(auf Deutsch)
(in het nederlands)
“To radically shift regime behavior we must think clearly and boldly for if we have learned anything, it is that regimes do not want to be changed. We must think beyond those who have gone before us, and discover technological changes that embolden us with ways to act in which our forebears could not. Firstly we must understand what aspect of government or neocorporatist behavior we wish to change or remove. Secondly we must develop a way of thinking about this behavior that is strong enough carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity. Finally must use these insights to inspire within us and others a course of ennobling, and effective action.”
Julian Assange, “State and Terrorist Conspiracies”
The piece of writing (via) which that quote introduces is intellectually substantial, but not all that difficult to read, so you might as well take a look at it yourself. Most of the news media seems to be losing their minds over Wikileaks without actually reading these essays, even though he describes the function and aims of an organization like Wikileaks in pretty straightforward terms. But, to summarize, he begins by describing a state like the US as essentially an authoritarian conspiracy, and then reasons that the practical strategy for combating that conspiracy is to degrade its ability to conspire, to hinder its ability to “think” as a conspiratorial mind. The metaphor of a computing network is mostly implicit, but utterly crucial: he seeks to oppose the power of the state by treating it like a computer and tossing sand in its diodes.
He begins by positing that conspiracy and authoritarianism go hand in hand, arguing that since authoritarianism produces resistance to itself — to the extent that its authoritarianism becomes generally known — it can only continue to exist and function by preventing its intentions (the authorship of its authority?) from being generally known. It inevitably becomes, he argues, a conspiracy:
Authoritarian regimes give rise to forces which oppose them by pushing against the individual and collective will to freedom, truth and self realization. Plans which assist authoritarian rule, once discovered, induce resistance. Hence these plans are concealed by successful authoritarian powers. This is enough to define their behavior as conspiratorial.
6 December 2010, 2:50 pmWinston Warfield:
The struggle to survive by Wikileaks has taken a dramatic turn, taking on aspects of an international Hollywood political suspense thriller (where are you Oliver Stone?), but more compelling because it’s true. Just read in alternet.org that Assange and Co., smart people as they are, have taken out a life insurance policy in the form of a super-encrypted “poison pill” of (even more) damaging documents, which they say will be released if a. Assange is assassinated, b. the site is permanently shutdown, or, c. he’s arrested. The 1.5gig of documents is protected by an unbreakable 256-character key, which will presumably be provided over the internet if necessary, instantly flooding the globe with another trove of the international ruling elite’s dirty laundry. The hatred of him has reached such a level of intensity that he says some right-wing sites are calling for his family to be harmed. For all the conspiracy people who believe he’s part of a massive disinformation op, I’d say that truth is getting wilder than their most feverish imaginings.
6 December 2010, 3:25 pmHenry:
Stan, your links here lead to 404 pages:
Even during this investigation, and even after we published serial pieces, a summary with Counterpunch, and Mary’s book, Boots on the Ground by Dusk, we still heard a chorus of insistent voices suggesting that Pat was assassinated because he has criticized the war. This was an intractable belief by many, even when we presented deeply-researched and detailed reasons why this was not possible.
6 December 2010, 3:51 pmPete:
Very interesting post, Stan. In particular, “I was the only one among my colleagues who apparently did not believe the US government planned the attacks of 9-11.” Did you ever publish your reasons for disagreeing in the face of all the data published FTW? If so, would you kindly furnish the URL?
Personally, I feel that the term “planned” is probably too strong and lacks essential nuance. At the same time, there is just too much that “smells bad.” The enormous amount of data and analysis on the various websites on 911 lead me to think that there was a strong element of “complicity” in the government, or at least with some sector of the government–in particular, but not exclusively, the Zionist element.
6 December 2010, 4:02 pmHenry:
Here is a “conspiracy” for you::-)
The Wall Street Pentagon Papers: Biggest Scam In World History Exposed – Are The Federal Reserve’s Crimes Too Big To Comprehend?
Posted on Monday, December 6th, 2010 at 2:16 pm, Filed under Economy, Feature, Hot List, News, Politics & Government, Video . Follow post comments through the RSS 2.0 feed. Click here to comment, or trackback.admin
Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon
By David DeGraw, AmpedStatus
The Wall Street Pentagon Papers: Biggest Scam In World History Exposed – Are The Federal Reserve’s Crimes Too Big To Comprehend?What if the greatest scam ever perpetrated was blatantly exposed, and the US media didn’t cover it? Does that mean the scam could keep going? That’s what we are about to find out.
I understand the importance of the new WikiLeaks documents. However, we must not let them distract us from the new information the Federal Reserve was forced to release. Even if WikiLeaks reveals documents from inside a large American bank, as huge as that could be, it will most likely pale in comparison to what we just found out from the one-time peek we got into the inner-workings of the Federal Reserve. This is the Wall Street equivalent of the Pentagon Papers.
I’ve written many reports detailing the crimes of Wall Street during this crisis. The level of fraud, from top to bottom, has been staggering. The lack of accountability and the complete disregard for the rule of law have made me and many of my colleagues extremely cynical and jaded when it comes to new evidence to pile on top of the mountain that we have already gathered. But we must not let our cynicism cloud our vision on the details within this new information.
Just when I thought the banksters couldn’t possibly shock me anymore… they did.
We were finally granted the honor and privilege of finding out the specifics, a limited one-time Federal Reserve view, of a secret taxpayer funded “backdoor bailout” by a small group of unelected bankers. This data release reveals “emergency lending programs” that doled out $12.3 TRILLION in taxpayer money – $3.3 trillion in liquidity, $9 trillion in “other financial arrangements.”
Wait, what? Did you say $12.3 TRILLION tax dollars were thrown around in secrecy by unelected bankers… and Congress didn’t know any of the details?
Yes…
http://bit.ly/fOItIo
—————–
Matt Stoller on NewDeal 2.0:
End This Fed
The Fed, and specifically the people who run it, are responsible for declining wages, for de-industrialization, for bubbles, and for the systemic corruption of American capital markets. The new financial blogosphere destroyed the Fed’s mythic stature…. With a loss of legitimacy comes a lack of public trust and a vulnerability to any form of critic. The Fed is now less respected than the IRS…. Liberals should stop their love affair with conservative technocratic myths of monetary independence, and cease seeing this Federal Reserve as a legitimate actor. At the very least, we need to begin noticing that these people do in fact run the country, and should not.
6 December 2010, 5:26 pmSpectral:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=236345
6 December 2010, 7:13 pmHarold:
WikiLeaks and Claim of Warmest Year On Record, Expose Climate Criminality
by Dr. Tim Ball
Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practice to deceive! ~ Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)
Dr. Tim Ball [send him mail] is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science, and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/ball-t6.1.1.html
7 December 2010, 2:25 amHarold:
Take Pity on Goliath
by William Norman Grigg
“Oh, it is excellent to have a Giant’s strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.”
~ Shakespeare, Measure for Measure, II:2
How does one simultaneously swagger and simper? Is it possible for someone to beat his chest even as his lip quivers in self-pity? Apparently so, given the evidence provided in Charles Krauthammer’s December 3 column.
Krauthammer is a conservative of the post-George W. Bush variety – that is, an unreconstructed totalitarian nationalist. In an essay calling for the execution of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange (after a show trial, if possible, but by extra-judicial means if necessary), Herr Krauthammer blusters about the majesty of the Imperial State even as he whines about the besetting dangers it faces and the consummate injustice that has been done in exposing a handful of its criminal secrets.
Exhibit “a” in the column is the disclosure, by way of WikiLeaks, that Washington allowed its Yemeni puppet regime to take the blame for a hideous atrocity – the December 2009 cruise missile massacre of dozens of civilians, including 21 children.
“The Yemeni president and deputy prime minister are quoted as saying that they’re letting the United States bomb al-Qaeda in their country, while claiming that the bombing is the government’s doing,” Krauthammer complains in a Goebbels-worthy misrepresentation of the matter. “Well, that cover is pretty well blown. And given the unpopularity of the Sanaa government’s tenuous cooperation with us in the war against al-Qaeda, this will undoubtedly limit our freedom of action against its Yemeni branch, identified by the CIA as the most urgent terrorist threat to U.S. security.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/ball-t6.1.1.html
7 December 2010, 2:27 amChristine:
Stan,thanks for a thought-provoking analysis of the Wiki Leaks. I’ve been trying to follow the Assange development through its twists and turns. It’s an amazing story and we have yet to see how it turns out. It’s world-class soap opera, intrigue & lies by an exponential factor.
Throw in an “insurance policy” which is sure to inflame all the internet adventurers, would-be hackers, young people all over the place. And a key is on the way!!
Regarding the Wiki Leaks disclosures, I have no reason to believe the information wasn’t just dumped in order to disclose what the State Department is up to. And it’s a heck of a lot more than just ‘gossip’ or world leaders personality quirks. It goes a lot deeper than that. I have to admit, it was really weird to read emails and memos from Hillary to her various underlings. It was almost surreal to read the Real Deal these people have the scoop on everything. They get it. And yet the public policy is SO different from what the embassies report back to Washington. That’s one of the biggest things I took away from reading the cables.
So there’s this huge disconnect between information versus propaganda. The second is, I do not believe the State Department wanted this stuff divulged. I think they were probably desperate, maybe offered Assange money, bribes, threats you name it. This stuff has been incredibly damaging, we haven’t really seen the beginning of the fallout yet.
This stuff is crippling to the State Department, regardless of how the US press presents it (take the focus away from the documents, shift to personalities/sensationalism). It’s hitting in ways that we can’t predict, not yet.
I’m from Sweden, and I’ve been following the story in the Swedish press. So far, there has been an enormous amount of damage. Swedish govt. officials are being called on the carpet, some will lose their jobs over it. The dirt seems to be never-ending & the press just keeps dredging up more and more.
Our Shadow Selves.
7 December 2010, 4:21 pmI can’t help thinking, as I’m watching these hardened, ossified people like McConnell, Feinstein and so on, standing up there by the microphone. These people represent our shadow selves. Lawless, unethical. Until we acknowledge our own darker selves, these people will continue to stand up there, talking away.
Thx, stan
Timothy R. Anderson:
As a beloved, departed relative of mine stated, on more than one occasion, ” goodness sakes !” Uhhhhhh, lost in all this intellectual positioning and counter-positioning is the fact that more than 450 U.S. military servicemembers have died in Afghanistan so far this year. While a large number of American civilians oppose the ongoing presence of U.S. military servicemembers in Afghanistan !
People ! Please ! This is the TENTH consecutive December that U.S. military servicemembers have had a presence on Afghanistan’s soil.
Meantime, heck, looky what Secretary Of Defense Gates has to say:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40547243/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/
Just plain awful, Secretary Of Defense Gates. Just plain awful. Every day that you are this country’s Secretary Of Defense, Gates, is an absolute disaster. Anyone else courageous enough to simply state the simple facts ? Every day, Secretary Of Defense Gates, EVERY day.
Now, as a person, myself, who has been known to complain once or twenty-thousand times, people say to me ” Well, what would YOU do ? ”
What I’m already doing. Yet more on top of that ! Because these people absolutely need to be relieved of their jobs …….. for the survival of this country. Period.
Gates, Clinton, Joint Chief Of Staff, Petraeus. Fired, fired. Get Donald Trump to convey the message to them all. Every day with them at their positions-of-power is an absolute disaster. Period.
Timothy R. Anderson
7 December 2010, 4:56 pmMarcilla Elizabeth Smith:
Someone sent me this article from Rolling Stone regarding wikileaks’ guy in the USA. I suppose it will say different things to different people:
http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/17389/238944?RS_show_page=0
8 December 2010, 7:29 amCharles:
The Truth Will Always Win
by Julian Assange
The Australian
December 7, 2010
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/mediadiary/index.php/australianmedia/comments/julian1/
In 1958 a young Rupert Murdoch, then owner and editor of
8 December 2010, 2:25 pmAdelaide’s The News, wrote: “In the race between secrecy and
truth, it seems inevitable that truth will always win.”
Charles:
In the Jain belief, there is a thing called “syadvada” which is roughly “the assertion of possibilities.” There are seven statements that follow from syadvada:
“in some ways it is”
“in some ways it is not”
“in some ways it is and it is not”
“in some ways it is and it is indescribable”
“in some ways it is not and it is indescribable”
“in some ways it is, it is not and it is indescribable”
“in some ways it is indescribable”
^^^^^
8 December 2010, 2:55 pmSounds like dialectics plus Wittgenstein (smile)
Charles:
Wikileaks exposes that fallacy along with many others, because the nature of most of the memos and messages shows the government to be exactly what it is, a plodding, reactive, scheming maze of bureaucracy, with policy makers the captive of their own agendas, their own careers, and their own bullshit.
^^^^^
Interestingly, in the article I posted , it is claimed that the wikileaks man, Assange himself, operates under a theory that he is exposing the conspiratorial nature of the US state system.
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/
This is getting to be complicated like spy-vs-spy from _Mad_ magazine (smile).
I’d say the US government monster has both lots of intelligent , well organized plots AND plodding bureaucracy; sort of like the Jain idea “in some ways it is and it is not”
8 December 2010, 3:08 pmAdam:
I like what you have written because you point out the paranoia in the truth movement and the dangers involved with conspiracism. However, I disagree with your world view. There is mounting positive evidence that counters the official 9/11 story and this is something you must recognize. You can’t possibly make this great of a discourse on logic and assume that there aren’t fantasies in the global war on terror. Come on…it is so childish that it’s hard not to at least sympathize with the truth movement. Building 7 is enough evidence anyway. So we got some slivers of truth out of wikileaks, but nothing substantial. Its a start that undermines America’s image as a benevolent hegemon, but doesn’t fundamentally reveal how the world is actually governed. There is much more truth to be harvested…
8 December 2010, 4:36 pmHenry:
Most Americans “Are Ignorant”: Zbigniew Brzezinski
Most Americans “Are Ignorant”: Zbigniew Brzezinski
By Spiegel
December 08, 2010 “Spiegel” — Former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski says that US diplomacy will continue as before despite the leak of diplomatic dispatches by WikiLeaks. He spoke with SPIEGEL about how US President Obama should react and how the American right sees the world.
SPIEGEL: Will American foreign policy ever be the same after this embarrassing leak of US diplomatic dispatches?
Brzezinski: Absolutely. There was a saying once in Vienna during the good old days of the Habsburg Empire that when things went wrong and people were asked for comment, the comment usually was: “Well, it’s catastrophic but not serious.” And that’s the way this is.
[...]
Brzezinski: I am very worried that most Americans are close to total ignorance about the world. They are ignorant. That is an unhealthy condition in a country in which foreign policy has to be endorsed by the people if it is to be pursued. And it makes it much more difficult for any president to pursue an intelligent policy that does justice to the complexity of the world.
SPIEGEL: Yet the American right is still convinced of American exceptionalism.
Brzezinski: That is a reaction to the inability of people to understand global complexity or important issues like American energy dependency. Therefore, they search for simplistic sources of comfort and clarity. And the people that they are now selecting to be, so to speak, the spokespersons of their anxieties are, in most cases, stunningly ignorant.
SPIEGEL: If you were still national security advisor, how would you tell President Barack Obama to react to WikiLeaks?
Brzezinski: To relax and to carry on. His basic instincts on the large issues of foreign policy are fundamentally correct and in tune with history,
SPIEGEL: Just his instincts? Not his policies?
Brzezinski: There is a lack of strategic implementation. Look at the standstill in the Middle East. The hesitation on Iran is another, and the absence of a kind of shared strategic perspective with the Europeans on Russia. To tackle this, it will require more of an effort to correct than if he had been more energetic and more committed to push forward with his world view shortly after the assumption of office.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27030.htm
8 December 2010, 9:38 pmcabdriver:
Thanks again, Stan.
In the era of television, it’s always good to find someone who actually remembers how to think.
In the era of Twitter, it’s always gratifying to find someone who actually knows how to write to an extent sufficient to elucidate a point or two.
I go way back as far as following Alex Jones. Ironic that Glenn Beck has pretty much appropriated his cottage industry conspiracist stem-winding for the big leagues at Fox (Beck pulled in $32 million in 2009…there’s no justice, AJ!)
Conspiracy world? How I could go on. Some other time.
Ironically, I have to admit: I’m still conflicted over whether or not Assange is acting recklessly.
I like the ingress of novelty. I like the unmasking of Nation-State hypocrisies.
But all it takes is, for instance, one Wikileaks-radicalized bodyguard to take out a foreign leader, and perhaps it isn’t so simple any more.
Let that not be so. And in that regard, I’s like to take some reassurance from the appraisal of Zbig Brzezinski, quoted above.
In any event– in terms of pernicious effect, I’d have to say that the result of a Wikileaks data dump is hardly to be compared to that of an air strike.
(See what I mean about going back and forth about this?)
I would have preferred that Assange concentrate on whistleblowing pertaining to corporate-government linkages, covert dealings, and corruption. Or cover-ups of environmental damage. Or some telling exposures of the wholesale chicanery connected to the Global War on Drugs.
Maybe next time around. The sooner the better.
In the meantime, I’ll hope that the continuing waves of chaos from Wikileaks will emanate in the interests of justice.
9 December 2010, 12:11 amJames M:
Y’all might wanna have a look at this:
Understanding Conspiracy: The Political Philosophy of Julian Assange
Discusses Assange’s theories about how best to dismantle conspiracies (of the actual, documented, everywhere-present kind, not the paranoid / imaginal kind). Not by attempting to topple the actors that comprise them, but by severing the classified information pipes that run between them, exposing their contents to the light of day – which ends up being devastating, because so much of their power lies in their network remaining insular. Perhaps better suited to the Strategy & Tactics post, but tacking it here because it’s the hotter thread.
But on the topic of those paranoid / imaginal conspiracies: It strikes me that the holders of such worldviews have a certain thing in common with the people in power they oppose – an emotional attachment to the belief in a controlled & controllable, rigorously-ordered universe. The difference is that one set is in power, on the inside pulling the strings, & the other theorizing wildly from the outside about the actions of the string-pullers. But both find it deeply troubling to acknowledge that a tiny, asymmetric shoestring-budgeted actor like Wikileaks (with the likely help of a 23-year-old kid) can do so much damage to the massive, and massively-funded, defense-intelligence-diplomatic sector. Doesn’t fit the emotionally-satisfying paradigm (and I do believe conspiracism has its emotional rewards, however perverse).
Reminds me of Cindy Sheehan’s time in the spotlight; I recall Bill O’Reilly and others of his ilk (probably not wanting to directly take on so sympathetic a figure) promulgating conspiracy theories about the vast left-wing network that surely must be feeding her her rhetoric, Cyrano De Bergerac-style. Of course there was no way in their authoritarian, control-fixated minds that an average(?) mom from Vacaville could single-handedly, and so effectively, throw a spanner into the works of such a powerful machine.
Now, a group of anonymous hackers has, probably from their bedrooms, taken down Visa, Mastercard, and several other targets. The world is getting a lesson in Full Spectrum Disorder, methinks.
9 December 2010, 3:20 amtochigi:
apologies for the repetition, but the zunguzungu critique of Assange’s essay is a good read, imho:
http://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-and-the-computer-conspiracy-%E2%80%9Cto-destroy-this-invisible-government%E2%80%9D/
Assange’s essay is here:
9 December 2010, 5:20 amhttp://cryptome.org/0002/ja-conspiracies.pdf
Curt:
My own Wild and Woolly Mamaoth Conspiracy Musings
9 December 2010, 4:00 pmMy imagination wandered in to uncharter territory today. There were no Church steeples to triangulate my position from in this territory.
After reading about Assanges thinking on the value of these leaks I thought to myself that this only makes sense if more and more people act like Bradley Manning and betray the secrets of the illegitimate ruling class. (Illigitimate is still a polite way to say bastard right?)
Well I thought the ruling class sure is going bonkers over Assange’s release of the documents provided by Bradely. The leak has been plugged right? Sgt. First Class Manning is in custody. It is not like Assange has the time and locations of Targets in Iran that will be attacked. The establishment has clearly limited the damage of the revelations released by Wikileaks by making the story about the rape scandal.
Persecuting either Manning or Assange will not make future leaks less likely because the people who would do such a thing would not be detered from doing so by anything less than the plausible threat of torture, maybe not even then.
Then I thought back to how odd the story was about how Manning was uncovered as the leaker of documents to Wikileaks. It made me think of another story that I know of about how a cover story was developed to shield the real leaker of a story that the US did not want the Germans to know.
If Manning was not really the source of the wikileaks documents it might mean that the leaks are continuing. That might be why the US government is in such a tizzy about Asssange. They might think that he is the only person in his organization that has access to the real leaker. Of course for this to be true it would mean that Assange had to either directly or indirectly persuade SFC Manning to be the fall guy. I do not imagine that there is any evidence anywhere that could support such a conclusion. Would this point be a plausible point or an impossible thing to have accomplished.
My imagination then really jumped over a cliff when I realized that even the whole Assange angle may itself be a cover story of even far greater proportions. The US government itself might not have figured out that the entire MI apparatus of at the US Joint Command in Stuttgart or the MI apparatus at the US Army HQ Europe has defected. Every thing that they recieve they pass on to the German BND which then passes it on to the Iranians, the Russians, the Chinese, and their uncles all free of charge. The whole US establishment has been the laughing stock of the rest of the world for months if not years now. They can not say Boo to one another without the rest of the world knowing about it.
Of course I could just be practicing my writing skills. Or maybe trying in my own lame way of casting suspicion around so that the evil leadership does become paranoid and becomes more morbid and tight lipped about sharing information so that the diesicion making ability of the state become degraded. But that means that someone who is not already part of the defection would have to read this and take it seriously and the chances of that seem to be very small.
I do have to say that the world really seems to act as if it is scared by the US.
Yet that could all be an act because I remember that the Russians let the Germans attack them first to hide the fact that they knew that the Germans were going to attack them just so they could hide the fact that they had intellegence sources inside both the German and English intellegence agencies.
Wow I must say I really topped myself on this one. It is to bad that I do not have any facts to support my assertions just wild asserstions that make a really good curt story.
Curt:
The definition of a curt story is: A true story based on the flimsiest of evidence or conjecture.
9 December 2010, 4:29 pmStan:
Struck by something cabdriver said, and that I am taking off in another direction… “not like an airstrike.”
I think you meant that it is not as damaging as an airstrike, but for a second I had one of those semiotic farts where you receive a remark in the wrong context.
I’m thinking tactics again… we are on about that occasionally, and about the asymmetry we are seeing with the Wikileaks cyberwar that has broken out. It’s absolutely fascinating, leaderless resistance blowing holes in Transnationals’ websites. Damn.
So when I see “not like an airstrike,” I am thinking the opposite of what you meant, that is, that this is far more damaging than an airstrike (against the ruling class, and this is definitely a class war). In tactico-strategic terms, this is analogous in war to a fall in morale.
Some people undercount morale as a factor in a fighting force of whatever kind. They think it is like a bad attitude, I’m hungry, scared, tired, and I’m just not motivated. Unit morale is a different thing altogether. A unit can be scared and tired and hungry, and still be highly motivated. It is a spirit, a collective consciousness, morale, and it happens in response to a loss of faith between members of the unit. Hunger is not an indication of bad morale. Gossip, back-biting, clique-formation, power struggles… those are the morale-killers.
Strong scary units can be defeated by weak ones if the strong side lacks morale and the weak side has it. That’s the only way I know how to describe it.
The Wikileaks releases of all these documents is like a pulse-beam weapon fired from outer-space that destroys a bunch of morale cells in our brains… their brains.
That’s why I think we will see a phase shift now with regard to the internet. The conditions were ripe, a decade of political disillusionment, and this kid in the army decides to contact this experimental site… talk about unpredictability! Now there is a real, honest-to-goodness cyberwar, with thousands of people using an ineradicable (for the time being) mass-technology to attack giant corporations… but here’s the interesting part, by launching what can only be called a Boydian OODA-assault.
The ruling class has to see this as an incredible emergency, on par in ways with the loss of control that Johnson and Nixon experienced. And they are about to fight back. A flurry of legislation to come down the pike trying to gain control over the internet. And it will be met with resistance by the netroots folks, who are imo formidable, as well as people figuring out new ways to communicate faster than a lumbering bureaucracy can keep up (Boyd again).
Wikileaks – and any other emerging experimental counter-communications systems – is nonviolent, non-dogmatic, and it forces them to slow down in their destructive activities to concentrate on damage control. Very very interesting times.
This is a very real mass rebellion now.
9 December 2010, 4:51 pmcabdriver:
Yes, I meant “not as physically damaging as an airstrike”.
One of the ironies of the Wikileaks info-escape is that those of us on the Outside and at the Margins who have always, let us say, held strong intuitions about how International Relations really works outside of the classroom have commonly been dismissed and shunted aside as Conspiracist Cynics.
And one result of breaches like the Wikileaks disclosures is that our skepticism and dissidence is vindicated. At least to some extent.
If you study enough history, you eventually learn that it’s foolish to hold your own place and time exalted and exempt from it’s instructive lessons- including it’s most pungent examples of folly and failure.
9 December 2010, 8:05 pmMarcilla Elizabeth Smith:
I think the “airstrike” talk is very relevant. I’m thinking that IW (information warfare) is beginning to break out in much the same way that the air war had been fought in marginal ways (balloon reconnaissance going back to the USA’s War Between the States), only to break out into its own battlespace in WWI. Warfare changed from two dimensional battlefields and surface warfare to three dimensional battlespace of air and even submarine warfare. Now, we add cyberspace, and there is a certain extra-dimensional effect to it. In 3D space, one’s attacker can be too far away for retaliation in 3D terms, yet ze can approach via cyberspace, and infiltrate the guidance system still in one’s physical control.
I’m thinking of the movies where the secret agent would handcuff an attache to himself. But if there’s a laptop in that attache, as soon as it is used, as soon as it is connected, it’s signal is vulnerable to interception, decryption, sabotage, dissemination. The handcuff can do nothing, the attache, nothing.
If the legislation comes down from a Republican Congress, that could really be interesting. I say that because so much of the “Obama’s gonna shut down the intertubez and throw us all in FEMA camps” comes from paleo-con, classical liberalist types. I keep wondering how we will see the paleo-right and the new left fold into one another.
10 December 2010, 7:20 amMarcilla Elizabeth Smith:
Just saw this:
“A New Wikileaks” Revolts Against Assange
10 December 2010, 11:41 amCharles:
If the legislation comes down from a Republican Congress, that could really be interesting. I say that because so much of the “Obama’s gonna shut down the intertubez and throw us all in FEMA camps” comes from paleo-con, classical liberalist types. I keep wondering how we will see the paleo-right and the new left fold into one another.
^^^^^^^^
10 December 2010, 12:00 pmAgree. Now we’ll see just how sincere the Tea Partiers are about their “libertarian” ,anti-government-control-of-individuals rhetoric. My guess is most Tea Partiers r big fakes.
cabdriver:
I think that another way that governments may try to reduce or nullify the capabilities of Wikileaks and associated efforts is crafted disinformation, designed to impeach the credibility of the conduit increase doubts in the readership.
Not being apprised of the nuts and bolts of the operation, I’m not sure who that might be done, or counteracted. But I think it’s logical to expect some moves along that line.
10 December 2010, 12:03 pmcabdriver:
edit: “or” between “conduit” and “increase”
10 December 2010, 12:03 pmStan:
Running with Marcilla’s remarks, it’s the dependency on the technology that makes it so much more than yet another dimension, it has become a supra-dimension. I think we are about to see some serious attempts to take control over the communications architecture. Privatization will be on the cutting edge of that effort. Little toll gates everywhere. I just don’t know if the big bad government can do it.
10 December 2010, 4:35 pmHenry:
Remarkable interview with Greg Hunter on the “biggest fraud in history.” Talk about “conspiracy.”
Max Keiser on the Edge with Greg Hunter–Global Financial Scandals (3 parts)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10K1HLHkT-0&feature=related
10 December 2010, 6:26 pmhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcGaZYr7m4M&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWS0YSjBF8E&feature=related
Henry:
Excellent interview with Michael Hudson:
From WikiLeaks to 21st Century Potato Famines
http://michael-hudson.com/2010/12/from-wikileaks-to-21st-century-potato-famines/
10 December 2010, 6:57 pmHenry:
Dollar War in Detail
November 20, 2010
By Michael Hudson
Eric Janszen, Interview with Dr. Michael Hudson
6 November, 2010
Janszen (E): What I’m noting, starting with the gold crisis over the last few weeks, and the public nature of some of the complaints that we’re hearing out of Brazil and China and the front page of the Financial Times, we seem to be heading into a pretty serious currency crisis.
Hudson (H): Yes, the currency crisis is caused by what’s called Quantitative Easing (QE) – flooding the economy with credit, and specifically Ben Bernanke’s and Tim Geithner’s threat to create another $1 trillion worth of new Federal Reserve credit over the next twelve months.
The rest:
http://michael-hudson.com/2010/11/dollar-war-in-detail/
11 December 2010, 1:53 amCurt:
@ Henry,
11 December 2010, 5:07 amI saw an article on TV recently about a proposed change in the European Banking rules. The change would make the intrest rates paid by all EU governments on thier debt the same. Right now some small countries like Greece and Ireland pay around 10% and the French and Germans pay around 3% the new rule would set the rate for all governements at 3.5%, if and when it is adopted.
That sounds like a very positive proposal to me.
Henry:
@Curt,
I found these helpful in understanding Europe’s situation. Basically, they gave up their currency sovereignty and fell prey to neoliberalism, which means they are now the debt slaves of the central bank and the banksters, who will remove all social welfare nets and bilk the continent, as they are doing in the US. Whoever controls the money calls the shots.
“Greece Signs its National Suicide Pact”
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/02/greece-signs-its-national-suicide-pact.html
“Yes, Virginia. There is a Difference Between Greece and the US”
By Marshall Auerback
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/05/yes-virginia-there-is-difference.html
Greece Cannot Reduce Its Budget Deficit So Long As Its Neighbors Pursue Mercantilist Policy
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/03/greece-cannot-reduce-its-budget-deficit.html
Latvia’s Third Option: Neither Devaluation nor Austerity, but Tax Restructuring
By Michael Hudson
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/07/latvias-third-option-neither.html
The Coming European Debt Wars
By Michael Hudson
http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2010/04/coming-european-debt-wars.html
Hammering Ireland–Mike Whitney
http://counterpunch.org/whitney11292010.html
How Ireland Can Strike a Blow Against the Imperial Bankers
11 December 2010, 5:46 pmBy MIKE WHITNEY
http://counterpunch.org/whitney12062010.html
Curt:
Thank you Henry.
12 December 2010, 5:30 amCharles:
I just don’t know if the big bad government can do it.
^^^^^
13 December 2010, 4:03 pmGovernment made it in the first place. Can it put the genie back in the bottle ?
Michaael Anderson:
Thanks to James and Tochigi—-am reading these articles on paper (finally got time to dig a bit, and am getting tired of the screen). Liked the last line of the zunguzungu article— “The point of Wikileaks — as Assange argues — is simply to make Wikileaks unnecessary.” Had a conversation last November with folks @ Quakerhouse that stated somewhat the same thing. They do counseling in High Schools for kids on alternatives to military “service”, and they lamented that business is good, and the ideal result, being as Quakers are antiwar, would be for them to not have to do this anymore.
15 December 2010, 2:45 pmMichaael Anderson:
The conspiracy of the Dumb Parasites:
Why Government is More Afraid of Debt than Depression
Michael Hudson: Deficit Hawks Want a One Two Punch Against the Economy
http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=6002
I’ve had this feeling for years; that when $1.00 an hour jobs start looking good to white people, then you’ll see jobs (sic) flooding back to this country. Hudson also has a statement about neo-feudalism that resonates with me. A “post-industrial” economy is, in many important ways, a “pre-industrial” economy.
Is there a tapeworm remedy that doesn’t kill the host??? Time to worm the family dog.
16 December 2010, 1:33 pmRobin Hering:
Michael, that first Hudson paragraph had me in stitches. Then tears.
HUDSON: Because they have the illusion that if you pay labor less, somehow you’re going to make the economy more competitive, and the economy can earn its way out of debts–meaning their employers, the banks and the companies–and make more profits and pay more bonuses and stock options, and somehow their constituency, Wall Street and the corporate economy, will become richer if they can only impoverish the economy. So essentially you can think of it as between a parasite and the host economy. A smart parasite in nature actually is in a symbiosis with the host and tries to steer to new food. It wants the host to find new food, doesn’t want it to get bigger; the parasite wants itself to get bigger. But to do that, it has to take over the host’s brain and make the brain think that the parasite, in this case the host, is the industrial economy, the real economy, production and consumption. The parasite is basically the financial sector. That’s the deficit commission. That’s the largest financier of the Obama administration. Obama appointed Wall Street lobbyists for the deficit commission, and basically their mind is a one-track mind: reduce labor’s wages. So what we have here is a dumb parasite, not a parasite. That’s the problem that’s facing the American economy today. The problem is that the parasite’s not only taken over the brain of the economy, which was supposed to be the government, but it’s taken over its own brain in the process. And it actually imagines that corporations can make larger profits and the industrial–the financial system can survive if they just bring on a depression. In fact, it’ll be the exact opposite.
16 December 2010, 2:03 pmHenry:
Hell hath no fury like an empire mocked
By Pepe Escobar
Hardcore hyper-capitalism may be simultaneously a Terminator and a giant with clay feet. Progressives must solve the riddle of how to fight this paradox. Sun Tzu’s Art of War meets Gilles Deleuze and his underground war machine. Nomad information-technology guerrillas are already deployed. The US counter-insurgency is being turned upside down. Netwar is a go. And don’t forget the condoms.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL16Ak02.html
16 December 2010, 4:17 pmdelta-vee:
Your comment – “he government’s failure to kill Assange is proof that Assange is a government agent. This, obviously, assumes two things: (1) the government kills all its enemies, and (2) the government has the unlimited capacity to kill anyone it wants. Neither of those presuppositions is true.”
This is so true – look at Castro for instance. Exploding cigars? Gimme a break. Obviously since Castro WASN’T killed, he is a government agent.
17 December 2010, 10:15 amCharles:
WikiLeaks Cables: Pfizer Targeted Nigerian Attorney General to Undermine Suit Over Fatal Drug Tests
18 December 2010, 8:41 amhttp://www.democracynow.org
Diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks show the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer hired investigators to find evidence of corruption against the Nigerian attorney general to pressure him to drop a $6 billion lawsuit over fraudulent drug tests on Nigerian children. Researchers did not obtain signed consen
Marcilla Elizabeth Smith:
I saw something in the “lessons learned” from one of this year’s big wargames (“Unified Challenge” or something) where USA commanders have flat stated that the US military is not prepared to fight in areas where cyber/space resources (they have some new acronym for it, no surprise) are denied. When they lose satcom, gps, etc, the US military is reporting that operational effectiveness becomes seriously degraded.
20 December 2010, 5:48 amStan:
Ahh, dependency.
@ Charles… sounds like the story for Constant Gardener.
20 December 2010, 10:53 amCharles:
@ Stan , yes, I see.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Constant_Gardener_%28film%29
21 December 2010, 12:17 pmBarry David Butler:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4oyFpUrsNg
Check out my Original Song and Video called “WIKILEAKS…UNDER ARREST BY ORDER OF THE STATE”….Scarry stuff coming down the pike my friend.
Barry David Butler
2 January 2011, 11:47 amPhiil:
Stan — Thanks for this piece. However, I have to take issue with your bland assertion that “Wikileaks came by the documents by way of Brad Manning.” This is far from a proven fact, based almost entirely on assertions by the FBI snitches at “Wired.” Allegedly Mr. Manning has admitted to leaking the Iraq helicopter video, but beyond that, it is all conjecture by reporters and non-reporters (i.e., Mr. Lamo at “Wired”). And based on this flimsy “evidence,” and in the absence of any formal charges, Manning is enduring the kind of torture America generally reserves for a few hundred thousand of its favored imprisoned victims. It would be unseemly, one presumes, for the military to torture a soldier who leaked only the video footage, but release of thousands of classified documents is apparently another matter.
Wikileaks is a strange phenomenon. The response to the “conspiracists” cannot be a simple yes or no. In the past, Wikileaks has posted information that was false or an apparent forgery, according to other observers (www.cryptome.org folks have been highly critical of Wikileaks in the past). This is because Wikileaks will post almost anything, without verifying its authenticity. It does not mean that Assange is some sort of Zionist plant, but rather that his naivete (or commitment to “transparency”) may be his undoing.
In this Looking Glass world in which we now live, “truth” is hard to verify. There is no place for would-be leakers to publish information safely and with some visibility, with the media firmly entrenched with the corporate state, and it is increasingly difficult to identify friend or foe in any case. It is difficult to rally around Wikileaks without some qualms about the broader enterprise. On the other hand, Mr. Manning deserves our unqualified support and whatever protection we can offer to him.
4 January 2011, 12:33 pmMichael Anderson:
http://www.opednews.com/populum/print_friendly.php?p=The-Primary-Value-of-WikiL-by-Peter-Michaelson-110123-345.html&c=a
The Primary Value of WikiLeaks
By Peter Michaelson
Julian Assange is the “bad” boy in the family who jumps up and down waving his parents’ dirty laundry. He’s shaking up the dynamics of a dysfunctional family. Everyone’s in a tizzy.
By exposing the secrets of the ruling class, Assange and WikiLeaks can help us to grow up psychologically.
The relationship we have with the ruling class is patterned on the relationship children have with their parents. We maintain in our psyche the emotional memories of how we experienced our parents. Passivity is a primary feature of that relationship. As young children, we were dependent on our parents, and we understood that they had the power and were, in a sense, our rulers. As children, we’re biologically unable to rule ourselves. We need the rule of parents. In an ideal world, parents would always practice benevolent authority.
The rule of parents over their children is biologically necessary, just as the rule of political leaders is socially necessary. We’re not evolved enough yet to live in a complex society without a hierarchy of authority. This authority is entitled to withhold some information from the public in order to maintain an advantage over its enemies. On these grounds, the release of hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables to WikiLeaks (not by WikiLeaks) probably calls for legal review.
Yes, we need authority at the political level, but that authority has to be held accountable. Children don’t have the ability to hold their parents accountable, but as adults–as citizens–we must hold our political authority accountable in order to maintain and grow a democracy. As adults, we’re able to see objectively into complex dysfunctional situations, providing we are clear enough in ourselves. Sometimes we first have to become stronger by overcoming our own passivity and self-doubt. Once we’re strong enough, we can contribute to reforms at the social or political level.
We can be hindered still by lingering passivity that goes back to our childhood. Those old emotional associations still live on in our psyche. Now, as we experience the ruling class the way we did our parents, we trust these leaders to know what is right for us. Yet childish traits accompany this arrangement, and we fail to protect ourselves when our leaders become untrustworthy, misguided, or dysfunctional. We can’t find the words or take the actions that represent us effectively in the face of misguided authority. We think we have power because we can vote. But because of our immaturity, we often can’t even discern who’s going to best represent us in the political process.
A lot of ordinary citizens don’t want WikiLeaks around. They feel its revelations are none of their business. Like children, they don’t like to consider the weaknesses of their caretakers. That frightens them. They feel less secure. They can also feel guilty about doing nothing. Many of them certainly have no intention of taking personal responsibility for the cracks in our fragile democracy.
The ruling class, meanwhile, feels it will lose power or control if there’s more openness and freedom of information. The more dysfunctional or tyrannical the rulers are, the more they depend on secrecy to maintain control and to cover up their ineptitude and self-aggrandizing intentions.
Suddenly, WikiLeaks emerges through the power of the internet telling us all these secrets about our rulers. The secrets in themselves are not necessarily eye-popping. What’s breathtaking is that us–”mere children”–are now seeing our “parents” more clearly than ever with all their flaws, pettiness, lies, and weaknesses. Is this the best they’re able to do for us? If they were lawyers in private practice, would we hire them to represent us? If our rulers aren’t smart enough to keep us safe or to save us, who is?
Obviously, the answer is us. This is the primary value of WikiLeaks. It reveals the truth about our role in a democracy: We have to be involved in the process of leading our world into peace and prosperity. We have to know what’s going on. Our corporate media aren’t informing us. We have to inform ourselves. WikiLeaks is an expression of that process.
By feeling comfortable with WikiLeaks, and being grateful for its presence in the world, we help ourselves to grow up mentally, emotionally, morally, and psychologically.
24 January 2011, 1:17 pmStan:
Hmmmmmmmm.
Parents ideally (and generally) care more about the welfare of their children than they do about themselves (and would sacrifice themselves for their children). The state, on the other hand, neither emerged in that role, nor does it assume it. It emerged to conduct warfare and consolidate exploitative power, and exists parasitically on us… unlike kids who are to some extent parasitic on parents.
24 January 2011, 4:12 pmHenry:
The Doomsday Project, Deep Events, and the Shrinking of American Democracy
By Prof Peter Dale Scott
Global Research, January 22, 2011
Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 4 No 2, January 24, 2011.
I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency [the National Security Agency] and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.”– Senator Frank Church (1975)
In recent years I have become more and more concerned with the interactions between three important and alarming trends in recent American history. The first is America’s increasing militarization, and above all its inclination, even obsession, to involve itself in needless and pernicious wars. The second, closely related, is the progressive shrinking of public politics and the rule of law as they are subordinated, even domestically, to the requirements of covert U.S. operations abroad.
The third, also closely related, is the important and increasingly deleterious impact on American history and the global extension of American power, of what I have called deep events. These events, like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, or 9/11, which repeatedly involve law-breaking or violence, are mysterious to begin with, are embedded in ongoing covert processes, have consequences that enlarge covert government, and are subsequently covered up by systematic falsifications in media and internal government records.
One factor linking Dallas, Watergate, and 9/11, has been the involvement in all three deep events of personnel involved in America’s highest-level emergency planning, known since the 1980s as Continuity of Government (COG) planning, or more colloquially as “the Doomsday Project.” The implementation of COG plans on 9/11, or what I call Doomsday Power, was the culmination of three decades of such planning, and has resulted in the permanent militarization of the domestic United States, and the imposition at home of institutions and processes designed for domination abroad.
Writing about these deep events as they occurred over the decades, I have been interested in the interrelations among them. It is now possible to show how each was related both to those preceding it, and those which followed…
…That change has been achieved partly by money, but partly as a result of deep events like the JFK assassination, the Watergate break-in, and 9/11. As a rule, each of these deep events is attributed by our government and media to marginal outsiders, like Lee Harvey Oswald, or the nineteen alleged plane hijackers.
I have long been skeptical of these “lone nut” explanations, but recently my skepticism has advanced to another level. My research over four decades points to the conclusion that each of these deep events
1) was carried out, at least in part, by individuals in and out of government who shared and sought to promote this repressive mindset;
2) enhanced the power of the repressive mindset within the U.S. government;
3) formed another stage in a continuous narrative whose result has been a transformation of America, into a social system dominated from above, rather than governed from below.
Please note that I am talking about the result of this continuous narrative, not about its purpose. In saying that these deep events have contributed collectively to a major change in American society, I am not attributing them all to a single manipulative “secret team.” Rather I see them as flowing from the workings of repressive power itself, which (as history has shown many times) transforms both societies with surplus power and also the individuals exercising that surplus power.
We are conditioned to think that the open institutions of American governance could not possibly provide a milieu for plots like 9/11 against public order. But since World War Two covert U.S. agencies like the CIA have helped create an alternative world where power is exercised with minimal oversight, often at odds with public agencies’ proclaimed policy objectives of law and order, and often in conjunction with lawless and even criminal foreign and domestic elements.
The expansion of this covert world has occurred principally in Asia. There covert U.S. decisions were made to build up drug-financed armies in Burma, Thailand, and Laos, in a series of aggressive actions that by the 1960s involved America in a hot Indochina War. This war, like the related wars that ensued later in Kuwait, Iraq, and Afghanistan, was initiated by America for a mix of geostrategic and economic reasons, above all the desire to establish a dominant U.S. presence an important region of petroleum reserves…
24 January 2011, 5:15 pmMatt S.:
New to this blog, Stan, but I appreciate the spirit of your remarks, which I take as a call to reason and a warning against succumbing to paranoia. It is frankly depressing to see otherwise intelligent people gravitating towards “trutherism.”
Otoh, and this is a pet obsession for me, I think there is very sound evidence for CIA/Cuban exile/American mafia involvement with the murder of JFK. (Henry, the Peter Dale Scott excerpt above is particularly annoying in it’s sloppy generalizations and throwing together of unrelated events.)
If you want access to that evidence I highly recommend ‘Not In Your Lifetime’ by Anthony Summers and ‘The Last Investigation’ by Gaeton Fonzi, who was an investigator for the House Committee on Assassinations in the mid-to-late 70′s. I mentioned these books in a comment on another thread, and I would add that Fonzi’s book has the real meat in it, but Summers sweeping volume lays the groundwork with a brilliant overview of a very complex series of events.
24 January 2011, 8:06 pmMichael Anderson:
@ Stan;
“The state, on the other hand, neither emerged in that role, nor does it assume it. It emerged to conduct warfare and consolidate exploitative power, and exists parasitically on us… ”
…agreed. But the state, either corporate and/or ‘managerial’, can be used as a parent substitute. How many people did you know in the military who were not specifically combat personnel (or maybe that, too), who were comfortable with the umbrella of service security, perks, & culture around them? How about people (children) who have had a turbulent home life, who have found friendship, guidance, and cover in institutional personnel & structure? (this is a real example, BTW). How about our nice corporate universities (sic)?
I think the point of this article is to try and show how Wikileaks (and other whistle-blowing organizations) to break the ‘systemic’ trust (and ignorance) that has grown up here in the U.S. and elsewhere, which is entirely compatible with the aims of Feral Scholar and other organizations and discussion groups. Like it or not, this is the reality ‘on the ground’. And, specifically, if any subculture in this country needs to be ‘grown up’, it is the SWMMC (your acronym). There are consequences to actions (or inaction). If Wikileaks (and others) empowers us to be aware and take control of our own lives, then a greater good has been accomplished.
A humorous (and somewhat tragic) example of the ignorance we face—I know a man, age 34, who has been to college (Law Enforcement), who didn’t know, until we told him, about the action of the tides. He came to visit, and the bay was @ low tide, to which he exclaimed “where did all the water go?” Tough sledding…
25 January 2011, 2:41 pmStan:
(-:
25 January 2011, 6:30 pmCurt:
Hahahahahaha In Germany donations to Wikileaks are tax deductable. Hhahahahahahaha. I would like to stick that in the ear of the CIA.
26 January 2011, 9:33 amMichael Anderson:
Been watching this Egypt business over the last few days—Hillary’s Bones, part 2? The rhetoric coming out of State is muted. Mubarak is on his way out…what better way to ensure a favorable U.S. outcome that by creating a ‘revolution’ and then settling it with a U.S. milksop.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/28/107624/protests-gather-force-in-egypt.html
Protesters ignore Egypt curfew, burn ruling party offices
Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/01/28/107624/protests-gather-force-in-egypt.html#ixzz1CMYQCfHP
28 January 2011, 3:16 pmStan:
This one is beyond US control, methinks. Egypt is more than interesting. This is tectonic. Obama/Clinton are playing catch-up, and they won’t catch up. Mubarak was the US bulwark in the region, and this could spread to the rest of the satraps, ie, Jordan and the Palestinian Authority. There is a Wikileaks role in all this, a catalyst among catalysts, but decisive imo, beginning in Tunisia. Iraq is now lost to Iran. The encirclement of Gaza will end with Mubarak’s ouster. Hezbollah has ascended in Lebanon. The US has bogged itself down in AfPak, and the Pakistani regime is doing a high-wire act. And in the middle of it all, the prize that the US and bin Laden know in common – Saudi Arabia.
Tunisia and Egypt just showed again that economic descent at the street level (not securities markets) and repression combined equals rebellion once the fires are lit. I promise there are sleepless nights in Riyadh and Amman as this unfolds. Very very interesting.
29 January 2011, 9:09 amJim:
Kennedy on Conspiracy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces&feature=player_embedded
27 February 2011, 3:44 pmJim:
Good broadcasts at Guns and Butter:
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/66755
http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/66560
16 March 2011, 4:24 pmFleur:
I find it odd that you have dismissed a logical thinking process that all scientists and investigators must go through (including you) to come to any conclusions whatsoever – even if not formally. You form in your mind ideas as to what might have taken place and that’s a theory. You theorized that there was a cover-up – a conspiracy! It’s absurd to think that nobody could ever work together to achieve a shared goal – people and organizations do it every day – it’s just called a conspiracy when it turns out that their goal is a sinister one – impossible!!
But we know it’s not only possible, it’s typical and the fact that people dismiss this out of hand has lead to an extreme level of corruption that has gone unchecked for so long that it’s dangerous for us to ignore it any longer. The fact that conspiracies to increase wealth and power are not only possible but inevitable is the reason that we once had very strict laws regarding price-fixing, cartels and collusion. Consistent corporate lobbying have changed these laws to the point where they’re all but irrelevant. Now we have rampant corruption within the government and corporate community (with a revolving door between the two) that has become very dangerous. Look at all the watchdog and transparency organizations we have.. what does that say? Lots if you’re willing to listen. There’s even watchdog organizations for the watchdog organizations.. if there was ever a sign, this is it. When the White House feeds the news to the mainstream media you’ve got state sponsored press and that’s what most people read every day. Promoting this “conspiracies and those who propose them are crazy” attitude supports this corrupt apparatus whether it’s done knowingly or not. Your position in the Tillman investigation and this stance on conspiracies is perplexing. The people you seem to have problems with in the military and the government benefit a great deal from this kind of stance and that’s a fact.
3 February 2013, 7:17 pmStan:
First line of the piece: “A conspiracist is someone who reaches first for the conspiracy explanation, then seeks out support for his or her presupposition.”
No one said there is no such thing as a conspiracy. I’ve been involved in a few myself.
4 February 2013, 7:28 amcabdriver:
Thank you for writing this piece, Stan.
I say that as someone who investigated various conspiracy hypotheses for several years, arguably to the point of obsession. Certainly anyone who knew me in those years- 1995-1999 or so- had every right to think I was obsessive about it. I eventually pulled back from the brink- I really was at the ragged edge of paranoia for a while. It was a fascinating mental exercise, and it taught me a lot.
Also, some of the conspiracies I looked into were true. But when my effort turned into an attempt to find the grand theme that unified them into an all-encompassing planetary power grab by super-powerful elite masterminds, I was unsuccessful at doing so. I rationally refuted that hypothesis. If any secret group in my lifetime has has been engaged in such an ambitious mission, their reach has surely exceeded their grasp…actually, they can’t have come close to reaching that far. Basic physical constraints- in particular time constraints- don’t allow it. To mention only the most obvious limitation, among a thousand other complications and hindrances.
A couple of the more interesting things I learned in that journey:
1) There really are people who get personal gratification from hoaxing, and from trolling peoples fears and fantasies. Sometimes for personal material gain, sometimes just for what’s become known as “the lulz.” (And, just to get meta about it, there must be rewards from running these mockups as a psyops research project. You know, in service of a conspiratorial aim, like compiling social psychology data in order to craft more effective disinformation.) I wouldn’t have thought that anyone would devote a substantial amount of their mental effort and energy to a project so empty and lacking in integrity. But for a few people out there, it’s a kick.
2) The most troubling power moves out there- involving force, coercion, violence and intimidation- are almost always done out in the open. There’s enough information available that the general public could figure out what’s really happening, if they so decide. But relatively few of them care all that much, and many of those who are aware of the actions approve of them. All of them. Across the board. Reflexively.
I found myself listening to a C-Span broadcast of a Q&A session featuring former CIA head Michael C. Hayden and an audience of college students a couple of months ago, and someone asked him “when will we know that the War on Terror is over?” Hayden made a very cogent observation- that there are two parts to that question: 1)when the facts indicate objectively that the threat of terrorist attack has dwindled down to the level of background noise; and 2) at what point it will feel politically safe for serving government leaders and elected officials in this Democratic Republic to declare to the voters that the War is concluded.
As it stands now, I’d say that around 20-25% of American adults are still consumed by a jingoist frenzy concerning the Islamic Menace; and another 20-25% are persuadable by the hard core that any move by the US government in the direction of significantly de-emphasizing the Threat is proof of cowardice and incompetence, or perhaps even High Treason. There is certainly no shortage of voices in the halls of Congress, the national media, and various vocal constituencies currently at hair trigger to sound the alarm if the administration winds down the War- or, even more disturbingly, announces its conclusion.
And whatever anyone might think about that situation, it hardly fits the definition of Conspiracy. The conditioning of the majority of the citizenry to accept/approve/exalt the premises of American Superpower Jingoist Exceptionalism is not a covert project, carried out secretly by a tiny hidden cabal working through a carefully crafted blueprint. It’s a Dominant Paradigm. A few of the middlemen may be cynical enough to covertly exploit its contradictions, but I’d say that for the most part it’s more like Bullshit That All The Right People Believe.
9 February 2013, 12:02 am