COGNITIVE PARSIMONY AND "CONSPIRACY THEORIES"
For further information and documentation on the matter discussed below follow this link: http://statecrimesagainstdemocracy.blogspot.com/
Illustration: 911dude.com Pentagon right after the strike. Where is the airplane?
There is actually nothing new about the secrets revealed in the article published in 2010, but it seems to be the first opportunity to reevaluate all that has been said about the so-called "Conspiracies". The central idea is that people use their minds to find the answer that best comports with their own pre-conceived biases or beliefs rather than to evaluate the evidence anew and attempt to arrive at a more scientific or objective solution. Another word for this could be "lazy brain syndrome".
This has been known for ages, actually, but simply has just recently become explicitly stated in a peer-reviewed scientific journal published by an extremely reliable and respected publication. In the last cognitive revolution back in the 17th Century many of the suppositions of the previous millennium and more were simply abandoned and replaced. Descartes is best know for his statement Cogito Ergo Sum, which was the first thing he decided he could say after abandoning all his past beliefs and assumptions. We can dispense with the usual criticisms inherent, such as he assumes that thinking is a process, that an "I" is capable of it, and that such was going on, and realize that some things we need to take on faith. A similar fate befell Bertrand Russell in his attempt to "PROVE" that 2+2=4. He failed.
Still, it is common in people to dispense with this assumption altogether and simply believe what is easiest, a sort of Occam's Razor of everyday life. Thus, we find the extreme manifestation of this today in the religious fundamentalists' belief that dinosaurs are only 6,000 years old despite all evidence to the contrary. Certain interests in our government, especially during the past 90 years or so, have refined this tendency and taken advantage of it. Much of this activity is found in the term "Conspiracy Theory," a convenient way of dismissing and concealing activities of the government to further the interests of the intelligence industry.
It is compounded by the fact that often these agents welcome such accusations against it in order to elude detection in other areas. A classic example of this is Area 51, the place where Harry Truman allegedly concealed alien visitation from outer space, the UFOs, the "flying saucers," issue. In reality, a top-secret form of spy craft was apparently seen, denied by the government, and the media immediately seized on it as the UFO cover-up. The intelligence community could not believe its luck and did its best to exploit the "conspiracy". Since military technology is often a decade or so ahead of public awareness, this media frenzy was secretly welcomed. Denials of the UFOs of course fueled more speculation and, meanwhile, the military development was allowed to continue unscrutinized. They could not have planned it better.
We have a similar phenomenon today with the right-wing assertions that shiny black helicopters are roaming the skies as part of a United Nations takeover and world government run by the Trilateral Commission. These are actually drones collecting information for NSA, but it will take some time for this to be made public. Edward Snowden has already made enough of NSA's practices known that there is no need for further analysis here. Our government does not call them "conspiracy theorists" because they are simply wrong. If they were right, then they would be so labeled. For this reason, the term "State Crimes Against Democracy" (SCAD) has been coined to replace it.
It was only after the JFK assassination that the term "Conspiracy Theorist" was coined and flying saucers used as an example. It was a defensive move to label anyone who thought that the assassination of JFK was part of a governmental/intelligence agency and thus make the entire idea seem foolish and preposterous. The Warren Commission Report was published as an attempt to explain the entire thing but, to the government's chagrin, intelligent people began to actually read it, some of who became angry and others laughed, and the entire operation came into disrepute. It was far easier to call anyone who questioned it a "Conspiracy Theorist" than to actually defend the report, far easier.
So let us start over and see what we actually do know. It is clear that the U.S. Government (other governments as well, but we will remain focused here) uses and sees no fault with assassination as an instrument in foreign policy, albeit as a last resort. One clear example is Mossadegh, the socialist leader of Iran, in 1953. We replaced him with the Shah, a brutal dictator with obvious long-term results. He was eventually overthrown and replaced with an extremist Islamic government. The government actually worked in the interests of the people for awhile until some of its more secular and logical leaders fled the country or were executed and the focus turned to making sure that men and women did not swim at the same time and so on. The one aspect of the country and its government that remains even today is that it will not obey us and is determined not to be undermined by us. This is the legacy of Dulles.
Other examples include Salvador Alliende in 1973, King Faisal of Saudi Arabia after the Oil Embargo, Omar Torrios in Panama, Patrice Lumumba in Africa, activists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen (and their children), and well-known are the many failed attempts on Fidel Castro. The deaths by cancer in Central and South America also seem suspicious, including Venezuela and Brazil.
Now, where and when have we seen likely SCADs? As mentioned, the assassination of JFK is the one that comes to mind most easily. Now, how could this be foreign policy related? At the time he was assassinated, 20,000 American Soldiers, all volunteers, were stationed in Viet Nam. In addition, the U.S. sprayed deathly chemical over the entire country in 1962. In Cuba, we had the Bay of Pigs incident, among others. Kennedy also had a need to prove his manhood against Castro. Kennedy grew up during Korea in a wealthy family with an urge to become a politician. Castro grew up poor in Cuba with pitching baseball for the New York Yankees as his goal. Pitching can take a great deal more cognitive analysis and inventiveness than American politics.
A bit more historical fact is needed here. Castro took over Cuba from out puppet, Batista, well-portrayed in the Godfather movie movies. When he took over, he nationalized all the companies (today it would be "corporations"). He did offer to reimburse the companies for their value, but they refused, saying they were worth much more than he offered. He then agreed to pay whatever their valuation was, provided they pay back taxes based on that valuation. They refused saying that taxation is wrong, or a betrayal, or some other evil thing. He then simply kept them without reimbursement. He seemed to have no choice. This was during the Eisenhower/Nixon administration and, again, Dulles was involved. Viet-Nam began at least under the Eisenhower/Nixon administration, but Truman may have had a role in taking over the colonial role from France. Certainly Truman's behavior towards Stalin at Yalta contributed to the years of the so-called "cold-war." At any rate, all of this was inherited by Kennedy.
Now, the Bay of Pigs fiasco was a CIA operation planned during Eisenhower/Nixon and when Kennedy finally realized how the CIA was running things counter to his own objectives, he, in his brother's terms, "cleaned house" and the entire Dulles era was over. His brother's leashing of J. Edgar Hoover did not endear him to the FBI, whose role is supposed to be entirely internal, but by that time it is possible that organized crime found out about Hoover's sexual fetishes. At any rate, Hoover concentrated increasingly on "Communists" with the country rather than crime figures. Of course, this meant a concentration on those who sympathized with Castro as well as, eventually, those who opposed Vietnam policies.
It is somewhat obscure, even today, whether Kennedy intended to withdraw from Vietnam in his second term. It is also obscure whether the Cuban missile crisis taught him anything, as it was only the decision of one Soviet captain not to launch nuclear missiles, against orders, that kept hostilities from breaking out. What is clear is what happened after his assassination and the election of LBJ. In short, who had the most to gain from his assassination?
After his assassination, LBJ had himself sworn in immediately, drafter Earl Warren from the Supreme Court to make things seem quite non-conspiratorial. The fact that the only accused only had a chance to say "I'm only a patsy" before he was killed, his killer died after his request to be transferred out of state was refused, 22 key witnesses died within two years, and so on has been well-documented. Mark Lane and others have done extensive work on this and all agree that there WAS a conspiracy. Beyond that, there is disagreement as to who was behind it.
Well, right after the next election, LBJ had over 500,000 troops in Vietnam. Nothing changed in respect to Castro. For each soldier in Vietnam, 20 support staff were required. The military budget skyrocketed. Any party who supplied munitions and other wares to the military profited immensely as did the intelligence community. This war continued until Gerald Ford was in office. LBJ was great at arm twisting as he managed to force Israel's support for Vietnam in return for arms during the 67 war, as atonement for attacking the U.S.S. Enterprise, and also induced Arthur Goldberg, an excellent Supreme Court Justice, to quit the lifetime appointment in order to support Israel at the United Nations. The only thing of value Goldberg did after that idiotic move was to liberate baseball for the reserve clause with Curt Flood as his client.
MLK was shadowed for years by Hoover as a "Communist Agent," but anything King did was sanctioned until he made one mistake. He made a speech against the war – he was assassinated within hours or days.
RFK was careful not to publicly oppose the War, but it was well known that such was his intention. When it became clear that he would be able to have a credible chance of being nominated for the Presidency and would have defeated Nixon (it was well known that he was also his brother's campaign manager), he had to go.
All of Malcolm X's activities were allowed until he went to Mecca and returned, attracted a large following, and started talking about international matters. He had to go. In fact, any African American leader with a large following who dares speak ill of U.S. foreign policy had to go. Is it now clear why Obama seems so pro-military?
Under Nixon and Regan, military spending increased exponentially.
So, what other conspiracies are in contention? The latest one is the 9/11 bombing of the World Trade Center. Clearly, Bush wanted to invade Iraq and kill Sadam, and much was done in the name of protecting us from a repeat of 9/11. Clearly, Bib Laden was first recruited and trained by the U.S. and had offices in New York City as he prepared to lead opposition to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. In addition, quite a bit of chemicals, the type only used in intentional implosions of building were found at the site. Clearly, there is no reason to doubt that it was welcome by the Bush administration, Haliburton, and Blackwater. There is much room for skepticism and certainly there is no reason to rule it out as a conspiracy on the grounds that George W. Bush was too moral to sanction such an undertaking.
Additional questions arise as well: why is there no publicity or controversy over the crash into the Pentagon? Surely, that should be a matter of interest. We hear little about the destruction of building number seven which was not hit. We do know that there had been considerable communication between government officials (nameless) and Al-Qaeda officials (nameless). What did they talk about? We do know very well that no individual had more personal animosity for Saddam Hussein that did Bin Laden.
The biggest and most plausible objection to all of these assassinations is that it would be impossible for a large governmental agency to keep all participants quiet. However, it is also quite clear that they were well orchestrated. Everyone involved only knew so much, and most did not even know that their actions were involved in these assassinations. Those who knew too much and could not be trusted to remain silent are dead.
The problem today in uncovering any of these State Crimes Against Democracy is that it is much easier for everyone simply to dismiss the accusations as "nutty conspiracy theories like area 51," and go on their ways. American people are mentally lazy anyhow, and the term "conspiracy theory" makes it easy for them not to be bothered with making the effort. Additionally, our school system indoctrinates remorselessly towards patriotism and thus predisposes them to reinforce their notions rather than challenge them.
--
Posted By Blogger to The Absurd Times at 9/16/2013 04:35:00 PM
