Why Conspiracies Are Almost Always True
‘Conspiracy – a secret plan made by two or more people to do something that is harmful or illegal. : the act of secretly planning to do something that is harmful or illegal.’ – Merriam-Webster Dictionary
If you have a hard time figuring out how Building #7 at the World Trade Center could have come down so neatly, (clearly in a series of measured demolition charges), or how come the Secret Service was pulled off of JFK’s limo seconds before it was fired on, you can take some comfort in the realization that the majority of the American people are on the same side of the issue. Skepticism is good in general, and absolutely essential when it comes to historical controversies. Even if not completely proven to your satisfaction, but strangely logical, and probably true, theories about what has happened and why, often turn out to be accurate eventually, even if only after a very, very long interval.
When it comes to truth-tellers, my choice for Exhibit A is a fellow named William Pepper. His book “An Act of State” provides incontrovertible evidence that the death of Martin Luther King was the result of a criminal conspiracy. He proves that the evil members of this gang included elements of the Memphis Police Department, the FBI, Military Intelligence and the Mafia. This friendly collaboration was engineered due to their common worry, that the multiracial “Poor People’s March” scheduled for that Summer, had the ability to galvanize a true merging of political interests among numerous disparate communities. There are those who choose to believe, in spite of all the obvious signs that this was a policy decision and operated as expressions of their organizations’ greatest desires, that they were “rogue” elements of otherwise benign institutions. This aspect may be subject to some personal interpretation, but it is irrelevant, as their deep institutional involvement in this historical criminality is now beyond question.
If Mr. Pepper had not been MLK’s lawyer when he was alive and spent 40 years tracking down all of the principals, alleged and actual, in this crucial political assassination, it might be easy to dismiss his conclusions. Since he has proven his case beyond even the most critical inquiry, the real issue is, how can the major media and political figures go on, year after year, discussing this killing as though it was the result of a lone racist madman rather than an evil conspiracy among some of the most powerful elements of our society? A careful examination of his arguments reveals a fine legal mind, committed to exploring every dimension of a situation, like a genuine scholar, undeterred by the “accepted version” about something. He has dedicated his life to the quest, to find out who killed his best friend, who happened to be a great spokesperson for humanism and peaceful non-violent struggle.
The real question is, if something this well-proven can still be considered marginal and off-center, the mad ravings of conspiratologists, how many other widely-regarded “truths” are really just well-maintained myths. Until the Snell Report, “American Ground Transport”, was published in 1974, it was the popularly held belief that the public transit systems of the country self-destructed, and were fortunately replaced, by the far superior, private automobile system. Since motorcar companies and oil companies were lavish in their financial support of the major media, newspapers, magazines, radio, etc., the editorial content of these publications and other media outlets was decidedly laudatory when it came to the blessings conferred upon us by this transportation option. How much their point of view was influenced by this flow of advertising is really not in question. The amount of information given to the public, in regards to the real facts behind the conversion of their rail systems to slow and uncomfortable buses, was minimal, and the number of car ads was maximal. We all know the Golden Rule; he who has the gold, rules.
It’s no joking matter that we have “The best politicians that money can buy”. It has resulted in a variety of enterprises, wars being one of the most serious, being promoted under any available rationale, with the profit motive there where the engine belongs. One of the most explosive charges that Mr. Snell makes, relates to the help given to the Axis Powers, by businesses from this side of the ocean. It was not just GM and Standard Oil either, it is true, many other blue-chip corporations profited mightily from their business connections with our mortal enemies. IBM, for instance, was famously thrilled to explore the profit potential that its punch-card systems provided for keeping track of information, in Germany. The efficiency of that system was important to the Nazis, heavily used in keeping track of their human disposal program, among other noble purposes. Henry Ford, famously, admired Hitler greatly and even financed anti-semitic tracts here at home.
Regardless of the notorious company they kept, there were no two corporations that did more to benefit our wartime enemies, then the same two that demolished our rail system. Standard Oil (Exxon today, of course), provided key technology, that was used to process lead-tetraethyl fuel, essential to the operation of an air force, to IG FARBEN, their business associates. GM affiliates played a crucial role in providing heavy trucks, and other needed equipment, to the Reich, and justified their actions by claiming that this was done in order to protect their stockholders’ interests. No matter who won the war, they would win.
This kind of thinking is not only unpatriotic, but it’s also one-dimensional. It suffocates the human element in our lives, as though everything is just a black hole, all energy propelled into a self-centered vortex, that swallows it whole. Unbridled corporate greed may be the prime example of one-dimensionality, while the period that ended the last sentence is another, the more typical one. Having a direction, goal or path, described in physical terms as a line, means you have entered the second dimension. If it is a lofty aim, an idealistic hope, that line can be a strategy to accomplish something worthwhile, or if more mundane, perhaps the way home for instance. If you wander into the third dimension you will find us, and everything else that exists on this plane, seemingly fixed, though highly flexible too. While it may sometimes seem as though we only exist in cyberspace, or as numbers on a chart, this is where we actually live. The Fourth Dimension is the one with the infinite possibilities and unknowns, the one we are always preparing ourselves to enter, adjusting our cuffs and collars and smoothing down our hair to make sure we are ready for the final test. (Of course, String Theory adds another 7 higher spacetime dimensions, in case we grow bored with the ones we have been permitted to explore).
So, is our current reality a product of the narrowest possible thinking, a cosmic mugging, a conspiracy, to elevate the fortunes of the very few at the expense of all the rest? Is it possible to sustain one’s own sense of reality, if all that surrounds you was put there carefully, in order to give you a sense of freedom, but at the same time, to rob you of the actuality? Anti-psychotics and anti-depressants are the two largest categories of pharmaceuticals now, in the widest use in this country. They are both intended to cushion us from the harshest realities of the world, being unfulfilled or unloved, unappreciated or badly fit into this version of the life. They work too until they stop working, and that is where the trouble starts.
So all the cop and game and reality shows, the phony judges and the endless celebrity chats, spice up our day-to-day concerns and chores with adrenaline-infused moments of crisis and resolution. There are no loose ends. The media bombards you with the tragedy de jour and never-ending ongoing conflict over this or that, resolved just in time for the next one. Sure, we are problem-solvers at heart, tinkerers who have a creative imagination and an ability to adapt, which is amazing. Yet we are wandering around like the permanently lost, deers are frozen in our own headlights.
If we could ever begin to examine the issues that involve us, without the overriding influence of those who first interpret these matters, to determine how they affect themselves, we would be much further ahead. They examine questions through the filter of their own interests before it is released into the public sphere, so we are only getting a small part of the story. On the “non-fiction” side, the jumpy, ADD-style news editing favors skimming the story, putting out the USA TODAY capsule of high points, and moving on. Since meaning comes from a depth of understanding, this style of info-surfing is perfect for the internet age, but lacking in much help for those wanting to effect situations rather than just be informed of them after it is too late to do anything about them.
Alternative transportation is one issue that has been examined from the contradictory points of view of the public message and the alternate reality, as portrayed by the experiences of the actual people involved. In “Who Killed the Electric Car”, the movie, the deceptions and seemingly irrational steps taken by GM to keep its moderately successful EV1 off of the road and the fictions it tried to create as it went along, are now a classic case of Double-speak and meretriciousness. Paul McCready, the brilliant scientist who did so much for wind power and made the bike that flew over the English Channel, the Gossamer Albatross, was largely responsible for the science behind the EV1. He made the Sunraycer too, a $6 million solar racing car that went very fast and far across Australia and elsewhere. He lived long enough to see GM abandon his creation, even though it worked fantastically and could have changed the face of motoring forever.
Was the assassination of the EV1 a conspiracy, to prevent the rapid rise of interest in a technology, which did not use the same fuel as that produced by its long-time political dance partner, the oil industry, and was therefore inimical to its own interests?
We’re still wrestling with the production of the complete document on a PDF. Meanwhile, here are a few choice quotes from Mr. Snell’s 1973 American Ground Transport:
“We are witnessing today the collapse of a society based on the automobile. Unlike every other industrialized country, we have come to rely exclusively on large, gas-guzzling cars and trucks for the movement of passengers and freight. In the process, we have consumed much of the Nation’s supply of oil, fouled our urban air with poison exhausts and turned our cities into highways and parking lots….”
“…the early auto industry was noted for its wide variety of fundamentally different motor vehicles. There were, for example, assemblers of electric and steam as well as gasoline-powered vehicles. This technological competition, in turn, greatly accelerated the pace of innovation, particularly in regard to alternative propulsion systems. In fact the development of pollution-free electric cars had advanced during the 1920’s to the point where the Federal Oil Conservation Board recommended in a 1928 report to the President that the economy and operating advantage of “the present type of storage-battery electric vehicle as compared with the gasoline car” warranted the substitution of electric for gasoline automobiles…..”
Of course, this is the Holiday Season so it may be time for a little levity, provided by those nice folks over at YouTube et al.