Donnerstag, 1. Januar 2009

The Spaghetti Theory of Conspiracy

from:
The Illuminati Conspiracy - The Sapien System
Donald Holmes, MD(C)(1987)
New Falcon Publication
655 East Thunderbird
Phoneix, AZ 85022
602-246-3546
Introduction by Robert Anton Wilson

The Spaghetti Theory of Conspiracy

by

ROBERT ANTON WILSON

WHO'S IN CHARGE HERE?

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

—Oz the Omnipotent

It is characteristic of the primitive conditions on this backward planet that virtually nobody knows any of the basic facts about how the human race is actually governed. For instance—

1. Governments are not nearly as important as most people think. Since we live in a post-barter economy—a money economy—those who control the money supply effectively control the planet. Governments gave up all attempt to coin or control money in the 19th Century, mostly because they did not trust one another, i.e. no nation had faith that the coinage or currency of another nation was really worth what it claimed to be worth. The great International
Banks stepped into this vacuum and, by demonstrating more fiscal rectitude than governments had in the past, became the creators of money in the modern world.

After the banks had control, they no longer needed to be quite so prim in their fiscal rectitude. Nobody could challenge them.

This means that governments cannot do anything—good or ill, wise or foolish—unless the banks first lend them the money for the project. The power is in the banks. The governments survive on the permission of the banks. If the banks cut off their credit, governments die. Any government that resists has its credit cut off and dies.

As Buckminster Fuller stressed in all his writings (especially Critical Path and Grunch of Giants) this means that, in the modem world, banks act and governments only re-act to the situations the bankers have ordained. Even earlier, historian Brooks Adams wrote of the British financier Samuel Loyd, in The Law of Civilization and Decay,

He comprehended that, with expanding trade, an inelastic currency must rise in value; he saw that, with sufficient resources at command his class might be able to establish such a rise, almost at pleasure; certainly that they could manipulate it when it came, by taking advantage of foreign exchange.

In other words, as soon as the great multi-national banks had control of the money supply, they saw that they could manipulate cash and credit to maximize profits. They would have been rather dense if they had not seen this. Nonetheless, while these financiers quite sanely and legally maximize profits, the rest of us are at their mercy; but we never elected them to this position of power, and, by and large, we do not even know who they are.

2. In the present decade, it costs $50,000,000 to run a campaign for the presidency of the United States, $10,000,000 to run a campaign for the Senate and $5,000,000 for the House of Representatives. (These figures are documented in Buckminster Fuller's Grunch of Giants.) This means that the U.S.—the strongest country in the West—is not only "owned" (in trillion-dollar debt to) the banks, but also governed by persons who are either (a) millionaires or (b) heavily in debt to millionaires. In the words of ex-Senator Pettigrew, we now have "government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations

3. As Edward Luttwak documents in his cheerfully Machiavellian little text, The Coup d'Etat, more governments have been changed, since World War II by the coup d'Etat than by any other method. More governments have been changed by coup than by all the democratic elections and revolutions combined.

Since every coup is by definition a conspiracy, this means that conspiracies have had more effect on the past 40 years of world history than all the electoral politics and all the popular revolutions added together. That is rather ominous, in a period when "educated" opinion holds that it is infamous, nutty, eccentric or downright paranoid to think about conspiracies at all. We are, in effect, forbidden to think about how the planet is actually governed.

4. If governments cannot act without permission of the banks— without loans or "lines of credit" granted by the banks—and if the U.S. government is "owned" by the multi-millionaire (or billionaire) banking and corporate elite, and if other governments are, more often than not, changed by conspiratorial coup, the major portion of humanity is economically-politically controlled by persons who are largely unknown to the general public and/or have never been elected to any office. Democratic theory is beautiful and inspirational, but has nothing to do with the actual situation of the domesticated primates of this boondocks planet.

5. If the masses of the planet are politically-economically controlled by shadowy financiers and conspiratorial adventurers, the same masses are intellectually controlled by persons who are more visible but equally unpalatable to the Rationalist view of history. In blunt language, nearly 300 years after the Age of Reason was prematurely announced, most people in most nations most of the time are mentally in total bondage to religious leaders who operate on sheer bluk, i.e. on the basis of claims that cannot be proven and appear clearly insane to everybody who hasn't been raised within their frameworks.

The Methodist can see how absurd are the beliefs of Roman Catholics. The Catholics can see the obvious insanity of the Sikh militants who blow up airplanes because there are a few Hindus aboard. The Sikhs, no doubt, can see how nonsensical Scientology is. But none of the people processed by any of these cults can see how crazy their own cult is. It is often quite hard for a
rational observer to determine if the leaders of these cults are just cynically raking in the cash or are genuinely as deluded as their brainwashed followers.

One can acquire a reputation as a satirist, a wit, a cynic, etc. simply by stating blunt facts. For instance, it is quite clear from the above that the human race is largely governed politico-economically by unknown financial cliques and criminal scoundrels and governed intellectually by borderline psychotics and charlatans. But we have all been so conditioned and indoctrinated that to state the facts simply makes it sound as if one is being sarcastic or perhaps even trying to be"shocking."

Let us look at the situation of this planet in a little more detail.

SOCIOBIOLOGY OF DECEIT

All men are born liars.

—Liam O'Flaherty, Autobiography (first sentence)

Conspiracy is the first manifestation of intelligent life.

The original organic molecules formed affinity groups and conspired to exploit the resources of this planet. Working in small cells originally, these DNA conquistadores quickly developed organizations of higher complexity and spread a network of hungry, predatory Life over the previously dead Earth. In less than 3,500,000,000 years this network has expanded from the ocean beds to the very peaks on the Himalayas. No square centimeter of Earth is uninfested.

The trapdoor spiders formed their own secret society and went underground. They lurked silently, hidden beneath a plausible surface of twigs and soil, waiting to pounce out and devour any beetle or other tasty-looking morsel that happened to pass by.

The day of the undercover agent had come.

This technique of cover-up and disguise has proven an evolutionary success and is widely copied everywhere. Thousands of species of conspiratorial insects even today still hide behind ingenious make-up that deceives us into thinking they are only branches or rocks.

Other species got even smarter even faster. Polar bears donned white fur coats to fade into snowy landscapes. The leopard's spots make it hard to distinguish from speckled sunlight on foliage. The Norway rat (mus rattus Norwegious) learned to hide by day and come forth under cover of darkness.

The first human beings looked about them and very sensibly concluded, "It's a jungle out there." Human psychology has remained jungle psychology. As historian Carl Oglesby writes in The Yankee and Cowboy War

... a multitude of conspiracies contend in the night.... Conspiracy is the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means . . . and where there is no limit to power, there is no limit to conspiracy

As soon as we find evidence of human beings on this planet, we find evidence of secret societies. Paleolithic paintings show that they met, typically, in the deepest, darkest caves, and they plotted sorcery and mischief against all competing species.

In every tribe known to anthropology, we still find secret societies. Most tribes have all-male secret societies, but many also have all-female secret societies. Most readers will probably remember that they had their own secret societies as children, with passwords and quasi-Freemasonic grips determinedly hidden from the adults.

>From this evolutionary perspective, every paranoid is partly right. The major error of the paranoid appears to be his characteristic belief in one jumbo Mega-Conspiracy that explains everything This is impossible, because it violates basic laws of primate psychology. Domesticated primates like wild primates are mischievous, sly and have a keen sense of humor: the double-cross is their most characteristic invention.

George Washington, who rose to power by conspiring against his king, said with blunt honesty, "Nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests." This is why governments, corporations and other large-scale conspiracies all have a natural life-span, like other living systems. There is no government on this planet that has existed in its present form for more
than 200 years; aside from the Dutch East India Company, most corporations rise and fall within 100 years (average). Outside of paranoid fantasy and Romantic fiction, most conspiracies collapse of their own"internal contradictions"within months or years. (Thus, if there actually is one big jumbo-conspiracy governing this planet, it must be, as Donald Holmes wittily
suggests in the following pages, of non-human origin.)

The study of conspiracy as a branch of primate psychology, has great interest in itself, as Machiavelli knew; but real conspiracies are not as clever or long-lived as the ones that paranoids and ideologists imagine; they are simply much dirtier.

It is one of the ironies of our time that conspiracies and secret societies have proliferated more than ever at precisely the same time it has become impolite and uncouth to discuss them. In this sense, the Nazis defeated the Liberal Democracies in World War II, because they have achieved a form of Thought Control over the Liberal Mind. Liberals are afraid to think of conspiracies because that might lead to the One Big Mega-Conspiracy, i.e. to"thinking like Hitler." But a mind chained by Tabu is a mind unfree. I believe it is time we broke Hitler's power over our minds and began to think in terms of the facts instead of being restrained by Tabu.

Disguise, deception and group-action have a long evolutionary history, and primates have all these traditional evolutionary habits, which in political jargon are called conspiratorial habits. Even if it is Tabu to think about it, that seems to be the way things are on this planet.

TRUE CONFESSIONS

When four sit down to conspire, three are fools and the fourth is a government agent.

—Duncan Lunan, Interstellar Communication

Frankly I myself never dared to violate the Liberal Tabu—"Thou shalt not think about conspiracies"—until I was virtually forced to think about them.

In the 1960s in Chicago, I was involved in the anti-war movement. Congressional investigators later revealed that there were over 5000 government agents assigned to infiltrate peace groups in Chicago alone—some working for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), some for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and some for Army Intelligence. From 1968 on, the
FBI was following a program code-named COINTELPRO. The purpose of COINTELPRO was to make sure the anti-war movement knew it was infiltrated, in order to spread suspicion, distrust and paranoia among individuals and groups who might otherwise have cooperated harmoniously. Working in the peace movement in those days was, accordingly, like living in an Eric Ambler novel. In any given week I would be warned perhaps three times that somebody I trusted was really a government agent, and, of course, somebody who was accused one day might very well be around to accuse somebody else the next day. Over 20 years later, I still don't know who was a government agent and who was not. I enjoyed it all rather than being terrified only because I basically agree with Helen Keller that "Life is either a great adventure or it is nothing."

I encountered the same Spy Story atmosphere in the early 1970s when involved in the campaign to secure the release from prison of the controversial scientist, Dr. Timothy Leary. At one time or another, everybody in the Leary Defense Committee suspected everybody else of being a government agent (I think the poet, Allen Ginsberg, suspected me for over a year) and eventually government "leaks" in the press attempted to persuade us that Dr. Leary himself had become a government agent. I still relish that classic John Le Carre touch, especially since some people believed it.

Eventually it was confirmed that Leary's son-in-law, Dennis Martino, had been entrapped into becoming a government agent. Dennis later died in Spain and three press reports in two days claimed the cause of death had been murder, suicide and accident. That mystery is still unsolved, at least in America. Presumably, the Spanish authorities finally came up with a coroner's verdict,
which may or may not be the truth, but by then the U.S. media had lost interest. As far as you can learn from American sources, Dennis Martino accidentally overdosed, committed suicide and was murdered, all on the same day. Evidently, nobody in the U.S. media wanted to find out what the hell really happened.

But there are wheels within wheels in this modern Machiavellian world.

During the last year of my employment as Associate Editor of PLAYBOY, a certain executive came into my office one day and closed the door behind him. He told me that my home phone was tapped and that I was under heavy surveillance by the Red Squad of the Chicago Police Force.

I was stunned, and asked how the hell he knew this.

He replied that certain people in the PLAYBOY empire had made an arrangement with a Chicago police official. The official received regular money through some circuitous route that was not explained to me; in return, he notified his PLAYBOY contacts whenever an executive of the firm was under police investigation.

That was when I first realized how often there are spies spying on spies.

Incidentally, my informant told me why I was under heavy surveillance. A police informer in the Black Panthers, he said, had reported that I was involved with a group of white radicals who were buying guns for the Panthers.

Despite my cynicism about cops, I was shocked. I explained heatedly that there was no truth in this at all. "We know, we know," said the executive, who was very close to Hefner. "We trust you." And they did trust me. They never made any attempt to ease me out the back door, or dissociate the Bunny Empire from me. They even offered to pay my legal expenses if the police ever busted me on this absurd charge.

It was years before I wondered why the Bunny Empire decided to trust me in such an explosive matter. My guess, now, is that they had me under surveillance, too, along with their other editors—but that's only a guess. Maybe it was just that I have an honest face. I'd like to think that. Of course, I was not buying guns for the Black Panthers. I had met a few Panthers at Peace rallies, and the informer had seen me. He or she had probably "improved" the story to impress the Red Squad. A PLAYBOY editor talking to Black Panthers is not all that sensational, but a PLAYBOY editor buying guns for the Panthers was a story that made the informer seem on the edge of discovering a major conspiracy.

I could tell several similar stories, but I would again have to conceal the names of my sources and you would probably not believe me. Truth is much, much stranger than melodrama. Instead I will examine the neuro-economics of conspiracy and then relate some notable conspiracies that have become matters of public record. We will see that the theories outlined by Dr. Holmes in this book are, however shocking, no more bizarre than the world in which we live.

WEALTH AND "MONEY"

A banker is a man who will loan you money if you can prove you don't need it.

—attributed to Mark Twain

Just as most people have no idea how this planet is governed at this barbaric stage of evolution, most people have no concept of where "wealth" comes from. This is because most of us have never learned to distinguish between wealth and money.

Money was originally created by the State, as I mentioned at the beginning; this is why King Lear says his persecutors can't accuse him of counterfeiting. The State was, in those days, the only legal creator of coin: a legal coin was, by definition, a State coin.

As States learned the advantages to be gained by issuing debased coinage—a matter discussed with great clarity and wit in Jonathan Swift's little-known but brilliant Drapier Letters every State and every individual became the potential victim of coins that did not contain the amount of gold stamped on them. Eventually, no State would trust any other State in this area and, more
and more, the paper of the great banking firms began to seem the only"safe" medium of exchange.

The U.S. Constitution, amusingly, says that Congress shall have the power to coin money and regulate the value thereof, but Congress has not exercised that power in over a century. Official U.S. money is issued by a private bank, just like the money of all other nations (except Albania, a lonely heretic), but, because U.S. money says "Federal Reserve Note" on it, most Americans assume it is issued by the Federal government. It is issued, actually, by the Federal Reserve Corporation, a private bank, owned largely by the Rockefellers and Morgans. We do not "owe the National Debt to ourselves" as the late Franklin Roosevelt once said; we owe it to the Rockefellers and Morgans.

Irish money says "Bank of Ireland" on it and English money says "Bank of England," and so on; all across Europe, most people know that the banks are in control of the creation of money. Only in America, because the word "Federal in Federal Reserve is thought to mean "federal" and because the Constitution says Congress shall coin money, is there a lingering belief that the government is still a sovereign entity not owned by the bankers to whom it is in debt.

None of this has anything to do with Real Wealth in the sense of classical
economics.

Real Wealth, in the economic sense, consists of tangible assets. It includes, not only plants in operation "owned" by individual or corporate capitalists, but known resources, inventions, bridges, roads, scientific data—all the creations of human intelligence that can be concretely applied to make the human environment more pleasant for somebody or for everybody.

Thus, if all the Real Wealth disappeared over night, the world would be entirely different. We would literally be back in the Old Stone Age, and no amount of Federal Reserve Notes or other paper would change our situation. We would have to re-invent and re-create all the science and technology of the past 30,000 years step by step.

On the other hand, all the money in the world—all the Federal Reserve Notes, Bank of England notes, etc. and all the stocks and bonds—could disappear over night and the world would be exactly the same physically. There might be a hell of a fight over who owned what, but the human world of Real Wealth would still be here.

In kindergarten language, Real Wealth consists of "things" that can't be stored in banks or computers, while money consists of "tickets" or symbols that can be stored in banks or computers.

Of course, Real Wealth is more than solid "things." I have been arguing for 30 years, in various publications, that Real Wealth is essentially pure information. It has finally dawned on me that nobody understands that but a few mathematicians and computer buffs; so I now say, more simply, that Real Wealth is ideas that work. In the terminology of General Semantics, Wealth is
ideas that are similar in structure (isomorphic) to the energy systems of space-time.

Wealth is created by analysis: by extracting higher-order structure from the raw signals perceived by the senses. You can starve to death in a wheat field if your mind has not analyzed the energy system of space-time sufficiently to recognize that wheat is edible and nourishing. Money, then, is not Real Wealth, but consists of tickets for the exchange of Real Wealth. Such tickets are necessary in an advanced technology-economy-society, because barter becomes cumbersome and unwieldy.

Most money, however, does not exist in tangible form at all, not even as paper. Most money, in today's advanced techno-society, exists only as computer records or, in less advanced outposts, notations in ledgers. Banks may legally lend up to eight times the amount they have on deposit, and as Penny Lernoux documents in her invaluable In Banks We Trust, they often go far beyond this and hope to cover their tracks before the bank examiner comes around.

Michele Sindona, a kingpin of the Vatican/Mafia/P2 clique and founder of the infamous Franklin National Bank, was convicted of murdering a bank examiner in Italy, after being convicted of 65 counts of bank fraud in the U.S. His principle flaw appears to have been that he was more reckless than older and wiser financiers who have been running the world longer and more judiciously. (We shall return to the Sindona/P2 case history.)

When banks lend eight times what they have on deposit, or more than that, they are gambling that everybody will not come in and withdraw their funds on the same day. It is a safe gamble, most of the time. But it means that paper wealth has become even more metaphysical and ghostly than the most debased coinage of the most corrupt Tudor or Stuart monarchs. It means that, by a species of magic, the Real Wealth of the planet can be manipulated as the ghostly paper is maneuvered from one computer to another. And it means that the really bold adventurers and pirates can alchemically transform totally unreal paper into ownership of resources, factories, roads, bridges and whole nations on occasion, as they, following Samuel Loyd, establish a rise . . . at their pleasure," or just as easily establish a fall.

The reader should consult some of the books I will be summarizing here especially illuminating is Richard Hammer's The Vatican Connection, which tells how Johnny Roselli and his friends in the American Mafia printed one billion dollars worth of counterfeit stocks which disappeared into the
Vatican Bank/Banco Ambrosiano feedback loop in such a manner that the New York District Attorney's office, which had wiretaps on most of the felons, never did find out where the $900,000,000 of the $1,000,000,000 finally landed.

Buckminster Fuller, in Grunch of Giants, describes the modern world as governed by MMA&O—Machiavelli, Mafia, Atoms and Oil. You know the Mafia. Atoms and Oil are the multi-national corporations. Machiavelli is the symbol of the paper-magic wizards, or international banks, who make the whole system possible. GRUNCH stands for GRoss UNiversal CAsh Heist. It's another book you really ought to read.

NEURO-GEOGRAPHY OF CONSPIRACY

Go West, young man.

—Horace Greeley

As I pointed out in Prometheus Rising (Falcon Press, 1983), the Real Wealth of the world has been doubling every generation since statistical economists started collecting data in the 18th Century. This is a side-effect of the accelerated doubling of knowledge that has been occurring in the past two milleniums. (Information, or ideas-that-work, is the source of Real Wealth.
Remember?) As George Anderla, a French statistician, determined, if we take all the knowledge of 1 A.D. as our base, then knowledge has doubled at the following rate since then:

AD 1 unit
500 AD 2
750 AD 4
1900AD 8
1950 AD 16
1960 AD 32
1967 AD 64
1973 AD 128

A glance at world-historical trajectories indicates that this doubling of knowledge-and-wealth has followed a western (and mildly northern) vector, as has been documented e.g. in Brooks Adams' Law of Civilization and Decay, Timothy Leary's The Intelligence Agents and Buckminster Fuller's Critical Path.

Bronze Age tools first appeared in Southeast Asia, followed by large-scale agriculture, slavery and war. By 1 A.D. all the technology thusfar produced was being processed through the schools and banking establishments of Rome. By the time this knowledge/wealth doubled in 1500, the universities of North Italy and the great Florentine banking families like the Medici held the hot center of power. By 1750, the next doubling was occurring mostly in England, the first Empire on which the sun never set."

By 1900, the U.S. was becoming a rival to England; by 1950, the American Empire had replaced the English Empire. The years since 1950 have witnessed what Prof. Oglesby calls "the Yankee and Cowboy war" as Eastern bankers like the Rockefellers try to hold on to control and are challenged by Western mavericks like Howard Hughes.

The more adventurous and innovative persons—those with nervous systems programmed by maverick genes and/or bizarre imprints and conditioning: the "misfits"—have been moving steadily westward for about 5000 years. They have been moving away from centralized Authority, out into the perimeters and frontiers, because that is where misfits and geniuses can function.

Clausewitz described war as a continuation of politics by other means; Oglesby calls conspiracy "the normal continuation of normal politics by normal means." Conspiracy, the murky territory between politics and war, is part of our glorious primate heritage, which is why Ambrose Bierce defined peace as "a period of cheating between two periods of fighting."

The role of conspiracy in human history, I suggest, is a period of cheating during which two power centers are struggling,-one of them Eastward and representing established ideas and old wealth, the other Westward and generally representing maverick ideas and new wealth. Enclaves of "outlaws" move in the shadowy territory between these two power poles, running their own games and exploiting the paranoia of each side where and when they can.

Anthropologist William Irwin Thompson has suggested, in a recent address in Oslo, Norway, that the Reagan administration's Strategic Defense Initiative—the so-called "Star Wars" program—is more radical, and less reactionary, than it looks on the surface. Thompson alleges that, under the
pretext of military bluster, SDI actually represents the total re-alignment of American society into a scientific-technological paradigm. Only the most "patriotic" rhetoric, Thompson says, could sell to the American people a program which amounts to the most expensive and most daring scientific research-and-development project humanity has ever attempted. In this context, Reagan represents the "Cowboy elite" that Oglesby sees as being on the edge of toppling the Rockefeller and other Yankee empires. The Cowboys are looking for a High Frontier, and they are computerized Cowboys now.

Werner von Braun used Disneyworld—both the amusement park and the TV show—to "sell" NASA's more adventurous ideas to the politicians by first selling them to the people. General Graham, who gave the "Star Wars" idea to Reagan, is following the same scenario. Amid the 24 separate-and-interlocking conspiracies struggling over the turf on this planet, the Cowboys are
struggling for higher and more imaginative lands in the stars. Why not? They are, in the 20th Century, the same sort of mavericks the Yankees were in the 18th Century— namely, "the products of the Protestantism of the Protestants and the dissidence of dissent," as Edmund Burke said of the wealthy radicals who wrote the Declaration of Independence. The coming dominant looks to be, like California, a mad mixture of Hollywood, computers, special effects,
apocalyptical visions and dope. Reagan does not fully understand the neuro-geography of the historical forces he represents.

The next dominant will probably be further west and more technological.

If we revise our chart of the doubling of knowledge (Real Wealth) to include
these factors we find:
                                KNOWLEDGE      CENTER OF       PRINCIPLE
DATE FACTOR POWER ENEMIES
1 AD 1 Rome Greece, Egypt


1500 AD 2 Florence Turks
1750 AD 4 England France, Spain
1900 AD 8 England Germany
1950 AD 16 New York Russia
1960 AD 32 California Russia
1967 AD 64 California Russia
1973 AD 128 California New York
? Japan California

The rising power always seems to the West or Northwest of the declining power that struggles against it; it is always richer and more powerful than any previous Empire; it always seems to the older power center (and its kept intellectuals) exactly what California seems today—a kind of sociological Granola made up of equal parts of fruits, nuts and flakes.

THE C.I.A. & THE MAFIA

Patriotism, sir, is the last recourse of the scoundrel.

—Dr. Samuel Johnson

In the 1960s, the CIA conspired with two Mafia leaders, Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli. Mr. Giancana and Mr. Roselli provided professional Mafia assassins and the CIA trained them and sent them to Cuba to kill Fidel Castro. Like most real conspiracies, this was unsuccessful, Senor Castro is still alive. This conspiracy was also well documented in Congressional hearings and broadcast in the news media internationally, so you are not considered a crank if you write about it.

You will begin to understand what I call the Spaghetti Theory of Conspiracy when I remind you that Johnny Roselli was also involved in printing one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000) worth of counterfeit stock for the Vatican Bank. That is documented fully in The Vatican Connection by N.Y. Times reporter Richard Hammer, which I again recommend to your attention.

According to Anthony Summers' book, Conspiracy there is a good prima facie case that Johnny Roselli was also an instigator of the assassinations of both John and Bobby Kennedy, in collaboration with Sam Giancana—the same Giancana who had previously collaborated with Roselli in providing assassins for the CIA. While Summers' evidence is not conclusive, it is chillingly plausible.

The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded, on the basis of the hard scientific evidence of acoustics, that there were two gunmen shooting at John Kennedy in Dealy Plaza, one from the front and one from the back. On the basis of softer but persuasive supporting evidence, the Committee concluded further that a conspiracy of more than two persons was probable and that the possibility of Mafia involvement was worthy of deeper investigation. The Chief Counsel for the Committee, Prof. Howard Blakey, was willing to be more definitive in a press conference. 'I am now firmly of the opinion that the mob did it,n he said. "It is a historical truth." (Quoted by Summers in Conspiracy.)

Sam Giancana was shot dead in June 1975, after testifying once before the committee and while negotiating with their investigators about further questions they wished to ask him under oath. Giancana was shot through the mouth—the sasso in bocca, traditional Mafia punishment for suspected informers.

Johnny Roselli was shot dead in July 1976, after he, too, had been called once before the Assassinations Committee. According to journalist Jack Anderson, Roselli had told him that he was not involved in the Kennedy assassinations but another Mafia "family" was.

The Mafia has acquired its international empire only because the most popular drugs of our time are illegal. In the past 40 years, the rulers of the Mafia have graduated from multi-millionaires to billionaires only because these absurd anti-drug laws remain on the books.

It is permissible in "liberal""educated" circles to say that these laws remain in force because of stupidity or conservatism or superstition. If you say the laws remain because somebody is making a profit out of them, you are supposed to be eccentric or downright nutty.

Nonetheless, the ancient Romans knew that the basic question about any social policy was cui bono? (Who profits from it?)

INTERLUDE & KOAN

In CIA jargon, a "useful idiot" means somebody who is working for them but doesn't know it.

My involvements with controversial politics have left me with one lasting legacy. Whenever I suspect that I am taking myself or my theories too seriously, I stop and ask myself, "Have I become a useful idiot yet?"

THE STATE AS CONSPIRACY

The more laws that are written, the more criminals are produced.

—Lao Tse, Tao Te Ching

It is likely that the State as we k[n]ow it is an innately conspiratorial organism. As the sociologist Franz Oppenheimer pointed out in his remarkable book, The State, there is no anthropological or historical evidence that anything like Rousseau's "Social Contract" ever happened in pre-history; on the contrary, the State appears in human affairs only after conquest by armed force. It is to maintain themselves in power over the conquered that a conquering elite create those institutions— police, army, taxation—that make up the skeleton of the State as we know it historically. There is no record of a tribal people peacefully "contracting" to set such a machinery of oppression above themselves. Conquerors impose it upon them.

Bakunin argued in God and the State that nobody has ever seen "God" or the "State." This, although startling, is true. Human beings, called priests, claim to represent "God," and other human beings, called civil servants, claim to represent the "State," and this metaphysical sleight-of-hand is alleged to justify acts which would be regarded as not only criminal but barbarous if it were remembered that mere human beings were doing these things. Similar verbal magic—meaningless words like "heresy and "treason"—are used to convince the victims that resistance is evil, escape or flight is just as evil, and even thinking that you are being victimized is somehow sinful.

In simple language, anybody who robs you is a thief, unless he claims to be an agent of the "Staten—in which case, he is not a thief but only a tax-collector. By the same metaphysical trick, anybody who murders millions is a lunatic, unless he claims to be an agent of "Gods—in which case he is a Crusader. You can resist an ordinary bandit with a perfect sense of righteousness, but you feel guilty about resisting the Churchman or Statesman, since that is called "heresy" or "treason"

Since the State was founded in conquest and is maintained by metaphysics (or, in the Logical Positivist jargon, "abuse of language"), it follows Oglesby's rule—"where there is no limit to power, there is no limit to conspiracy.

We have already cited Anthony Summers' book Conspiracy, to indicate that there is real evidence, not mere paranoia, behind the claim that the Mafia was involved, perhaps centrally, in the Kennedy assassinations. According to Summers' more recent book, Goddess, there is also good evidence that Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli had arranged for the electronic bugging of the bedroom of a house belonging to Peter Lawford, where Marilyn Monroe and Bobby Kennedy met for romantic dalliance in what they thought was privacy. Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters' Union, who had been imprisoned by Bobb's get-tough" Justice Department, was allegedly also involved in this plot, which was intended to obtain material with which Bobby could be blackmailed. A BBC documentary on Summers' book—"Say Goodnight to the Presidents BBC-TV 1985—supported all of Summers' charges.

Giancana and Roselli were both shot in the mid-l970s as we have seen. Jimmy Hoffa simply disappeared and has never been found dead or alive. Rumor claims he is buried beneath an interstate highway in Illinois.

Norman Mailer, many of you might remember, became convinced, while researching his biography of Marilyn Monroe, that there was some kind of "cover-up" connected with her death. Mailer even implied that there was a definite possibility of murder.

According to Summers' Goddess and the BBC documentary previously cited, there was indeed a conspiracy in which Marilyn's death was concealed for three hours while persons unknown removed from her house all documentia of her love affairs with John and Bobby Kennedy. The weight of circumstantial evidence suggests that this conspiracy was instigated by Peter Lawford, who had, as we noted, loaned his house as a trysting place for Marilyn's affairs, and who was also brother-in-law to the Kennedys. It is not demonstrable that Lawford ever thought, or allowed himself to think, that he might also be concealing clues in a murder case. He probably thought, or wanted to think, that he was merely concealing politically embarrassing sexual dalliances. The possibility of murder remains only a possibility, although it is still insisted upon by Hank Messick, a former consultant to the New York Joint Legislative Committee on Crime. Messick claims that unnamed informants in the Mafia told him Marilyn was killed to lure Bobby Kennedy into a trap and then blackmail him into ending his crusade against the Mob. All one can say about that theory is "Maybe.”

Nonetheless, another of John Kennedy's mistresses—although he did not pass her on to Bobby—was one Judith Exner. Ms. Exner, the House Select Committee on Assassinations later noted, was, curiously enough, the mistress of Mafioso Sam Giancana before, during and after her affair with the President. The Committee was of the opinion that it was probable that Mr. Giancana more or less shoved Ms. Exner into the President's bet, for blackmail purposes. Mr. Giancana, you may remember, was also suspected by the Committee of having a hand in JFK's assassination, and diet of gunshot wounds—through the mouth—while under investigation.

Another of JFK's amours was with a Mary Pinchot Meyer, a most interesting lady. She was married to Cord Meyer, a top CIA official who happens to be the only man to have received the Agency's Distinguished Intelligence Metal three times. Mary Pinchot Meyer was also a dear and good friend of Dr. Timothy Leary; and, according to his book, Flashbacks, Mary told Dr. Leary in 1962 that the CIA wanted to stop him and other scientists from publishing LSD experiments, because they wanted to keep the mind-altering properties of LSD one of their own little secrets. In 1964, about a year after John Kennedy was assassinated (or about two years after the somewhat mysterious death of Marilyn Monroe), Mary Pinchot Meyer was shot dead on a street in Washington.

Thereafter Dr. Leary was repeatedly arrested, and although every case against him except one was dismissed by the courts, he was finally convicted in that one case, which involved alleged possession of one half of one marijuana cigarette. He was sentenced to 37 years— although the penalty for that crime in that state (California) was normally six months—and was released after
serving over five years. Dr. Leary claims he was framed by the arresting officer; he also claims there was a cover-up in the shooting of Mary Pinchot Meyer. Nobody much cares what Dr. Leary claims, because for over a year before his release government officials had leaked to the press claims that he had become an informer. There is no record of any person or persons convicted on the basis of Dr. Leary's testimony, oddly, but the rumor has stuck to his name and "everybody knows" he is a government agent these days.

As the French say, it gives one ferociously to think.

Conspiracy Phobia on the Left

From Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti
(1996, City Lights Books)
(Pages 172 - 191)

THE JFK ASSASSINATION II:
CONSPIRACY PHOBIA
ON THE LEFT

Almost as an article of faith, some individuals believe that conspiracies are either kooky fantasies or unimportant aberrations. To be sure, wacko conspiracy theories do exist. There are people who believe that the United States has been invaded by a secret United Nations army equipped with black helicopters, or that the country is secretly controlled by Jews or gays or feminists or black nationalists or communists or extraterrestrial aliens. But it does not logically follow that all conspiracies are imaginary.

Conspiracy is a legitimate concept in law: the collusion of two or more people pursuing illegal means to effect some illegal or immoral end. People go to jail for committing conspiratorial acts. Conspiracies are a matter of public record, and some are of real political significance. The Watergate break-in was a conspiracy, as was the Watergate cover-up, which led to Nixon's downfall. Iran-contra was a conspiracy of immense scope, much of it still uncovered. The savings and loan scandal was described by the Justice Department as "a thousand conspiracies of fraud, theft, and bribery," the greatest financial crime in history.

Conspiracy or Coincidence?

Often the term "conspiracy" is applied dismissively whenever one suggests that people who occupy positions of political and economic power are consciously dedicated to advancing their elite interests. Even when they openly profess their designs, there are those who deny that intent is involved. In 1994, the officers of the Federal Reserve announced they would pursue monetary policies designed to maintain a high level of unemployment in order to safeguard against "overheating" the economy. Like any creditor class, they preferred a deflationary course. When an acquaintance of mine mentioned this to friends, he was greeted skeptically, "Do you think the Fed bankers are deliberately trying to keep people unemployed?" In fact, not only did he think it, it was announced on the financial pages of the press. Still, his friends assumed he was imagining a conspiracy because he ascribed self-interested collusion to powerful people.

At a World Affairs Council meeting in San Francisco, I remarked to a participant that U.S. leaders were pushing hard for the reinstatement of capitalism in the former communist countries. He said, "Do you really think they carry it to that level of conscious intent?" I pointed out it was not a conjecture on my part. They have repeatedly announced their commitment to seeing that "free-market reforms" are introduced in Eastern Europe. Their economic aid is channeled almost exclusively into the private sector. The same policy holds for the monies intended for other countries. Thus, as of the end of 1995, "more than $4.5 million U.S. aid to Haiti has been put on hold because the Aristide government has failed to make progress on a program to privatize state-owned companies" (New York Times 11/25/95).

Those who suffer from conspiracy phobia are fond of saying: "Do you actually think there's a group of people sitting around in a room plotting things?" For some reason that image is assumed to be so patently absurd as to invite only disclaimers. But where else would people of power get together - on park benches or carousels? Indeed, they meet in rooms: corporate boardrooms, Pentagon command rooms, at the Bohemian Grove, in the choice dining rooms at the best restaurants, resorts, hotels, and estates, in the many conference rooms at the White House, the NSA, the CIA, or wherever. And, yes, they consciously plot - though they call it "planning" and "strategizing" - and they do so in great secrecy, often resisting all efforts at public disclosure. No one confabulates and plans more than political and corporate elites and their hired specialists. To make the world safe for those who own it, politically active elements of the owning class have created a national security state that expends billions of dollars and enlists the efforts of vast numbers of people.

Yet there are individuals who ask with patronizing, incredulous smiles, do you really think that the people at the top have secret agendas, are aware of their larger interests, and talk to each other about them? To which I respond, why would they not? This is not to say that every corporate and political elite is actively dedicated to working for the higher circles of power and property. Nor are they infallible or always correct in their assessments and tactics or always immediately aware of how their interests are being affected by new situations. But they are more attuned and more capable of advancing their vast interests than most other social groups.

The alternative is to believe that the powerful and the privileged are somnambulists, who move about oblivious to questions of power and privilege; that they always tell us the truth and have nothing to hide even when they hide so much; that although most of us ordinary people might consciously try to pursue our own interests, wealthy elites do not; that when those at the top employ force and violence around the world it is only for the laudable reasons they profess; that when they arm, train, and finance covert actions in numerous countries, and then fail to acknowledge their role in such deeds, it is because of oversight or forgetfulness or perhaps modesty; and that it is merely a coincidence how the policies of the national security state so consistently serve the interests of the transnational corporations and the capital-accumulation system throughout the world.

Kennedy and the Left Critics

In the winter of 1991-92 Oliver Stone's film JFK revived popular interest in the question of President John Kennedy's assassination. As noted in part I of this article, the mainstream media launched a protracted barrage of invective against the movie. Conservatives and liberals closed ranks to tell the public there was no conspiracy to murder the president for such things do not happen in the United States.

Unfortunately, some writers normally identified as on the Left have rejected any suggestion that conspiracy occurred. While the rightists and centrists were concerned about preserving the legitimacy of existing institutions and keeping people from seeing the gangster nature of the state, the leftists had different concerns, though it was not always clear what these were.

Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others challenge the notion that Kennedy was assassinated for intending to withdraw from Vietnam or for threatening to undo the CIA or end the cold war. Such things could not have led to his downfall, they argue, because Kennedy was a cold warrior, pro-CIA, and wanted a military withdrawal from Vietnam only with victory. Chomsky claims that the change of administration that came with JFK's assassination had no appreciable effect on policy. In fact, the massive ground war ordered by Johnson and the saturation bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos ordered by Nixon represented a dramatic departure from Kennedy's policy. On some occasions, Chomsky says he refuses to speculate: "As for what JFK might have done [had he lived], I have nothing to say." Other times he goes on to speculate that Kennedy would not have "reacted differently to changing situations than his close advisers" and "would have persisted in his commitment to strengthen and enhance the status of the CIA" (Z Magazine, 10/92 and 1/93).

The evidence we have indicates that Kennedy observed Cambodian neutrality and negotiated a cease-fire and a coalition government in Laos, which the CIA refused to honor. We also know that the surviving Kennedy, Robert, broke with the Johnson administration over Vietnam and publicly stated that his brother's administration had committed serious mistakes. Robert moved with the tide of opinion, evolving into a Senate dove and then a peace candidate for the presidency, before he too was murdered. The two brothers worked closely together and were usually of like mind. While this does not provide reason enough to conclude that John Kennedy would have undergone a transition comparable to Robert's, it still might give us pause before asserting that JFK was destined to follow in the direction taken by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

In the midst of this controversy, Chomsky wrote a whole book arguing that JFK had no intention of withdrawing from Vietnam without victory. Actually, Kennedy said different things at different times, sometimes maintaining that we could not simply abandon Vietnam, other times that it ultimately would be up to the Vietnamese to fight their own war.1

One of Kennedy's closest aides, Kenneth O'Donnell, wrote that the president planned to withdraw from Vietnam after the 1964 elections. According to Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who headed military support for the clandestine operations of the CIA, Kennedy dictated "the rich parts" of NSAM 263, calling for the withdrawal not only of all U.S. troops but all Americans, meaning CIA officers and agents too. Prouty reflects that the president thereby signed "his own death warrant." The Army newspaper Stars and Stripes ran a headline: "President Says - All Americans Out by 1965." According to Prouty: "The Pentagon was outraged. JFK was a curse word in the corridors."

Concentrating on the question of withdrawal, Chomsky says nothing about the president's unwillingness to escalate into a ground war. On that crucial point all Chomsky offers is a speculation ascribed to Roger Hilsman that Kennedy might well have introduced U.S. ground troops in South Vietnam. In fact, the same Hilsman, who served as Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, the officer responsible for Vietnam, noted in a long letter to the New York Times (1/20/92) that in 1963 "President Kennedy was determined not to let Vietnam become an American war - that is, he was determined not to send U.S. combat troops (as opposed to advisers) to fight in Vietnam nor to bomb North Vietnam." Other Kennedy aides such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and General Maxwell Taylor made the same point. Taylor said, "The last thing he [Kennedy] wanted was to put in our ground forces . . . I don't recall anyone who was strongly against [the recommendation], except one man and that was the President." Kennedy opposed the kind of escalation embarked upon soon after his death by Lyndon Johnson, who increased U.S. troops in Vietnam from 17,000 to approximately 250,000 and committed them to an all-out ground war.

Kennedy and the CIA

Chomsky argues that the CIA would have had no grounds for wanting to kill JFK, because he was a dedicated counterinsurgent cold warrior. Chomsky arrives at this conclusion by assuming that the CIA had the same reading of events in 1963 that he has today. But entrenched power elites are notorious for not seeing the world the way left analysts do. To accept Chomsky's assumptions we would need a different body of data from that which he and others offer, data that focuses not on the Kennedy administration's interventionist pronouncements and policies but on the more private sentiments that festered in intelligence circles and related places in 1963.

To offer a parallel: We might be of the opinion that the New Deal did relatively little for working people and that Franklin Roosevelt actually was a tool of the very interests he publicly denounced as "economic royalists." From this we might conclude that the plutocrats had much reason to support FDR's attempts to save big business from itself. But most plutocrats dammed "that man in the White House" as a class traitor. To determine why, you would have to look at how they perceived the New Deal in those days, not at how we think it should be evaluated today.

In fact, President Kennedy was not someone the CIA could tolerate, and the feeling was mutual. JFK told one of his top officials that he wanted "to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds" (New York Times, 4/25/66). He closed the armed CIA camps that were readying for a second Bay of Pigs invasion and took a number of other steps designed to bring the Agency under control. He fired its most powerful and insubordinate leaders, Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Charles Cabell, and Deputy Director for Plans Richard Bissell. He tried to reduce its powers and jurisdiction and set strict limits as to its future actions, and he appointed a high-level committee to investigate the CIA's past misdeeds.

In 1963, CIA officials, Pentagon brass, anti-Castro Cuban émigrés, and assorted other right-wingers, including FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover, hated JFK and did not believe he could be trusted with the nation's future. They referred to him as "that delinquent in the White House." Roger Craig records the comments of numerous Dallas police officers who wanted to see Kennedy done away with. Several years ago, on a San Francisco talk show on station KGO, I heard a listener call in as follows: "this is the first time I'm saying this. I worked for Army intelligence. In 1963 I was in Japan, and the accepted word around then was that Kennedy would be killed because he was messing with the intelligence community. When word came of his death, all I could hear was delighted comments like 'We got the bastard'."

In his book First Hand Knowledge, CIA operative Robert Morrow noted the hatred felt by CIA officers regarding Kennedy's "betrayal" in not sending the U.S. military into the Bay of Pigs fiasco. One high-level CIA Cuban émigré, Eladio del Valle, told Morrow less than two weeks before the assassination: "I found out about it last night. Kennedy's going to get it in Dallas."2 Morrow also notes that CIA director Richard Helms, "knew that someone in the Agency was involved" in the Kennedy assassination, "either directly or indirectly, in the act itself - someone who would be in a high and sensitive position . . . Helms did cover up any CIA involvement in the presidential assassination."

Several years after JFK's murder, President Johnson told White House aide Marvin Watson that he "was convinced that there was a plot in connection with the assassination" and that the CIA had something to do with it (Washington Post, 12/13/77). And Robert Kennedy repeatedly made known his suspicions that the CIA had a hand in the murder of his brother.

JFK's enemies in the CIA, the Pentagon, and elsewhere fixed on his refusal to provide air coverage for the Bay of Pigs, his unwillingness to go into Indochina with massive ground forces, his no-invasion guarantee to Krushchev on Cuba, his overtures for a rapprochement with Castro and professed willingness to tolerate countries with different economic systems in the Western hemisphere, his atmospheric-test-ban treaty with Moscow, his American University speech calling for reexamination of U.S. cold war attitudes toward the Soviet Union, his antitrust suit against General Electric, his curtailing of the oil-depletion allowance, his fight with U.S. Steel over price increases, his challenge to the Federal Reserve Board's multibillion-dollar monopoly control of the nation's currency,3 his warm reception at labor conventions, and his call for racial equality. These things may not have been enough for some on the Left but they were far too much for many on the Right.

Left Confusions and the Warren Commission

Erwin Knoll, erstwhile editor of the Progressive, was anther left critic who expressed hostility toward the conspiracy thesis and Oliver Stone's movie in particular. Knoll admitted he had no idea who killed Kennedy, but this did not keep him from asserting that Stone's JFK was "manipulative" and provided false answers. If Knoll had no idea who killed Kennedy, how could he conclude that the film was false?

Knoll said Stone's movie was "a melange of fact and fiction" (Progressive, 3/92). To be sure, some of the dramatization was fictionalized - but regarding the core events relating to Clay Shaw's perjury, eyewitness reports at Dealey Plaza, the behavior of U.S. law officers, and other suspicious happenings, the movie remained faithful to the facts unearthed by serious investigators.

In a show of flexibility, Knoll allows that "the Warren Commission did a hasty, slipshod job" of investigation. Here too he only reveals his ignorance. In fact, the Commission sat for fifty-one long sessions over a period of several months, much longer than most major investigations. It compiled twenty-six volumes of testimony and evidence. It had the investigative resources of the FBI and CIA at its disposal, along with its own professional team. Far from being hasty and slipshod, it painstakingly crafted theories that moved toward a foreordained conclusion. From the beginning, it asked only a limited set of questions that seemed to assume Oswald's guilt as the lone assassin.

The Warren Commission set up six investigative panels to look into such things as Oswald's background, his activities in past years and on the day of the assassination, Jack Ruby's background, and his activities on the day he killed Oswald. As Mark Lane notes, there was a crying need for a seventh panel, one that would try to discover who killed President Kennedy. The commission never saw the need for that undertaking, having already made up its mind.

While supposedly dedicated to bringing the truth to light, the Warren Commission operated in secrecy. The minutes of its meetings were classified top secret, and hundred of thousands of documents and other evidence were sealed for seventy-five years. The Commission failed to call witnesses who heard and saw people shooting from behind the fence on the grassy knoll. It falsely recorded the testimony of certain witnesses, as they were to complain later on, and reinterpreted the testimony of others. All this took careful effort. A "hasty and slipshod" investigation would show some randomness in its errors. But the Commission's distortions consistently moved in the same direction in pursuit of a prefigured hypothesis.

Erwin Knoll talks disparagingly of the gullible U.S. public and says he "despises" Oliver Stone for playing on that gullibility. In fact, the U.S. public has been anything but gullible. It has not swallowed the official explanation the way some of the left critics have. Surveys show that 78 percent of the public say they believe there was a conspiracy. Both Cockburn in the Nation and Chomsky in Z Magazine dismiss this finding by noting that over 70 percent of the people also believe in miracles. But the fact that people might be wrong about one thing does not mean they are wrong about everything. Chomsky and Cockburn are themselves evidence of that.

In any case, the comparison is between two opposite things. Chomsky and Cockburn are comparing the public's gullibility about miracles with its unwillingness to be gullible about the official line that has been fed to them for thirty years. If anyone is gullible it is Alexander Cockburn who devoted extra column space in the Nation to support the Warren Commission's tattered theory about a magic bullet that could hit both Kennedy and Connolley while changing direction in mid-air and remaining in pristine condition.

Chomsky says that it is a "curious fact that no trace of the wide-ranging conspiracy appears in the internal record, and nothing has leaked" and "credible direct evidence is lacking" (Z Magazine, 1/93, and letter to me, 12/15/92). But why would participants in a conspiracy of this magnitude risk everything by maintaining an "internal record" (whatever that is) about the actual murder? Why would they risk their lives by going public? Many of the participants would know only a small part of the picture. But all of them would have a keen sense of the immensely powerful and sinister forces they would be up against were they to become too talkative. In fact, a good number of those who agreed to cooperate with investigators met untimely deaths. Finally, what credible direct evidence was ever offered to prove that Oswald was the assassin?

Chomsky is able to maintain his criticism that no credible evidence has come to light only by remaining determinedly unacquainted with the mountain of evidence that has been uncovered. There has even been a decision in a U.S. court of law, Hunt vs. Liberty Lobby, in which a jury found that President Kennedy had indeed been murdered by a conspiracy involving, in part, CIA operatives E. Howard Hunt and Frank Sturgis, and FBI informant Jack Ruby.4

Nixon advisor H.R. Haldeman admits in his memoir: "After Kennedy was killed, the CIA launched a fantastic coverup." And "In a chilling parallel to their coverup at Watergate, the CIA literally erased any connection between Kennedy's assassination and the CIA."

Indeed, if there was no conspiracy, why so much secrecy and so much cover-up? If Oswald did it, what is there to hide and why do the CIA and FBI still resist a full undoctored disclosure of the hundreds of thousands of pertinent documents? Would they not be eager to reveal everything and thereby put to rest doubts about Oswald's guilt and suspicions about their own culpability?

The remarkable thing about Erwin Knoll, Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others on the Left who attack the Kennedy conspiracy findings is they remain invincibly ignorant of the critical investigations that have been carried out. I have repeatedly pointed this out in exchanges with them and they never deny it. They have not read any of the many studies by independent researchers who implicate the CIA in a conspiracy to kill the president and in the even more protracted and extensive conspiracy to cover up the murder. But this does not prevent them from dismissing the conspiracy charge in the most general and unsubstantiated terms.

Let's Hear It for Structuralism

When pressed on the matter, left critics like Cockburn and Chomsky allow that some conspiracies do exist but they usually are of minor importance, a distraction from the real problems of institutional and structural power. A structural analysis, as I understand it, maintains that events are determined by the larger configurations of power and interest and not by the whims of happenstance or the connivance of a few incidental political actors. There is no denying that larger structural trends impose limits on policy and exert strong pressures on leaders. But this does not mean that all important policy is predetermined. Short of betraying fundamental class interests, different leaders can pursue different courses, the effects of which are not inconsequential to the lives of millions of people. Thus, it was not foreordained that the B-52 carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos conducted by Nixon would have happened if Kennedy, or even Johnson or Humphrey, had been president. If left critics think these things make no difference in the long run, they better not tell that to the millions of Indochinese who grieve for their lost ones and for their own shattered lives.

It is an either-or world for those on the Left who harbor an aversion for any kind of conspiracy investigation: either you are a structuralist in your approach to politics or a "conspiracist" who reduces historical developments to the machinations of secret cabals, thereby causing us to lose sight of the larger systemic forces. As Chomsky notes: "However unpleasant and difficult it may be, there is no escape from the need to confront the reality of institutions and the policies and actions they largely shape." (Z Magazine, 10/92).

I trust that one of the institutions he has in mind is the CIA. In most of its operations, the CIA is by definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies? At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.

As I pointed out in published exchanges with Cockburn and Chomsky (neither of whom responded to the argument), conspiracy and structure are not mutually exclusive dynamics. A structural analysis that a priori rules out conspiracy runs the risk of not looking at the whole picture. Conspiracies are a component of the national security political system, not deviations from it. Ruling elites use both conspiratorial covert actions and overtly legitimating procedures at home and abroad. They finance everything from electoral campaigns and publishing houses to mobsters and death squads. They utilize every conceivable stratagem, including killing one of their own if they perceive him to be a barrier to their larger agenda of making the world safe for those who own it.

The conspiracy findings in regard to the JFK assassination, which the movie JFK brought before a mass audience, made many people realize what kind of a gangster state we have in this country and what it does around the world. In investigating the JFK conspiracy, researchers are not looking for an "escape" from something "unpleasant and difficult," as Chomsky would have it, rather they are raising grave questions about the nature of state power in what is supposed to be a democracy.

A structuralist position should not discount the role of human agency in history. Institutions are not self-generating reified forces. The "great continuities of corporate and class interest" (Cockburn's phrase) are not disembodied things that just happen of their own accord. Neither empires nor national security institutions come into existence in a fit of absent-mindedness. They are actualized not only by broad conditional causes but by the conscious efforts of live people. Evidence for this can be found in the very existence of a national security state whose conscious function is to recreate the conditions of politico-economic hegemony.

Having spent much of my life writing books that utilize a structuralist approach, I find it ironic to hear about the importance of structuralism from those who themselves do little or no structural analysis of the U.S. political system and show little theoretical grasp of the structural approach. Aside from a few Marxist journals, one finds little systemic or structural analysis in left periodicals including ones that carry Chomsky and Cockburn. Most of these publications focus on particular issues and events - most of which usually are of far lesser magnitude than the Kennedy assassination.

Left publications have given much attention to conspiracies such as Watergate, the FBI Cointelpro, Iran-Contra, Iraq-gate, CIA drugs-for-guns trade, BCCI, and savings-and-loans scandals. It is never explained why these conspiracies are important while the FJK assassination is not. Chip Berlet repeatedly denounces conspiracy investigations while himself spending a good deal of time investigating Lyndon LaRouche's fraudulent financial dealings, conspiracies for which LaRouche went to prison. Berlet never explains why the LaRouche conspiracy is a subject worthy of investigation but not the JFK conspiracy.

G. William Domhoff points out: "If 'conspiracy' means that these [ruling class] men are aware of their interests, know each other personally, meet together privately and off the record, and try to hammer out a consensus on how to anticipate and react to events and issues, then there is some conspiring that goes on in CFR [the Council for Foreign Relations], not to mention the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Council, the National Security Council, and the Central Intelligence Agency." After providing this useful description of institutional conspiracy, Domhoff then conjures up a caricature that often clouds the issue: "We all have a tremendous tendency to want to get caught up in believing that there's some secret evil cause for all of the obvious ills of the world." Conspiracy theories "encourage a belief that if we get rid of a few bad people, everything will be well in the world."

To this simplistic notion Peter Dale Scott responds: "I believe that a true understanding of the Kennedy assassination will lead not to a few bad people but to the institutional and parapolitical arrangements which constitute the way we are systematically governed." In sum, national security state conspiracies are components of our political structure, not deviations from it.

Why Care About JFK?

The left critics argue that people who are concerned about the JFK assassination are romanticizing Kennedy and squandering valuable energy. Chomsky claims that the Nazi-like appeals of rightist propagandists have a counterpart on the Left: "It's the conspiracy business. Hang around California, for example, and the left has just been torn to shreds because they see CIA conspiracies . . . secret governments [behind] the Kennedy assassination. This kind of stuff has just wiped out a large part of the left" (Against the Current 56, 1993). Chomsky offers no evidence to support this bizarre statement.

The left critics fear that people will be distracted or misled into thinking well of Kennedy. Cockburn argues that Kennedy was nothing more than a servant of the corporate class, so who cares how he was killed (Nation 3/9/92 and 5/18/92). The left critics' hatred of Kennedy clouds their judgment about the politcal significance of his murder. They mistake the low political value of the victim with the high political importance of the assassination, its implications for democracy, and the way it exposes the gangster nature of the state.

In 1894 Captain Alfred Dreyfus was a conservative militarist. Clemenceau once conjectured that if the man's name had not been Dreyfus, he would have been an anti-Dreyfusard. Does that mean that the political struggle waged around l'affaire Dreyfus was a waste of time? The issue quickly became larger than Dreyfus, drawn between Right and Left, between those who stood with the army and the anti-Semites and those who stood with the republic and justice.

Likewise Benigno Aquino, a member of the privileged class in the Philippines, promised no great structural changes, being even more conservative than Kennedy. Does this mean the Filipino people should have dismissed the conspiracy that led to his assassination as an event of no great moment, an internal ruling-class affair? Instead, they used it as ammunition to expose the hated Marcos regime.

Archbishop Romero of El Salvador was a member of the Salvadoran aristocracy. He could not have risen to the top of the church hierarchy otherwise. But after he began voicing critical remarks about the war and concerned comments about the poor, he was assassinated. If he had not been murdered, I doubt that Salvadoran history would have been much different. Does this mean that solidarity groups in this country and El Salvador should not have tried to make his murder an issue that revealed the homicidal gangster nature of the Salvadoran state? (I posed these questions to Chomsky in an exchange in Z Magazine, but in his response, he did not address them.)

Instead of seizing the opportunity, some left writers condescendingly ascribe a host of emotional needs to those who are concerned about the assassination cover-up. According to Max Holland, a scribe who seems to be on special assignment to repudiate the JFK conspiracy: "The nation is gripped by a myth . . . divorced from reality," and "Americans refuse to accept their own history." In Z Magazine (10/92) Chomsky argued that "at times of general malaise and social breakdown, it is not uncommon for millenarian movements to arise." He saw two such movements in 1992: the response to Ross Perot and what he called the "Kennedy revival" or "Camelot revival." Though recognizing that the audiences differ, he lumps them together as "the JFK-Perot enthusiasms." Public interest in the JFK assassination, he says, stems from a "Camelot yearning" and the "yearning for a lost Messiah."

I, for one, witnessed evidence of a Perot movement involving millions of people but I saw no evidence of a Kennedy revival, certainly no millenarian longing for Camelot or a "lost Messiah." However, there has been a revived interest in the Kennedy assassination, which is something else. Throughout the debate, Chomsky repeatedly assumes that those who have been troubled about the assassination must be admirers of Kennedy. In fact, some are, but many are not. Kennedy was killed in 1963; people who today are in their teens, twenties, thirties, and forties - most Americans - were not old enough to have developed a political attachment to him.

The left critics psychologize about our illusions, our false dreams, our longings for Messiahs and father figures, or inability to face unpleasant realities the way they can. They deliver patronizing admonitions about our "conspiracy captivation" and "Camelot yearnings." They urge us not to escape into fantasy. They are the cognoscenti who guide us and out-left us on the JFK assassination, a subject about which they know next to nothing and whose significance they have been unable to grasp. Having never read the investigative literature, they dismiss the investigators as irrelevant or irrational. To cloak their own position with intellectual respectability, they fall back on an unpracticed structuralism.

It is neither "Kennedy worship" nor "Camelot yearnings" that motivates our inquiry, but a desire to fight back against manipulative and malignant institutions so that we might begin to develop a system of accountable rule worthy of the name democracy.

________________________________

1 Kennedy's intent to withdraw is documented in the Gravel edition of the Pentagon Papers ("Phased Withdrawal of U.S. Forces, 1962-1964," vol. 2, pp. 160-200). It refers to "the Accelerated Model Plan . . .. for a rapid phase out of the bulk of U.S. military personnel" and notes that the administration was "serious about limiting the U.S. commitment and throwing the burden onto the South Vietnamese themselves." But "all the planning for phase-out . . . was either ignored or caught up in the new thinking of January to March 1964" (p. 163) - the new thinking that came after JFK was killed and Johnson became president.

2 Del Valle's name came up the day after JFK's assassination when Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade announced at a press conference that Oswald was a member of del Valle's anti-communist "Free Cuba Committee." Wade was quickly contradicted from the audience by Jack Ruby, who claimed that Oswald was a member of the leftish Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Del Valle, who was one of several people that New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison sought out in connection with the JFK assassination, was killed the same day that Dave Ferrie, another suspect met a suspicious death. When found in Miami, del Valle's body showed evidence of having been tortured, bludgeoned, and shot.

3 The bankers of the Federal Reserve System print paper money, then lend it to the government at an interest. Kennedy signed an executive order issuing over $4 billion in currency notes through the U.S. Treasury, thus bypassing the Fed's bankers and the hundreds of millions of dollars in interest that would normally be paid out to them. These "United States Notes" were quickly withdrawn after JFK's assassination.

4 See Mark Lane, Plausible Denial; Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK? (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1991). For testimony of another participant see Robert Morrow: First Hand Knowledge: How I Participated in the CIA-Mafia Murder of President Kennedy (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1992).

The Israel Lobby Controversy

Elite Factionalism or Elite Conspiracy Theory?

“The criticism surrounding The Israel Lobby paper was sparked by the fact that two card-carrying members of the American intellectual establishment finally pointed out the elephant in the room.”

by Will Banyan

http://www.paranoiamagazine.com/israellobby.html

The publication in March 2006 of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, as a working paper for the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and as an article in the London Review of Books, aroused much comment in the American media and academia -- most condemnatory. The authors, academics John Mearsheimer from the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt from Harvard University, have had their work widely dismissed as being both conspiratorial and anti-Semitic.

"[T]his paper is anti-Semitic" declared Professor Eliot Cohen from Johns Hopkins University, in the Washington Post (April 5, 2006); nor was it "research in any serious sense," claimed Marty Peretz in The New Republic, but "the labor of obsessives with dark and conspiratorial minds." According to Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, the authors shared with white supremacist David Duke "the same interest in vilifying Jewish leaders and spouting conspiracy theories about Zionist plots against American interests" (Dershowitz 41). Even Stephen Zunes, a left-wing critic of U.S. support for Israel, implied that in subscribing to an "exaggerated claim of Jewish clout," Mearsheimer and Walt were "flirting with anti-Semitism" (Zunes 2006a, 15).

At the same time, there were some observers who were clearly overjoyed at the appearance of The Israel Lobby as it seemed to confirm their belief that the U.S. is, in fact, ruled by a "Zionist Occupation Government," or some other sinister Jewish cabal. David Duke, for example, praised it for having "told the truth about the proverbial gorilla in the room: the Zionist lobby and its enormous political and media power" (Duke 2006). The Israel Lobby, claimed a commentator for Rense.com, left "absolutely no doubt that Israel not only controls our entire government, our Pentagon, our foreign policy and our political parties, but our media as well" (Lang 2006).

Missing from these critiques and the praise - most of which represented the paper as a conspiratorial account of Jewish influence over U.S. foreign policy - was any acknowledgement of Mearsheimer and Walt’s careful caveats to the contrary. Some were explicit: "the Lobby’s activities are not a conspiracy of the sort depicted in tracts like the Protocols of the Elders of Zion." To be sure, Mearsheimer and Walt attribute to the Lobby an "ability to manipulate the American political system," but they stress that it is not "a unified movement with central leadership," but an ethnic lobby; one of many, though arguably the most successful (Mearsheimer and Walt 14-16).

According to Walt, the firestorm of criticism surrounding The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy was not sparked by what they said, but by "the fact that two card-carrying members of the American intellectual establishment finally pointed out the elephant in the room" (Washington Times, August 29, 2006). But why did they say it?

Aside from viewing The Israel Lobby controversy as confirming the unpalatable anti-Semitic nightmares of David Duke and others, there are from a conspiratorial perspective at least two more plausible ways of interpreting the storm.

The first is to see The Israel Lobby as a well-crafted attempt to divert blame for the costly debacle that the invasion of Iraq has become from the rest of the Establishment, especially the oil lobby, to the age-old scapegoat, the Jews (Zunes 2006a; Peretz 2006). In this counter-narrative Israel is the victim. Consider Zunes’ commentary on Israel’s recent attack on Lebanon - a military adventure he suggests Israel instigated "largely at the behest of the United States" - where Israel is painted as a U.S. "proxy in the Middle East." Zunes contends this use of Israel "corresponds to historic anti-Semitism" with the ruling elite using the Jews as the "most visible agents of the oppressive social order," who were always "convenient scapegoats" when the elites were seeking to redirect the anger of the restive masses. So now the scapegoating continues, evident in the blame placed on the "Zionist lobby" by Establishment critics (Zunes 2006b).

The second and more plausible interpretation (in this author’s opinion) is that the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is another salvo in an ongoing struggle between competing elites for control of the War on Terror. Rather than the U.S. power-elite being a monolithic entity, the increasingly shrill dispute over The Israel Lobby paper reveals that the fissures at the highest levels of the food chain have become deep and suppurating.

Rather than being a crude attempt to unfairly smear a single ethnic lobby, there really is an Israel Lobby (as AIPAC’s own website proudly attests), which has been successful (despite some exaggerations), and not surprisingly its agenda is opposed by elements in the Establishment. The paper suggested that the usual suspects in most conspiratorial accounts of the "New World Order" -- the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderbergers -- have some serious competition when it comes to influencing American foreign policy.

Continuing on with the argument raised in an earlier piece (Banyan 2006), it is the contention of this article that while the Mearsheimer-Walt article perhaps overstates the influence of the Israel Lobby, it exposes an aspect of elite factionalism missing from most mainstream and alternative narratives of the seemingly endless War on Terror.

The Ultimate Ethnic Lobby
At 82 pages including nearly 40 pages of footnotes, The Israel Lobby is an impressive tome, though inevitably controversial due to its central contention that a lobby group based in America’s Jewish community has distorted U.S. foreign policy. Mearsheimer and Walt are unequivocal, asserting that the overall thrust of U.S. policy in the Middle East is due "almost entirely to U.S. domestic politics … especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’." In fact, they state, no other lobby groups have "managed to divert U.S. foreign policy as far from what the American national interest would otherwise suggest."

Israel, Mearsheimer and Walt point out, has been the recipient of an extraordinary amount of aid from the U.S., totaling some $140 billion since the early 1970s. The U.S. has also given Israel privileged access to its intelligence and turned a blind eye towards its covert nuclear program. Yet despite this generous aid, which far exceeds that given to poorer countries, Israel has become a "strategic burden" to America. Continuing U.S. support for Israel has antagonized Arab oil states and has been one of the key factors in motivating terrorists, especially Osama bin Laden, to attack Americans at home and abroad (Mearsheimer and Walt 4-5).

Despite these costs, U.S. support is assured because of the "unmatched power of the Israel Lobby," described as a "loose coalition of individuals and organizations" which actively works "to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction" (p. 14). The "most powerful and well-known" organization in the Israel Lobby is the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), ranked by members of Congress in 1997 as the second most powerful lobby active in Washington DC. AIPAC is a "de facto agent for a foreign government" claim Mearsheimer and Walt, which has a "stranglehold on the U.S. Congress" (pp. 15, 18).

Mearsheimer and Walt assert that AIPAC’s power stems from its ability to "reward legislators and congressional candidates who support its agenda, and to punish those who challenge it." Others have confirmed this contention. Michael Massing, writing in the New York Review of Books, for instance, notes that AIPAC has a "formidable network of supporters throughout the U.S.," comprising 100,000 members, nine regional offices, ten satellite offices, a Washington office with 100 staff and an annual budget of $47 million (Massing 67). But according to Massing, AIPAC’s real power lies not in its direct lobbying of Congressmen, but in its ability to control the flow of campaign financing:

A candidate will contact AIPAC and express strong sympathies with Israel. AIPAC will point out that it doesn't endorse candidates but will offer to introduce him to people who do. Someone affiliated with AIPAC will be assigned to the candidate to act as a contact person. Checks for $500 or $1,000 from pro-Israel donors will be bundled together and provided to the candidate with a clear indication of the donors' political views (p. 67).

Failing to toe the pro-Israel line, however, can cut short a Congressional career; those candidates who challenge AIPAC "can find their funds suddenly dry up," while their opponents receive generous funding from pro-Israeli sources (Massing 67). But the Lobby is not just AIPAC, it's also represented by a host of think tanks in Washington DC. Aside from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, founded by the Lobby in 1985, "pro-Israel forces" have, according to Mearsheimer and Walt:

…established a commanding presence at the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, the Center for Security Policy, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). These think tanks employ few, if any, critics of U.S. support for Israel (pp. 21-22).

The Lobby also has "significant leverage over the executive branch," partly due to the disproportionate influence of Jewish voters and financial contributors on presidential elections (Mearsheimer and Walt 18). Another factor is the presence of "fervently" pro-Israel individuals in important positions in the executive branch - such as Martin Indyk and Dennis Ross during the Clinton Administration; and Elliot Abrams, John Bolton, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz in the Bush Administration - while opponents are generally excluded (Mearsheimer and Walt 17-19).

To achieve its goals - described by Massing as, "a powerful Israel free to occupy the territory it chooses; enfeebled Palestinians; and unquestioning support for Israel by the United States" - the Lobby, especially AIPAC, makes a lot of "background noise," mobilizing the media and Congress to pressure the White House into pursuing policies favorable to Israel (Massing 67-68). There are numerous examples:

  • In his Memoirs, President Nixon blamed an "unyielding and shortsighted pro-Israeli attitude prevalent in large and influential segments of the American Jewish community, Congress, the media, and in intellectual and cultural circles," for undermining his attempt to create a more "balanced" Middle East policy (p. 481).
  • In 1975 President Ford was forced to retreat from his six-month suspension of aid to Israel after a campaign by AIPAC, including a letter signed by 76 senators "confirming their support for Israel" (Blankfort 2003, pp. 4-5).
  • AIPAC has been linked to the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, a piece of legislation apparently designed to disrupt the Oslo accords by trying to shift the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem (Massing, pp. 67-68).
  • In a 2005 speech, former President George H. W. Bush suggested AIPAC was partly to blame for his electoral defeat in 1992 by campaigning against him (Desch 2006, p. 28).

Perhaps the greatest achievement of the Lobby, according to Mearsheimer and Walt, has been the invasion of Iraq in 2003. They assert that "pressure" from the Israel Lobby was a "critical factor" behind the invasion, which was part of a "larger plan to reorder the Middle East"; in fact, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was "motivated in good part by a desire to make Israel more secure," rather than a push to dominate the region’s oil. They note that a number of Bush Administration officials, including Perle, Feith and David Wurmser, were co-authors of the Clean Break report of 1996 for then Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu which recommended ousting Saddam (Mearsheimer and Walt 30-35).

The Lobby also works to suppress commentary critical of Israel, including manipulating the media, stifling debate on university campuses, and labeling as anti-Semites those who suggest the pro-Israel Lobby has excessive influence. "In fact," they observe, "anyone who says that there is an Israel Lobby runs the risk of being charged with anti-Semitism" (Mearsheimer and Walt 6, 24). It seems to have been self-fulfilling prophecy. According to one observer, the Lobby "produced an attempt to silence discussion and discredit the authors, sometimes employing character assassination and the technique of guilt by association" (Pfaff 2006).

Mearsheimer and Walt have also been tarred as propagandists in the pay of the Arabs. Some overtly pro-Israel commentators linked publication of The Israel Lobby to a $20 million grant to Harvard from Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal. More recently, Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, derided Mearsheimer and Walt as "handmaidens of the Arab propaganda machine" for speaking at an event organised by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (Jewish Telegraph, August 29, 2006).

The Elephant in the Room
The Mearsheimer-Walt paper is by no means the first attempt by Establishment representatives to criticize the Israel Lobby. In 2002, for example, Michael Lind, a former editor of The National Interest, wrote in Prospect magazine about the "disproportionate influence of the Israel lobby," claiming that its efforts were "distort[ing] U.S. foreign policy." Two years later, Anatol Lieven, a former journalist with the London Times and at the time a fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, criticised the Lobby in his book America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism (2004).

Other critics of note have included George W. Ball, an Undersecretary of State during the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations, who attacked the Lobby in his book The Passionate Attachment (1992), arguing that it had "distorted America's policies and imposed an enormous burden on the nation's economy." No friend of the Lobby, Ball once likened members of Congress to "trained poodles," beholden to Israel’s interests, who would "jump dutifully through hoops held by Israel’s lobby" (quoted in Findley, p.19). Ball’s other credential was as one of the founding members of the Bilderberg group; in fact, he attended every Bilderberg meeting but one from 1954 until his death in 1994 (Ball 52-53).

It was through Bilderberg that Ball first developed his association with another occasional enemy of the Israel Lobby, mega-plutocrat David Rockefeller. Self-confessed believer in a "more integrated global political and economic structure: one world," it was perhaps inevitable that Rockefeller would come to grief with the more limited and parochial objectives of the Israel Lobby; though it would also suit his interests to divert blame for dubious policy choices to such a grouping.

Thus in Rockefeller's 2002 Memoirs, we find him agreeing with "expert" opinion that the "end of détente" could be traced to the Jackson-Vanik Amendment of 1972, which demanded the Soviets lift all restrictions on Jewish emigration in exchange for Most Favored Nation trading status (Rockefeller 236). That Amendment -- conceived by neo-con icon Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson in consultation with an “informal group on Capitol Hill" led by Perle that was “intensely supportive of Israel” (Isaacson 612) -- was, in Rockefeller’s view, a "shortsighted congressional action" (Rockefeller 236).

Rockefeller’s autobiography is filled with details of his many meetings with Arab leaders, but he mentions relatively few visits to Israel. In fact, as "one of relatively few Americans" with access to Arab leaders during the early 1970s - due to his role as President of Chase Manhattan - David Rockefeller boasts he became a "diplomatic go-between," passing messages between the White House and the Arab world (Rockefeller 272).

This role soon got him into trouble with the Israel Lobby. A New York Times report claimed that on December 9, 1969, David Rockefeller and a group of oil executives had allegedly prevailed upon Nixon to adopt a "pro-Arab" position. Rockefeller rejects this characterization, claiming they merely pushed Nixon for a "more balanced U.S. policy" in the Middle East. Secretary of State William Rogers later called on Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders in return for a binding peace with the Arabs. But, laments Rockefeller, Israel "rejected it out of hand" and announced it would open the Arab part of Jerusalem to settlement (Rockefeller 276-78).

A bitter Rockefeller suspected they had been "set-up" by Nixon to be the "scapegoats" if the public turned against Nixon’s policy (Rockefeller 278). But worse was to follow when the Chase bank was "swamped" with letters and prominent visitors from New York’s Jewish community complaining about Rockefeller’s "alleged anti-Israeli bias." A boycott was organized by "several Jewish businessmen" and a "number of important accounts were withdrawn." In January 1970, David Rockefeller issued a public statement clarifying his position, announcing his new found belief the U.S. "must to do everything it can" to support Israel (Rockefeller 279).

There was more to Rockefeller’s reversal than meets the eye. Among those complainants Rockefeller met with was Democrat Congressman Ed Koch, who waged a public campaign against the plutocrat, seeking confirmation that he had advised Nixon to adopt a policy "favorable to the Arabs." Koch claims David Rockefeller admitted to making the offending statement, though he insisted it was done in the interest of the U.S., not because of the oil. Informing the plutocrat that his brother, Nelson Rockefeller, had just come out in unequivocal support of Israel, Koch declared his intention to make a public statement about their meeting (Koch). It has been alleged that Nelson’s support for Israel was not heartfelt, but was due to the Israeli Mossad blackmailing him for consorting with South American fascists and trading with the enemy during World War II (Loftus and Arons 166-171). In the game of public relations Rockefeller had been checkmated.

David Rockefeller's setback was temporary. He has challenged the Israel Lobby’s consensus more than most. An example is his 1999 visit to Israel and the Gaza Strip as part of a CFR delegation, where he met with then Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Rockefeller’s account artfully denigrates Israel. He complains of being detained at the border crossing into Gaza by Israeli soldiers for "more than an hour." He describes Arafat as a "charming man," and Gaza as a "ghetto" and "one of the most forlorn places" he had ever visited. As for his Israeli hosts, Barak was a "self-confident, assertive man" who explains why Arafat’s demands will be rejected; but whose replacement by the "hardliner" Ariel Sharon threatens "an even wider war" (Rockefeller 409-410).

The Fight Continues
If we pursue this notion of elite factionalism, we might note the consistency of the links among those who have taken issue with the Israel Lobby. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell, for example, not only described the neo-cons as "fucking crazies" (quoted in Naughtie, p. 127), but repeatedly suggested their first loyalty was to Israel. Powell reportedly referred to most of Rumsfeld’s team as the "JINSA crowd" (LA Times, 9 Oct. 2006), and in his exit interview with Bush described Feith as a "card carrying member of the Likud Party" (Packer 445). Powell, no doubt by mere coincidence, is on record publicly thanking the Lobby’s other antagonist, David Rockefeller, for being his "great mentor."

Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell’s chief of staff at the State Department, and, since his own retirement, an outspoken critic of the "cabal" around Cheney, has lauded Mearsheimer and Walt’s thesis as containing "blinding flashes of the obvious." Wilkerson has reportedly assigned the paper to his students at George Washington University and the College of William and Mary "for discussion" (Amos 2006).

Other odd coincidences and connections also emerge. Anatol Lieven and Michael Lind, after coming under sustained criticism for their attacks on the Lobby, both found refuge at the New American Foundation (NAF). The mission of the NAF, which was founded in January 1999 and describes itself as an "independent, non-partisan, non-profit public policy institute," is to invest in "outstanding individuals and policy ideas that transcend the conventional political spectrum." Lind is currently the Whitehead Senior Fellow at the NAF. Former Deputy Secretary of State John C. Whitehead, who counts Rockefeller as one of his "old friends" (Whitehead, p.7) -- and who has also been publicly lauded as a "friend" by Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage -- is the largest individual donor to the NAF, as well as a public critic of the Bush Administration’s policies in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Whitehead also marked himself as an opponent of the Israel Lobby/neo-conservative consensus with his public and private attacks on John Bolton, back in 2004 when Bush nominated him to be Ambassador to the UN. Bolton, a former Senior Vice President at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), received enthusiastic support from AEI, JINSA and the Zionist Organization of America. In addition to the controversial efforts of Colin Powell and Richard Armitage, Whitehead personally lobbied Senators to reject Bolton’s nomination.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, long-time Rockefeller acolyte, Trilateral Commission co-founder and lead speaker at a number of NAF forums, praised Walt and Mearsheimer for performing a "public service" by "initiating a much needed public debate" on the role of the Israel Lobby (Brzezinski 63)

Uniting these figures has been their opposition to the invasion of Iraq. On the eve of the invasion, Mearsheimer and Walt (2003, 52) had derided the case for war as "flimsy," arguing instead for the continued containment of Saddam Hussein. Brzezinski had taken issue with the Bush Administration’s "demagogic fixation on Iraq" (Financial Times, Mar. 4, 2003), warning that invading Iraq may come "at too high a cost to America’s global leadership" (Washington Post, Feb. 19, 2003). And Lind (2003) found fault with Washington’s "failure to come up with a convincing rationale for the war."

Whitehead and Rockefeller also indicated disquiet, though less obviously. Sometime after the invasion, Rockefeller declared his support for Colin Powell’s failed attempt to evade war through the UN route (Banyan 2006). Whitehead was a signatory to a letter to Bush from the United Nations Association of the USA (Oct. 25, 2002), which declared its opposition to "unwarranted unilateral military action against Iraq" as a "compelling case has not been made" that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S.

The plot thickens further when we see the forces recently arrayed for and against Senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island. According to Massing, "pro-Israel forces" were "targeting" Chafee for taking "a number of positions that run counter to AIPAC’s" such as voting against the Syria Accountability Act (Massing 67). In early 2006, the founder of the Washington Political Action Committee, former AIPAC executive director Morris Amitay, told the New York Sun (Jan. 3, 2006) that they would "like to see the young Chafee retired from the Senate" as he had "one of the worst records of anyone in the Senate" when it came to "pro-Israel initiatives." WPAC had already donated $5000 dollars to Chafee’s GOP challenger, Stephen P. Laffey, whose pro-Israel stance was judged by a Rhode Island paper to be "so strong that it sometimes puts him in the minority" (Providence Journal, April 17, 2006).

As the September 12 primary loomed, it was reported that the Republicans Who Care Individual Fund, a group affiliated with the Republican Main Street Partnership, had emerged in support of Chafee, funding a $100,000 advertising campaign targeting his pro-Israel opponent, Laffey. Patrons of the fund, reported the Providence Journal (Sept. 6, 2006), were "some pillars of the old-line GOP establishment," including David Rockefeller ($25,000) and John C. Whitehead ($25,000). Whitehead was also a sponsor of a Chafee fundraiser at the Yale Club, hosted by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg on September 5, 2006. This was not enough to save Chafee in the November elections, however, and he was trounced by his Democrat opponent, Sheldon Whitehouse, who received $31,000 from pro-Israel PACs.

The Split Capstone
Speaking in Washington DC in August 2006 as guests of CAIR, Walt made the point that they never said "the Israel lobby was all powerful." It was "not some secret cabal that controls [U.S.] foreign policy"; rather, there were "countervailing forces out there, though they are much weaker, and the lobby doesn’t get its way on every single issue." Walt’s important caveats highlight something missing from both the leftist analysis, exemplified by Zunes, and the more traditional conspiratorial analysis, both of which seem to contend that the ruling elites are monolithic and unfractured.

Among conspiracists, particularly those concerned with the New World Order, the dominant assumption is that all groups are so interconnected that the same objective-- world government - must predominate. Any evidence to the contrary is usually dismissed as a contrivance designed to deceive the public, or as a grubby squabble for control of the same project. David Icke, for instance, assures us that most world leaders (Illuminati) "only appear to be in conflict for the purposes of deluding the people into a false reality" (Icke 477).

Yet indisputable evidence of elite factionalism - of the upper echelons of the food chain chasing different agendas than world government - has long been apparent. In his magnum opus, Tragedy and Hope (1966), for example, Carroll Quigley had observed how, since the 1950s, Wall Street had been challenged by the "new wealth springing up outside the eastern cities, notably in the Southwest and Far West." As early as 1964, the representatives of this "new wealth," based in oil, aviation or armaments, had engaged in a financial struggle with the "old wealth" of the East for control of the political process - and ultimately of the White House - to ensure that high government spending on military and space continued (Quigley 1245-1246). This split between the so-called East Coast "Yankees" and the "Cowboys" of the Southwest was subsequently explored at length by Kirkpatrick Sale (1975) and Carl Oglesby (1977).

Seen through the prism of elite factionalism, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is a valuable addition to this neglected field. It highlights in some detail the workings and influence of yet another private grouping that subverts democratic processes in service of a narrow agenda. Of course, some caution is necessary as the outcry over its activities is driven by elite, rather than popular, angst at losing the initiative. But to disregard it, either out of fears of being labeled as anti-Semitic or because it conflicts with pet theories, would be shortsighted.

©2006 Will Banyan. This article appeared in Paranoia issue 44, Spring 2007. Will Banyan has a graduate degree in Information Science and is a writer specializing in the political economy of globalization. He has worked for local and national governments, international organizations and the private sector. He is currently working on a revisionist history of the New World Order and an analysis of the War on Terror. Banyan's six-part series, "Rockefeller Internationalism" and four-part series "A Short History of the Round Table" were published in Nexus. His article "Outflanking the Nation-State" appears on the Paranoia website, and research papers "The Invisible Man of the New World Order: Raymond B. Fosdick" and "The Proud Internationalist: The Globalist Vision of David Rockefeller" appear at: www.martinfrost.ws/htmlfiles/third_section.html. He may be reached at banyan007@rediffmail.com.

The Israel Lobby paper may be read at the London Review of Books website (www.lrb.co.uk). See also video (and transcript) of the Sept 2006 debate at Cooper Union in NYC, “The Israel Lobby: Does it Have Too Much Influence on U.S. Foreign Policy?” (www.scribemedia.org/2006/10/11/israel-lobby/)

References
Amos, Deborah. "Paper on Israel Lobby Sparks Heated Debate," NPR -- Morning Edition, April 21, 2006. www.npr.org.

Banyan, Will. "A Neo-Con Counter-Conspiracy," Paranoia (issue 40), Winter 2006.

Bill, James A. George Ball: Behind the Scenes in U.S. Foreign Policy. Yale University Press, 1997.

Blankfort, Jeffrey. "Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel Palestine Conflict,” www.dissidentvoice.org, May 25, 2005.

Blankfort, Jeffrey. A War for Israel. (Left Curve No. 28). If Americans Knew, 2004.

Blankfort, Jeffrey. The Israel Lobby and the Left: Uneasy Questions. If Americans Knew, 2003.

Brzezinski, Zbigniew. "A Dangerous Exemption," Foreign Policy, July/August 2006.

Dershowitz, Alan. Debunking the Newest - and Oldest - Jewish Conspiracy: A Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt "Working Paper." Harvard Law School, April 2006.

Desch, Michael C. "The Myth of Abandonment: The Use and Abuse of the Holocaust Analogy," Security Studies, January 2006.

Findley, Paul. "Silence of the Poodles," Washington Report, May/June 2006, p. 19.

Icke, David. Tales from the Time Loop. Bridge of Love, 2004.

Isaacson, Walter. Kissinger: A Biography. Touchstone: New York, 1992.

Koch, Ed. Reminiscences of David Rockefeller (1976 interview), “Notable New Yorkers” in the Oral History Research Office Collection of the Columbia University Libraries (OHRO/CUL), www.columbia.edu.

Lind, Michael. "Can A Government Wage War Without Popular Support?," January 28, 2003.

Lind, Michael. "The Israel Lobby," Prospect, April 1, 2002.

Loftus, John, and Mark Aarons. The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People. St. Martin's Griffin, 1997 (Reprint).

Massing, Michael. "The Storm over the Israel Lobby," The New York Review of Books, June 8, 2006.

Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen M. The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. Harvard University, March 2006.

Mearsheimer, John J. and Walt, Stephen M. "An Unnecessary War," Foreign Policy, January/February 2003.

Naughtie, James. The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency. Pan Books, 2004.

Oglesby, Carl. The Yankee and Cowboy War: Conspiracies from Dallas to Watergate and Beyond. Berkley: Medallion Books, 1977.

Peretz, Martin. "Oil and Vinegar," The New Republic, March 10, 2006.

Quigley, Carroll. Tragedy and Hope: A History of The World in Our Time. Angriff Press, 1974.

Rockefeller, David. Memoirs. Random House, 2002.

Sale, Kirkpatrick. Power Shift: The Rise of The Southern Rim and Its Challenge to the Eastern Establishment. Random House, 1975.

Whitehead, John C. A Life in Leadership: From D-Day to Ground Zero. New America Books, 2005.

Zunes, Stephen. The Israel Lobby: How Powerful is it Really? Foreign Policy In Focus, May 16, 2006a.

Zunes, Stephen. "How Washington Goaded Israel to Invade Lebanon," Aug. 19, 2006b, www.commondreams.org.

Who knows what happened on 9/11?

by Dan Hind

Wide-ranging conspiracies do take place, whether you or I, or Charlie Brooker, are inclined to believe it or not

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/17/september11

Earlier this week Charlie Brooker generated the largest number of online responses to an article in the history of Comment is free. His theme was conspiracy theory in general and the 9/11 conspiracy theories in particular – and it collected more than 1,700 comments. Brooker thinks conspiracy theories console those who find reality too dull and complicated without the garnish of a hidden agenda: "Embrace a conspiracy theory and suddenly you're part of a gang sharing privileged information; your sense of power and dignity rises a smidgeon and this troublesome world makes more sense, for a time."

Brooker's line belongs to a mini-genre of attempts to explain the public's willingness to entertain conspiracy theories in psychological terms. Indeed he is very close to that stern rationalist Melanie Phillips, who has decided that, in the absence of religion, conspiracy theories satisfy "our desperate need to make order out of chaos".

The conspiratorial world view does have its consolations. But so does Brooker's. There's a certain pleasure and drama in declaring that the world is driven by incompetence and error, and that things are more or less as they seem. You can preen yourself on how well-adjusted you are, how you haven't fallen for that stuff about lizards, or Illuminati. You have learned to live without magic. You're saying "I don't believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories", but you are signalling that you are sceptical and rational and that you don't have personal hygiene issues. There's a psychological pay-off for both the cock-up and the conspiracy theory of history.

Our willingness to entertain conspiracy theories is doubtless influenced by our life experiences. A man in his 20s with time on his hands is more likely to be drawn to the wilderness of mirrors that surrounds that death of John Kennedy than a successful columnist in his 30s.

But this is beside the point. Wide-ranging conspiracies do take place, whether we are inclined to believe that they do or not. It might well be consoling to believe that the CIA plots the overthrow of unhelpful foreign regimes. But it is also true. To insist that, say, the CIA had nothing to do with the fall of Guatemalan leader Jacobo Árbenz in 1954, or the overthrow of Chile's Salvador Allende in 1973 might feel terrifically sensible and sane – we can't always be seeing the hidden hand of the CIA, there's no call for reductionism. It is also, you know, wrong.

What happened on 9/11 is, in the end, a matter of fact – whatever our worldview might incline us to consider plausible or possible. The true authorship of the attacks is as difficult to establish as anything else about the world of international terrorism and espionage.

For myself, I have no idea what happened, because I have no more idea of how the business-intelligence-political nexus works than I have about what chess grandmasters are up to when they are staring at the board, looking all thoughtful.

The attacks on the US on September 11 2001 were part of a web of events that interconnect with oil, drugs, money, organised crime, imperialism, existing institutions and us. And religion, and a lot more money.

It might feel wise and sensible to declare that any explanation that differs from the official account requires hundreds of impossibly tight-lipped bureaucratic killers. But that presupposes that we know how the world works, and we don't.

Maybe the 9/11 attacks were all about a small team of terrorists who managed to hold it together in a world otherwise characterised by crossed wires and blundering incompetence. But I don't know, and nor does Charlie Brooker.

The most important conspiracy theory about 9/11 rarely gets mentioned by writers like Brooker and Phillips. In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq the White House made every effort to link Saddam Hussein to al-Qaida. Far from being a production of what commentators like to call the tinfoil hat brigade, this particular paranoid fantasy emerged from the work of a highly focused and skilled group of people.

They worked in secret to manipulate the American and the global public and we can trace the impact of the efforts over time. So here is a (true) conspiracy to promote a (false) conspiracy theory. The White House's psy-war operatives were doubtless a professional and measured lot. I am sure that they knew how to behave in socially appropriate ways and enjoyed their work. They also helped pave the way for an illegal war in which more than half a million people have died. There's a 9/11 conspiracy theory hard at work, right there. It doesn't matter what sort of person you are, whether you are coolly rational or groping around for meaning in an indifferent world, America's spooks conspired to stampede the public into war on a false prospectus.

Some of the same people are now working hard to convince us that Iran poses an unacceptable threat to the peace-loving nations of the world. If they can they will use conspiracy theories of various kinds to do it, all the while acting conspiratorially. So it is hardly surprising that people – intelligent, level-headed people – are willing to believe that sophisticated conspiracies exist and that they are sometimes extremely important drivers of events. Given that they demonstrably do exist.

And while elements in the American state angle for another war in the Middle East, Melanie Phillips and Charlie Brooker will doubtless continue to heap scorn on an irrational public. Which seems a little, well, paranoid, under the circumstances.

When's a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory? When it's your own

By Stephen Gowans

http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/selective.html

It has become fashionable these days, in a kind of snobbish way, to denounce 9/11 conspiracy theories. "Conspiracy theories," the growing legion of detractors snort, "are absurd, ridiculous, and beneath contempt. Not only that, they're harmful."

And, indeed, it's true; some conspiracy theories are absurd, and some are harmful, but it's doubtful the absolutist position that all conspiracy theories are absurd is also true. Couldn't some conspiracy theories be true?

But my purpose isn't to defend this conspiracy theory or that, or to pick the good from the bad, but to look at the way "conspiracy theory" is used as a handy derogatory label to dismiss unpalatable and disturbing views, while other views that are not so unpalatable or disturbing and are just as much conspiracy theories, are accepted as reasonable; some even as received truth.

In fact, what's branded a "conspiracy theory" and therefore is said to be worthy of contempt, seems to depend on who's said to be doing the conspiring.

Take the theory that holds that US President George W. Bush had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks on US buildings, but did nothing to warn Americans, knowing he could use their deaths to his advantage. This theory is denounced as a monstrous slur, as having no basis in fact. And it's branded a "conspiracy theory."

But if the same theory were invoked to explain the behavior of an official enemy of the United States, or of the leader of a country Washington considers a rival, what are the chances it would be denounced as a monstrous slur, that has no basis in fact, and amounts to nothing more than base conspiracy theorizing?

Slim to none, I'd say. And I believe this to be so, because there is such a theory, and it has hardly been treated as absurd, ridiculous or unthinkable. Indeed, it hasn't even been labelled a conspiracy theory. But its features are no different than the "Bush had foreknowledge and deliberately failed to act" theory.

Advanced by the chief UN prosecutor Carla del Ponte, this (unlabelled conspiracy) theory says that former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, had foreknowledge of NATO attacks on Serb buildings, and did nothing to warn Serbs, knowing he could use their deaths to his advantage. In other words, he did what some conspiracy theorists allege Bush did (or didn't do.) And del Ponte has threatened to add the charge -- a conspiracy view, just as much as the Bush one -- to the list of indictments against Milosevic. So why isn't del Ponte's view branded a "conspiracy theory" and dismissed as beneath our notice?

Or what of Russian president Vladimir Putin? How would a theory that says Putin conspired to organize terror attacks against Russian civilians to justify military intervention in Chechnya be received? Like the theory that holds Bush responsible for conspiring to arrange terror attacks against US civilians? Would the Putin-did-it view be denounced, as the views of Jared Israel, Michael Rupert, and Michel Chossudovsky have been (who argue the Bush administration was complicit in 9/11.) Indeed, would the Putin as conspirator view even be called a conspiracy theory, or would it be accepted as a view worthy of consideration by level-headed, reasonable people -- hardly a "conspiracy theory" at all (though it very clearly involves a conspiracy)?

The following, published in The Globe and Mail (June 27, 2002), Canada's establishment newspaper, by Amy Knight, a respected university professor, says yes; it would be considered reasonable, and wouldn't be called a "conspiracy theory."

"In a third FSB-motivated case," (the FSB is the successor of the KGB) "a Moscow court on Monday convicted former FSB officer Alexander Litvinenko of abuse of office and stealing explosives. (He was given a suspended sentence of three-and-a-half years.)

"Mr. Litvinenko, who lives under political asylum in Britain and was...tried in absentia, fled abroad in late 2000, after running afoul of the FSB when he came out with accusations that his employers had ordered him to kill business tycoon Boris Berezovsky.

"More recently, Mr. Litvinenko co-authored a book accusing the FSB of complicity in the 1999 apartment bombings in Russia that killed more than 300 people. The bombings, which Russian officials blamed on Chechen rebels, aroused wide public support for a second invasion of Chechnya and helped to catapult Vladimir Putin to power in 2000.

"The fact that the culprits were never found and that the FSB was subsequently caught red-handed with explosives in an apartment building in the city of Ryazan (the FSB claimed it was just a "training exercise") led Mr. Litvinenko and many other Russians...to voice suspicion about FSB involvement in the bombings.

"The prosecution...of Mr. Litvinenko, hurried through before a law making in-absentia trials illegal comes into force on July 1, may be intended largely as a warning to potential defectors from the security and intelligence services that they would face severe reprisals if they followed in the footsteps of these men.

"Given that both so openly and scathingly attacked their former employers, the verdicts against them are not that surprising. Nonetheless, their cases demonstrate that politically motivated trials, a holdover from the Soviet era, are still a part of the Russian judicial system."


Notice that Litvinenko's allegations, not materially different from the allegations of those who charge the US government with complicity in the 9/11 attacks, are discussed in the context of a serious think-piece, written by a serious academic, in a serious, establishment newspaper. Notice too that Litvinenko's charges are not dismissed, and that the quality of his evidence (whatever it might be), is not called into question. And importantly, Litvinenko's views of a Kremlin-based conspiracy aren't called a conspiracy theory.

Notice, moreover, that you haven't seen the views of Israel, Rupert or Chossudovsky discussed in the mainstream press as serious allegations worthy of anyone's attention. Indeed, the only sustained attention they've received is in the Left American media, where they've been hysterically denounced on the flimsiest grounds. (David Corn, writing in The Nation, argues that Bush's fear of being caught would have deterred him from conspiring in 9/11. Perhaps, Corn would have argued that Richard Nixon would have never ordered the break-in of the Watergate Hotel, for the same reason: he would have been afraid of being found out.)

Yet, notice how close the parallel is between the two views.

One theory says, Putin orchestrated attacks on Russian buildings, which he then blamed on Islamists, to justify a war in Central Asia. The other says, Bush orchestrated attacks on US buildings, which he then blamed on Islamists, to justify a war in Central Asia. Suspicions are aroused because Putin has offered not a shred of evidence that the Islamists did it, and because the alleged culprits never actually said, "we did it," an odd thing for terrorists to do. Moreover, the Russian security service was caught placing bombs in Russian buildings. Suspicions are also aroused because Bush has offered no sound evidence that the Islamists did it, and because the alleged culprits have never actually said "we did it," an odd thing for terrorists to do. Moreover, the US security service has a long association with the alleged perpetrator.

Yet, despite the parallel, one's treated sympathetically and escapes being branded a "conspiracy theory," while the other is reviled and ridiculed as a "conspiracy theory" and circulates on the margins.

There's another parallel. While NATO was laying waste to Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999, I was struck by how the media attributed base and manipulative motives to non-NATO governments, particularly those of Yugoslavia, Russia and China, while angelizing the motives of NATO countries. So, for example, Milosevic's government was said to be inspired by ethnic hatred, Russia's opposition to the bombing was imputed to Slavic ethnic solidarity, while NATO governments were motivated by humanitarian concerns. Isn't dismissing conspiracy as the basis for our own government's actions, while accepting it as a possible basis for the actions of foreign governments, another instance of angelizing our own leaders while demonizing foreign leaders?

And there' another level on which the labelling of views as conspiracy theories is selective. While views that hold the US government responsible for, or as being complicit in, the 9/11 attacks, are disparaged as "conspiracy theories," the official view, which is every bit as much a conspiracy theory, is accepted as a received truth. That theory, it will be recalled, presented on no evidence at all, but with the demand that it be accepted on faith, holds that Osama bin Laden, "a sinister mastermind", conspired to have aircraft flown into the WTC and Pentagon because he hates American "freedom and democracy." What's more, the White House peremptorily dismissed requests to see evidence, and British Prime Minister Tony Blair's brief he claimed proved the Saudi terrorist's culpability was a pathetic farrago of leaps of logic and old newspaper clippings. In other words, the evidence for the official conspiracy theory is no better, and a thousand times weaker, than the evidence for antigovernment theories of only mediocre quality. It's as if what amounts to a conspiracy theory and is worthy of contempt is any set of unsubstantiated allegations other than the one set forth by the White House, State Department and Pentagon.

You don't need a conspiracy theory to explain that. You need only point to patriotism; the patriotism that holds foreign leaders conspire; American leaders never do.