Conspiracy Theories Part I (of III) – Blog No. 18.

I have one correspondent who regularly sends me emails claiming that I am a ‘conspiracy theorist,’ meaning that I needlessly search for explanations behind events at variance with the obvious truths available in the Western media. If writers can be labelled as ‘conspiracy theorists,’ all that they write can be dismissed under the same heading.

Politics, both domestic and international, is all about conflict; individuals and nations striving for advantage over their competitors (and for that matter, over their collaborators.) Sometimes, this struggle can take the form of plotting to take their competitors by surprise and/or in some instances, conspiring to commit a crime or hostile act under a false flag, which in some, but not all instances, may be designed to move public opinion decisively against the intended victim.

Generally speaking, those labelled “conspiracy theorists” are advancing claims against those who either hold, or gain political power. Power is about the control of information, hence the adage ‘knowledge is power.’ Consequently, those holding political power are in a position to exert undue influence over any attempted investigations as to the truth behind the allegations. For this reason, conspiracies at the governmental level tend never to be proven, but to retain the status of officially denigrated theories. A most obvious example of a governmental conspiracy, which did see the light of day was Operation Northwoods. The only reason this managed to escape the official censorship was because it was never put into effect.

The main stream media does little to interfere with the delivery of the illusion. Its ownership is remarkably concentrated in the hands of supporters of the status quo and its editors do not have the budget to spend on investigative journalism the results of which might prove distasteful to their readership: no one enjoys receiving information that runs counter to established beliefs.

Of course there are conspiracies that do not happen at the highest levels of political power – but for the sake of this argument, these can be seen more as ‘plots,’ rather than the high-level conspiracies under discussion. The distinction is well illustrated by the events of 9/11. A classic ‘plot’ was the official version of the taking down of the Twin Towers and WT7 by al Qaeda.

BINLADENThe official story goes that Osama bin Laden, an old man, with terminal kidney problems, while exiled to Afghanistan, decided to punish the Great Satan. He recruited fifteen or so Arab youths, arranged for them to be given visas to the USA and where necessary, to attend US flight schools to learn how to pilot small, propeller-driven aircraft. These likely lads then simultaneously boarded four modern, jet-engined airliners, which they hijacked.

For an hour or so, they flew these aircraft, unmolested in the world’s most tightly protected air-space, before crashing them, with unerring accuracy, into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. According to experienced airline pilots, this was a demonstration of exceptionally advanced piloting skills. Given the hijackers’ undeniable inexperience, the Old Man was indeed fortunate that Allah must have been guiding their joysticks. That day, Allah intervened a second time. Not only did two of the buildings struck by aircraft (which had been built to specs to allow for such an event as an aircraft strike) collapse to the ground, but a third building, WT7, not struck by any aircraft, caught fire and, in a manner never seen before or since as a result of such cause, likewise imploded and collapsed at terminal velocity.

If those who mock the “9/11 truthers” can believe that accepted version of the devilish plot, governments can relax in the knowledge that their publics, properly manipulated by the main stream media, will believe just about anything they are told. The claim that third parties in Saudi Arabian, the USA’s or Israeli government agencies might have also been involved, has to be an unfounded and irresponsible conspiracy theory, as is evidenced by the subsequent US government investigation being unable to discover any evidence that third parties were involved! This is not without precedent. The Warren Commission that followed on the assassination of President Kennedy, reached an identical conclusion in relation to Lee Harvey Oswald.

Before an observer leaps to the conclusion that some event occurred as a result of a conspiracy by those in power, they have to ask at least four questions. Cui bono, who benefits? Who appeared to be taken by surprise and who looked as though they were prepared to reap the benefit as soon as the incident occurred? Are there any coincidences or anomalies that might seem too far-stretched? Finally, the integrity of any subsequent formal investigation needs to be assessed. Where the investigation is solely arranged and executed by a government that could be implicated in the findings, extreme doubt is called for. Until a whistle-blower emerges with irrefutable proof, which, as can be seen, is unlikely to happen, all such theories have to be classified as speculative – but there are degrees of probability and improbability.khalid

There is also a fifth question that might spring to mind and certainly would in the case of a normal criminal investigation: does the suspect have form?(A previous record of such actions.) The sad fact is that most governments have form. In the examples quoted in Part II of this blog, the questions are raised as to whether or not an agency of the British government would murder one of its own citizens, or whether Israel would launch an attack against the USA?

Considerations of the perceived morality of individuals could enter into decisions of probability in regard to conspiracies in domestic politics. However, it would appear that in international relations, nation states feel constrained by remarkably few moral scruples. Until such faraway time, that the United Nation is accepted as a global government with the legitimacy to enforce a global code of moral conduct, this sorry situation is likely to persist. The recent debate in the USA, the leader of the Western World, over the CIA’s torture programme, revolves not around the morality or otherwise of the interrogators’ actions, but only the extent to which the information gained was of greater value than the loss of international prestige that followed the revelations: i.e. whether or not the ends achieved were sufficient to justify the means employed.

reichstagIt would be possible to produce a long list of historic events that might have occurred as a result of conspiracies: a mad Dutch communist burning down the Reichstag and paving Hitler’s rise to power: a lone sniper managing to pump three bullets from different angles into the moving target that was J.F. Kennedy: The Operation Gladio bombings in Italy   the deaths of multiple heads of states that were not cooperating with the USA. To see how the proposed methodology works out in practice, Parts II & III of this blog will take a brief look at four recent case studies, starting with 9/11.

Something to add? Please leave a comment in the box below

2 thoughts on “Conspiracy Theories Part I (of III) – Blog No. 18.

    • khakis5_wp says:

      Thank you – if ever that truth were openly demonstrated the global repercussions would be so dire that all steps would have to be (have been?)taken to prevent it’s coming out. I think the best hope for a proper investigation is the building safety codes. As things stand, until architects know why WT7 collapsed, no one can design a similar building with absolute assurance that the structure could withstand an office fire. All the evidence points to a controlled demolition. (It is hard to conceive that that could have been achieved without the knowing acquiescence of Mr Silverstein.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *