By the strict definition of conspiracy—”to join in a secret agreement to do an unlawful or wrongful act or an act which becomes unlawful as a result of the secret agreement”—you’d be pathologically naive not to believe that those in government have not engaged in conspiracies. From Caitline Johnstone at medium.com:
“Our sources are still saying that it looks like suicide, and this is going to set conspiracy theorists abuzz I fear,” said NBC correspondent Ken Dilanian. “NBC News has been hearing all day long that there are no indications of foul play, and that this looks like a suicide and that he hung himself in his cell.”
Dilanian, who stumbled over the phrase “conspiracy theorists” in his haste to get it in the first soundbyte, is a known asset of the Central Intelligence Agency. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is a well-documented fact. A 2014 article in The Intercept titled “The CIA’s Mop-Up Man” reveals email exchanges obtained via Freedom of Information Act request between Dilanian and CIA public affairs officers which “show that Dilanian enjoyed a closely collaborative relationship with the agency, explicitly promising positive news coverage and sometimes sending the press office entire story drafts for review prior to publication.” There is no reason to give Dilanian the benefit of the doubt that this cozy relationship has ended, so anything he puts forward can safely be dismissed as CIA public relations.
SLL is officially a “conspiracy theorist” and believes that anyone who accepts without question the official explanation on anything more complicated than a jaywalking ticket (and even there you should be suspicious) is brain dead. From Tyler Durden at zerohedge.com:
Cornell professor, and long-time Zero Hedge friend, David Collum recently appeared on an episode of the Quoth the Raven podcast to talk all things conspiracy. Collum is an economic commentator, chemist, Betty R. Miller Professor of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at Cornell University and is known for writing his “Year in Review”, which appears here on Zerohedge at the end of every year.
On the episode, host Chris Irons notes that Collum’s appearance was prompted by a recent Tweet he put out, in defense of being a conspiracy theorist which sparked a massive social media response and outpouring of reactions, both pro and con.
I am a "conspiracy theorist". I believe men and women of wealth and power conspire. If you don't think so, then you are what is called "an idiot". If you believe stuff but fear the label, you are what is called "a coward".
On the podcast, Collum and host Chris Irons tap into every major conspiracy theory over the last couple of decades, as well as several current events and the world of finance.
Collum Thinks Jeffrey Epstein Could Have Been Working For “Powerful People” And “Setting People Up”
The discussion starts with analysis of the current Jeffrey Epstein fiasco and Collum ponders what “can of worms” could open for Bill Clinton and Donald Trump as a result of Epstein going to trial and documents relating to his indictment coming to light.
“It’s going to be bi-partisan,” Collum says about the Epstein allegations. “Epstein was working for powerful people, to get dirt on powerful people. Epstein wasn’t just a dirtball, he was setting people up,” he continues.
Russiagate was yet another conspiracy theory the alternative media helped prove was a conspiracy fact. Instead of a hollow pejorative thrown by Establishment toadies and their mainstream media, “conspiracy theorist” is becoming a badge of honor. From conspiracy theorist Brandon Smith at alt-market.com:
The phrase “conspiracy theory” is often used by establishment agencies, the mainstream media and useful idiots as a tool to dismiss legitimate evidence or viewpoints that disagree with their predetermined version of events. This method of propaganda was not always as widespread as it is today. The phrase was not “created” by the CIA, but it was in fact weaponized by them in the 1960’s after the assassination of John F. Kennedy with the express purpose of shutting down rational debate.
CIA memo 1035-960, circulated within the CIA in 1967 and exposed through a freedom of information act request by the New York Times in 1976, outlines strategies the agency would use to shut down critics of the Warren Commission Report. Specifically, they suggested the accusation of “conspiracy” with negative connotations attached, predominantly in mainstream books and articles. This was indeed done through the CIA’s many puppets in the media, and the concept of “conspiracy theory” as a pejorative was born.
Through the use of strawman arguments, red herring fallacies and sophistry, the incredible scale of evidence (exposed by investigators like New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison) suggesting the Warren Commission was either corrupt or ignorant in its findings was buried in a flurry of hatchet jobs and hit pieces. And this was the goal, of course; to attack the messenger and silence the truth without having to go through the ugly process of directly confronting the truth.
Muzzling people, even “crazy conspiracy theories” damages the body politic by cutting down on its ability to gather and assimilate information. Muzzling inhibits most people, not just the conspiracy theorist. And sometimes those crazy conspiracy theories turn out to be right. From Kevin Barrett at unz.com:
A Review of Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas by Cass Sunstein (based on an earlier paper co-authored with Adrian Vermeule); In Defense of Troublemakers: The Power of Dissent in Life and Businessby Charlan Nemeth; and Conspiracy Theories and the People Who Believe Them, edited by Joseph E. Uscinski
On January 25 2018 YouTube unleashed the latest salvo in the war on conspiracy theories, saying “we’ll begin reducing recommendations of borderline content and content that could misinform users in harmful ways—such as videos promoting a phony miracle cure for a serious illness, claiming the earth is flat, or making blatantly false claims about historic events like 9/11.”
At first glance that sounds reasonable. Nobody wants YouTube or anyone else to recommend bad information. And almost everyone agrees that phony miracle cures, flat earthism, and blatantly false claims about 9/11 and other historical events are undesirable.
But if we stop and seriously consider those words, we notice a couple of problems. First, the word “recommend” is not just misleading but mendacious. YouTube obviously doesn’t really recommend anything. When it says it does, it is lying.
When you watch YouTube videos, the YouTube search engine algorithm displays links to other videos that you are likely to be interested in. These obviously do not constitute “recommendations” by YouTube itself, which exercises no editorial oversight over content posted by users. (Or at least it didn’t until it joined the war on conspiracy theories.)
The second and larger problem is that while there may be near-universal agreement among reasonable people that flat-earthism is wrong, there is only modest agreement regarding which health approaches constitute “phony miracle cures” and which do not. Far less is there any agreement on “claims about 9/11 and other historical events.” (Thus far the only real attempt to forge an informed consensus about 9/11 is the 9/11 Consensus Panel’s study—but it seems unlikely that YouTube will be using the Consensus Panel to determine which videos to “recommend”!)
Most sentient people expect to be lied to, repeatedly, during the course of a single day, and they are seldom disappointed. From Charles Hugh Smith at oftwominds.com:
The fact that lies and cover stories are now the official norm only makes us love our servitude with greater devotion.
We can summarize the current era in one sentence: truth is what we hide, self-serving cover stories are what we sell.Jean-Claude Juncker’s famous quote captures the essence of the era: “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.”
And when does it become serious? When the hidden facts of the matter might be revealed to the general public. Given the regularity of vast troves of well-hidden data being made public by whistleblowers and white-hat hackers, it’s basically serious all the time now, and hence the official default everywhere is:truth is what we hide, self-serving cover stories are what we sell.
The self-serving cover stories always tout the nobility of the elite issuing the PR: we in the Federal Reserve saved civilization by saving the Too Big To Fail Banks (barf); we in the corporate media do investigative reporting without bias (barf); we in central government only lie to protect you from unpleasant realities–it’s for your own good (barf); we in the NSA, CIA and FBI only lie because it’s our job to lie, and so on.
Before you wade through the weeds of the government’s many conspiracies, consider what it does in broad daylight. From Caitline Johnstone at medium.com:
Yesterday President Trump posted a statement on the White House website saying his administration will be standing with the House of Saud despite the CIA’s assertion that Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman personally ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist who was living and working in the United States.
The statement reads like a long form version of one of Trump’s tweets, replete with gratuitous exclamation points and slogans like “America First!” and the lie that Iran is “the world’s leading sponsor of terror”, which will never be trueno matter how many times this administration deliberately repeats it. The world’s leading sponsor of terrorism is of course Saudi Arabia, along with Israel and the United States.
Does evil signal its intentions in popular culture? As usual, Doug “Uncola” Lynn asks this and other provocative questions. From Lynn at theburningplatform.com:
They had as king over them the angel of the Abyss, whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon and in Greek is Apollyon (that is, Destroyer).
– Revelation 9:11
At the end of last month, I read an article that claimed Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation was foretold by a “20 Year Old Movie”. The film was a 1998 thriller entitled “Enemy of the State” starring Will Smith and Gene Hackman.
My curiosity aroused, I selected the show from my electronic catalog and watched it unwind; similar to the way I once queued up songs on jukeboxes in the halcyon days preceding the matrix.
In the film, Gene Hackman played an Edward Snowden-type National Security Agency (NSA) contractor gone rogue who revealed to the viewers the U.S. government’s high-tech surveillance capabilities. Two decades ago when the film was released, the surveillance grid disclosed therein would have seemed far-fetched. But not today. Now, in the aftermath of 911, the Patriot Act, and the Snowden revelations, those capabilities are not only common knowledge, but are the subjects of ongoing daily headlines.
The antagonist in the film was played by Jon Voight, a power-hungry NSA bureaucrat who assembled a team of technology experts and security agents that blackmailed Congress and even murdered a senator. The politician was killed to aid the passing of a Patriot Act-style bill that would have, in effect, drilled the final screw into the coffin of the Fourth Amendment.
Unlike many websites, Straight Line Logic does not solicit donations. If you're going to lay out your hard-earned money, you should get something in exchange. If you like the site and want to support it, buy The Golden Pinnacle or The Gordian Knot, either as a book or download. The links are on the right-hand side of the page, in the Blogroll section. You'll be supporting the site, and getting a great book and hours of enjoyable reading.