Thursday, December 01, 2005

Competing conspiracies

Once Americans figured out that the President, the Vice President, all the Bush Administration officials, the leaders of both political parties, and, most importantly, 99.9% of the mainstream media, outright lied to them, repeatedly and enthusiastically, about the reasons for the Iraq war, conspiracy theory suddenly didn't seem to be quite so crazy. After all, the nuttiest conspiracy theory couldn't possibly be worse than what you might read on the front page of the New York Times, an organization that was involved in a criminal treasonous conspiracy to fool the American people into a disaster of a war. The lying has become so obvious - and largely continues, despite the fact that some truths have escaped - that many people have stopped buying newspapers and stopped watching television news. The official corporate response to the loss of customers is to reduce the number of reporters, and eliminate all investigative reporting, obviously not the right answer if you want to regain lost business but exactly what you would expect if the plan is to continue to deceive.

Remember the warbloggers who were so certain about Saddam's ties to al Qaeda and his possession of massive stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction? Whatever happened to those guys anyway? Did they die of embarrassment and shame? Did they collapse in anguish when it became certain that their lies made them morally responsible for the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis? A lot of them appear to have latched on to the mainstream, with the new 'blogging' phenomena that the media is now using to try to regain credibility. The same guys who lied about Iraq now write 'blogging' columns in which they lie about Syria! The lying life goes on, ironically now hidden beneath the new-found credibility of the bloggers who were pointing out that the warbloggers were full of shit.

With the new credibility of conspiracy theory the new technique of deception is to use a veneer of conspiracy to sell your latest lies. I shouldn't say it is absolutely new, as it is as old as conspiracy, but it has become fashionable and has a few new twists. The Pentagon wants to promote its latest version of Poindexter's Total Information Awareness, so it cloaks the Able Danger story - I'll have more to say about this later - with tales of whistleblowers. The false whistleblowers reveal that the authorities had Atta in their sights if only for those dastardly lawyers with their 'civil rights' and 'Constitution' and 'rule of law'. Just dump all these dangerous legalities, let us watch over you protectively, and 9-11 won't happen again. Trust us! By hiding it behind whistleblowers, they give the self-serving story a credibility it otherwise would not have.

Similarly, Tony Blair's short-term political fix and long-term correction to the history books is to portray his disastrous poodle role as a failed but valiant attempt to put a check on the insane Mr. Bush. He has an former Labour MP leak the story of Bush's desire to bomb Al Jazeera (an obvious Bush joke which Blair may have been too nerdy to comprehend) to a Labour-supporting newspaper, builds it up with political attacks against Blair by another Labour MP, and then has his Labour Attorney-General emphasize the importance of the story by threatening everybody under the Official Secrets Act after the story is fully out! There were even charges laid, charges which will be dropped, in another reminder of how Blair heroically acted to stop Bush, when the government decides it won't turn over the original documents in question. As everybody now wants to believe the worst of Bush, everybody buys it, and the idea that it was leaked government secrets - a natural part of conspiracy theory - gave the story its credibility.

There isn't just one conspiracy theory, there are many. The Powers That Be have noticed that many of them are mutually exclusive. In other words, if you have a problem you want to hide, just leak a competing, and more compelling, conspiracy theory. The two main WTC towers fell down because they were intentionally built under the authority of the Port Authority to avoid normal New York construction standards. They were built out of popsicle sticks and wads of David Rockefeller's used chewing gum. The real scandal is that these buildings, and quite possibly many others of the same general type - and we'll never know until the next 'terrorist' attack as the issue has been entirely ignored - were built to maximize rentable space at the expense of public safety. The controlled demolition theory suits the conspirators as it is mutually exclusive with the real conspiracy. If the buildings were brought down by explosives, the issue of construction is rendered irrelevant. Thus the real problem escapes notice. The demolition theory actually neatly hides the truth, and may result in public safety issues as the real scandal will never be addressed. Of course, if all or even a moderate percentage of the tall buildings built since 1970 are unsafe, that would be the biggest and most expensive conspiracy of all time.

The vehemence with which people cling to the controlled demolition theory seems to have something to do with its connections to an idea that 9-11 was the work of the High Jewish Cabal, who pulled the whole thing as an insurance scam. Four problems:

  1. in an insurance claim, you don't end up with any more money than when you started; it just recompenses you for what you've lost;

  2. the building owners could be working on new profitable projects rather that wasting their time rebuilding;

  3. insurance executives don't give money away, and scrutinize every claim with extreme care; if there was the slightest evidence of demolition, they would have simply refused the claim and forced the Cabal to sue for it (the High Jewish Cabal theorists answer to this is that the insurance company executives are in on the conspiracy, and will share the loot thus stolen from the insurance company shareholders!);

  4. the Cabal couldn't possibly have known that they would be paid for both towers - the issue was litigated, odd if the insurance companies were in on the scheme - and thus risked losing billions of dollars and getting only half that back in insurance (and I thought Jews were supposed to be smart).

The reason all the building materials were whisked away was not to hide evidence of demolition, it was to hide the quality of the materials used in building the buildings (the quality of the concrete was the scandal that arose out of the big Turkish earthquakes, but all the incriminating evidence in New York was swiftly buried). Controlled demolition is as bad as showboating attorneys acting on behalf of 9-11 survivors purporting to sue the Saudis for it. It is not just nonsense, it is dangerous nonsense (as we get further away from 9-11, it is becoming clearer that most if not all claims that 9-11 was conducted on Saudi funding was just Zionist propaganda, and Saudi Arabia had nothing to do with al Qaeda). Increasing misuse of conspiracy theories by the real conspirators - the guys with the money and power - is our latest problem.


Anonymous said...

Christmas is just around the corner. No time to go to the mall...then do your shopping online. We sell everything that the mall sells. Shop today!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for a brilliant read! I just had to bookmark your blog. Nice work guys!

insurance carrier broker agent