Yes, I'm still interested in addressing it (as I did here and here). Not any particular conspiracies, but the concept of conspiracy within this great democratic republic of ours. My goal is not to convince you of any particular conspiracy, but to get you to accept that (A) conspiracies are possible, and (B) they are more public, commonplace, and mundane than you think.
In light of those goals, here are two articles to consider:
- Wally Conger talks about conspiracy in the context of Murray Rothbard's Wall Street and the Bankers. When we address issues of government and elite interests, we make things far too sexy and complex:
Is this a - gasp! - conspiracy book? You could say so. But as Justin Raimondo writes in his afterword to the book: "...it would be inaccurate to call the Rothbardian world view a ‘conspiracy theory.' To say that the House of Morgan was engaged in a ‘conspiracy' to drag the U.S. into World War I, when indeed it openly used every stratagem, every lever both economic and political, to push us into ‘the war to end all wars,' seems woefully inadequate. This was not some secret cabal meeting in a soundproof corporate boardroom, but a ‘conspiracy' of ideas openly and vociferously expressed. ... Here there is no single agency, no omnipotent central committee that issues directives, but a multiplicity of interest groups and factions whose goals are generally congruent."
- James Leroy Wilson addresses several important conspiracies from the standpoint of feasibility:
before someone says, "It's impossible!" think of this: if just one person in ten thousand is capable of committing atrocities and keeping secrets, that's a potential network of 30,000 in the USA alone. If Gladio could be kept secret in tiny Belgium for so long, surely even more elaborate conspiracies could exist in the United States.
Wilson has another good article about conspiracies here.
UPDATE: I've been told that my post comes off as condescending. Sorry if it does, in fact. I think it's pretty obvious from the posts I've written on "conspiratorial theory" that I'm still working out my thoughts, and blogs give me an opportunity to "think out loud". Resistance and pressure to make a point is expected and appreciated. My thesis is not this post itself - and usually isn't any post in and of itself - but rather an ongoing conversation with myself and my readers, if they care to participate.
The only reason I approach conspiracy in this post as something that needs to be demonstrated as plausible is because people dismiss it so easily. The only reason I argue that it's mundane is that I think conspiracy, properly understood, is indistinguishable from everyday politics. Why it can happen in our offices, or among our friends, or in city politics, but NOT in the military or governmental bureaucracies is a question I don't think anybody can answer once they face the issue squarely.
I implore my readers for a little patience, good faith, and feedback. I don't have all the answers. I'm not the most articulate person in the world (far from it). But I do want to attempt to make original, interesting points. Sometimes that may mean that I don't make sense or I write utter shit, even. I accept that, and you'll be disappointed if you don't.
Interestingly enough, that's also why I can never see myself doing any sort of advertising on this blog. This blog is totally for me, and it's worth all the time and money I put into it. I get 100% of what I want out of it just by having a venue in which to think out loud - while having just enough public visibility to hopefully prevent me from getting too sloppy (you be the judge).
Read this article
