I've already criticised the use of "conspiracy theorist" as a term of dismissal but I want to go a little deeper into this.
Lord Hutton, who chaired the inquiry into the death of weapons expert, David Kelly in 2003 famously concluded that the government was wholly innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever and that the BBC was tantamount to the Antichrist. Although this was widely criticised as a whitewash by anyone who possessed a pair of eyes connected to a brain, anyone who intimated at the reality of the situation was still dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist".
Among the "rational arguments" against these so-called conspiracy theories are such gems as "But they wouldn't allow that to happen!" Er... who are They? The only They in view are the They who happen to be committing these crimes against humanity. Who could possibly be the They who would not allow this to happen? But this is regarded as a rational response despite the total absence of reason!
Another and possibly less idiotic response is: "It would take too many people to pull that off. They wouldn't be able to keep it secret. Somebody would either slip or blow the whistle. They couldn't possibly take that risk!" OK. On the face of it, this sounds like a fair point. But it is overlooking one or two major elements here. For a start, while accepting that it would be impossible to keep these crimes secret, I would point out that... well... they haven't managed to keep it secret, have they? Which is why the whole fucking planet is talking about it! Yes, somebody is bound to slip up... and, in regard to 9/11 and the 7/7 London bombings, quite a lot of people slipped up Big Time. How about: "Somebody would blow the whistle"? If you happen to be one of these "conspiracy denial" freaks, please pay very close attention to the following sentences. People involved with these atrocities are blowing the whistle all the time. Those who have any credibility with the public psyche... those who played a pivotal part but have since expressed a desire to confess and set the record straight... are now dead. The remainder of those who played a minor part but were nevertheless privy to the subterfuge are simply being dismissed... as conspiracy theorists.
Lord Hutton has a well documented record of defending the government in the face of perfectly just criticism. He concluded that the government were perfectly above board and whiter than white with regard to the Iraq war. Last month, he became an "adviser" to the multi-billion-dollar US company, Bechtel. What has that got to do with the Iraq war? Bechtel has numerous controversial "reconstruction" contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Coincidence? What are you, some kinda coincidence theorist?
How is is that someone who believes that there are dirty deals behind Hutton's support of the government over the Weapons Of Mass Destruction debacle (since proved to be totally unfounded) and his now lucrative position on one of the major companies profiting from the war he defended is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?
How is it that someone who believes that the fact that forensic evidence shows that the tube trains in the 7/7 bombings where detonated beneath the undercarriage... to which no terrorist could possibly have had access are in some way significant details is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?
How is it that anyone who implies that the Home Office official story of the 7/7 bombings is fictional simply because it states that the "bombers" had traveled to Kings Cross from Luton on a train that was actually cancelled is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?
How is it that anyone who points out that the fact that three of the "bombers" were shot by armed police in Canary Wharf could be regarded as evidence that they had not even been aboard the tube they had allegedly blown up is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?
How is it that anyone who points out the fact that the alleged "bombers" could not have been aboard the trains they allegedly blew up because the earliest train they could possibly have caught from Luton didn't get into Kings Cross until after the tubes they had allegedly blown up had already departed is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?
And how is it that anyone who so much as suggests that maybe these proven and undisputed facts should have figured in the inquiry into the 7/7 bombings is dismissed as a conspiracy theorist?
All it takes to be a conspiracy theorist, it would seem, is a functioning brain.
Saturday 13 August 2011
Wednesday 10 August 2011
Rioting
OK, I admit it's been a while. But, as I am largely talking to myself here, I'll forgive myself.
An extraordinary turn of events has gripped this nation is the past few days and we have to look at it without dismissing it as one thing or another. It is not just mindless violence. There is more to this than that. Sure, a lot of those taking part are in it for the ride: the adrenaline, a bit of looting. Some are angry and this restores a sense of empowerment and some of it is simply herd mentality in that they identify with the groups they've seen rioting on TV so they go out and do the same.
But, for something like this to start erupting in various major cities across the country is quite out of the norm. Rioting on this level is usually focused around a strong political issue. Is this because the shooting of Mark Duggan was the last straw? Is it because the role of police has been becoming increasingly aggressive for some time (and black communities are more acutely aware of this than anyone else)? I am white and I have never been stopped and searched in my life. If I were black, it would be a routine part of going out of the house. True, the 'Gangsta' culture is predominantly a West Indian community culture but chickens and eggs spring to mind. Did the Gangsta culture give birth to the police default suspicion of all black people or did being routinely treated like a criminal give rise to the drift into criminal activity?
Whether you are a criminal or not, if you are black, the police largely view you as the enemy. That assumption did not originate with criminal activity in the black communities. It originated with a nationwide prejudice and suspicion of immigrants from the West Indies. In the 50s, no one need be out of work. There were more jobs than could be filled without shipping in a labour force from elsewhere. Those who chose to exploit the relatively new (and chaotically administered) unemployment benefit system instead of working would use the easily identifiable West Indians as the excuse for being out of work. It didn't hold water in reality, of course because there were plenty of jobs but, in the pubs, people are only too ready to find justifications for their suspicion of this influx of people who look so different. "They're stealing our jobs!" became the cry. The prejudice was endemic throughout British society. Much of the institutionalised prejudice within the police is based more in a dislike of black people than in any objection to the criminality they encounter. The riots could be seen as a powder keg that has been exposed to a naked flame for too long and something had to give.
But is there more to this? These riots come at a time when Cameron certainly needs something to distract the public from the Murdoch scandal. It is only a matter of time before the truth emerges about Cameron's discussions with Murdoch over the B Sky B bid. It is clear that he did discuss the takeover with Murdoch by his evasive answer to a direct question about this ("I did not have any inappropriate discussions").... not exactly "Yes" but, tellingly, not "No".
There is a darker possibility here too. Much of the public are already calling for Cameron to call in the army and some are calling for a State of Emergency. A large section of the public are actually calling for a situation in which Machiavellian laws will be introduced, suppressing civil liberties and outlawing public gatherings. Under a State of Emergency, even lawful protest would no longer be lawful. We would, in effect, be living in a police state and this would no longer be even the thin representation of democracy it is at the moment.
The Internet has informed people to the extent that governments can no longer get away with hoodwinking the public and committing atrocities behind closed doors. It is all but impossible to keep anything secret now. A massive change in tactic is necessary to maintain control of the status quo but to suddenly say "Right! No more of this public protesting! Anyone who disagrees with the government will go to jail!" would simply enrage a public that has lived too long in a democratic state to accept having this foisted upon them. The only way to get a police state in place is to have the public demand it.
Problem... Reaction... Solution. Is that the name of the game?
Could it be that these riots are actually part of an overall plan?
Conspiracty theorist! my friends exclaim. It would involve too many people to pull this off! Somebody would be bound to leak the truth eventually!
True. But then we would be living in a police state in which any whistle-blowers could be swiftly dealt with. And then... OK. So you now know the truth. What are you going to do about it? Under "Emergency Law", anyone attempting to address corruption within the government would become a criminal.
Problem... Reaction... Solution.
Think about it. Think about what it would mean if the government actually took the steps that many of you are now demanding.
An extraordinary turn of events has gripped this nation is the past few days and we have to look at it without dismissing it as one thing or another. It is not just mindless violence. There is more to this than that. Sure, a lot of those taking part are in it for the ride: the adrenaline, a bit of looting. Some are angry and this restores a sense of empowerment and some of it is simply herd mentality in that they identify with the groups they've seen rioting on TV so they go out and do the same.
But, for something like this to start erupting in various major cities across the country is quite out of the norm. Rioting on this level is usually focused around a strong political issue. Is this because the shooting of Mark Duggan was the last straw? Is it because the role of police has been becoming increasingly aggressive for some time (and black communities are more acutely aware of this than anyone else)? I am white and I have never been stopped and searched in my life. If I were black, it would be a routine part of going out of the house. True, the 'Gangsta' culture is predominantly a West Indian community culture but chickens and eggs spring to mind. Did the Gangsta culture give birth to the police default suspicion of all black people or did being routinely treated like a criminal give rise to the drift into criminal activity?
Whether you are a criminal or not, if you are black, the police largely view you as the enemy. That assumption did not originate with criminal activity in the black communities. It originated with a nationwide prejudice and suspicion of immigrants from the West Indies. In the 50s, no one need be out of work. There were more jobs than could be filled without shipping in a labour force from elsewhere. Those who chose to exploit the relatively new (and chaotically administered) unemployment benefit system instead of working would use the easily identifiable West Indians as the excuse for being out of work. It didn't hold water in reality, of course because there were plenty of jobs but, in the pubs, people are only too ready to find justifications for their suspicion of this influx of people who look so different. "They're stealing our jobs!" became the cry. The prejudice was endemic throughout British society. Much of the institutionalised prejudice within the police is based more in a dislike of black people than in any objection to the criminality they encounter. The riots could be seen as a powder keg that has been exposed to a naked flame for too long and something had to give.
But is there more to this? These riots come at a time when Cameron certainly needs something to distract the public from the Murdoch scandal. It is only a matter of time before the truth emerges about Cameron's discussions with Murdoch over the B Sky B bid. It is clear that he did discuss the takeover with Murdoch by his evasive answer to a direct question about this ("I did not have any inappropriate discussions").... not exactly "Yes" but, tellingly, not "No".
There is a darker possibility here too. Much of the public are already calling for Cameron to call in the army and some are calling for a State of Emergency. A large section of the public are actually calling for a situation in which Machiavellian laws will be introduced, suppressing civil liberties and outlawing public gatherings. Under a State of Emergency, even lawful protest would no longer be lawful. We would, in effect, be living in a police state and this would no longer be even the thin representation of democracy it is at the moment.
The Internet has informed people to the extent that governments can no longer get away with hoodwinking the public and committing atrocities behind closed doors. It is all but impossible to keep anything secret now. A massive change in tactic is necessary to maintain control of the status quo but to suddenly say "Right! No more of this public protesting! Anyone who disagrees with the government will go to jail!" would simply enrage a public that has lived too long in a democratic state to accept having this foisted upon them. The only way to get a police state in place is to have the public demand it.
Problem... Reaction... Solution. Is that the name of the game?
Could it be that these riots are actually part of an overall plan?
Conspiracty theorist! my friends exclaim. It would involve too many people to pull this off! Somebody would be bound to leak the truth eventually!
True. But then we would be living in a police state in which any whistle-blowers could be swiftly dealt with. And then... OK. So you now know the truth. What are you going to do about it? Under "Emergency Law", anyone attempting to address corruption within the government would become a criminal.
Problem... Reaction... Solution.
Think about it. Think about what it would mean if the government actually took the steps that many of you are now demanding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)