Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

They Want Us To Know: On Conspiracies and Cover-Ups (15 posts)

  1. mark
    Member

    http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee/2010/07/31/they-...

    They Want Us to Know: On Conspiracies and Cover-ups

    The Transparent Conspiracy by Michael D. Morrissey: A Review

    The Mass Psychology of Partial Disclosure

    The Transparent Conspiracy is a collection of essays written between 2006 and 2010, mainly about the 911 and JFK conspiracies and cover up, with a short collection of poems on the same topic. Morrisey’s latest book is a definite departure from other conspiracy literature. Morrissey has no interest in proving or disproving either the 911 or the JFK conspiracy – he feels this territory is well-covered by other authors. The topic of this book is mass psychology. Morrissey believes our government’s propaganda arm (whatever they call it now) is fully aware that a well-managed conspiracy cover-up can have a very intimidating effect, which can be very effective in keeping the public docile and obedient.

    The Government Wants Us to Know

    Specifically he argues there is major value (from the government point of view) in disclosing a limited amount of information concerning government culpability in atrocities such as the JFK assassination and 911. He bases his view on something he calls “Transparency Theory” – thus his title The Transparent Conspiracy. He says the CIA has long recognized that “telling part of the truth is the best way to lie.” They even have a term for it: “white propaganda.” Morrissey argues that for the government to brazenly commit criminal acts can be quite effective in demoralizing and alienating the tuned-in segment of the population that fully comprehends the corrupt nature of our government institutions.

    He then lays out the hypothetical question: if the reality of the 911 conspiracy were widely accepted by the American public, would they be capable of doing anything about it? Morrissey believes that in this point in history that they would be powerless (that they lack the power to bring the culprits to trial or even impeach them). Which he contends is a powerful basis for demoralization and alienation.

    Contrasting 911 with the JFK Assassination

    He then contrasts the 911 conspiracy cover-up with the cover-up of the JFK assassination, in which years of advanced planning went into creating a fictional identity (as an unstable Marxist) for a US intelligence agent named Lee Harvey Oswald – and in which scores of witnesses were murdered and evidence secretly destroyed and/or fabricated.

    In the case of 911 there was very limited – a few fictitious cell phone calls from a high altitude that weren’t technologically feasible in 2001 and some clumsily forged bin Laden videotapes. The government made no attempt to conceal that they were destroying evidence at Ground Zero – they simply loaded all the twisted steel onto trucks and shipped it to Long Island to be melted down into something else. The 911 Commission was more of a whitewash than a true cover-up.

    Noam Chomsky’s Puzzling Position on Conspiracies

    Morrissey’s essays also cover, at length, his correspondence with American’s pre-eminent dissident Noam Chomsky, regarding the JFK assassination conspiracy and cover-up. Morrisey, who has always been one of Chomsky’s greatest admirers, describes his initial dismay at his hero’s categorical rejection of the mountains of irrefutable evidence that the JFK assassination conspiracy originated at the highest levels of government. He was even more troubled, after their lengthy correspondence (published as Looking for the Enemy in 2008), at Chomsky’s inability to rationally justify his position. He initially tended to side with media critics who believe Chomsky plays some deliberate “left gatekeeping” function (having to do with right wing foundation funding). He now believes Chomsky more likely has other reasons – relating more to what is increasingly self-evident in the 911 Truth movement – that the endless investigation of government conspiracies playing little pragmatic role in the massive institutional change (such as the end of capitalism) which is the only hope for real and permanent change in the US.

    Morrissey also touches on his correspondence with Vincent Salandria (published in 2007 as Correspondence with Vincent Salandria). Salandria, a “left leaning” Philadelphia lawyer, was the first to publicly challenge the Warren Commission (in 1965). Morrissey is also careful to credit Salandria’s ideas about the propaganda uses of a well-managed cover-up for helping to develop his own thinking.

    The poems make a moving addendum to the essays. They convey quite poignantly Morrissey’s personal struggle with the despair and heartache of learning a government you believed to be fair and democratic is actually deeply corrupt.


    peakchoicedotorg 0 minutes ago

    Vince Salandria's analysis of the "transparent conspiracy" is correct. The perpetrators WANT you to know they did it. They especially want the politicians to know they removed President Kennedy from office after he called off the nuclear arms race and Cold War, it is useful for controlling effective dissent to the military industrial complex. The best book about the motive for the coup is James Douglass's "JFK and the Unspeakable: Why he died and why it matters."

    One item not in the book review, and maybe not in Morrisey's book -- the perpetrators are skilled at salting the counter narratives (of JFK, 9/11 and other crimes) with a mix of true claims and disinformation that can then be used to smear the critics of the conspiracy. With 9/11, there's an endless list, including the (false) claim that phone calls could not have been made from the doomed planes, that the plane crashes didn't happen, etc.

    Many people intuitively understand the official story is fishy and for an alternative narrative to arrive, ready made, they easily latch onto them despite the embedded poison pills, which are time delayed for when it becomes necessary to discredit the "conspiracy theorists."

    The rise of the internet makes this process easier (with 9/11) than it was when citizens dared to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot President Kennedy.


    from public correspondence between Morrisey and Salandria

    Correspondence with Vincent Salandria (1993-1999)

    VS 10/25/93

    My sense of the critical community is that it was from the beginning heavily infiltrated by the intelligence community. Powerful persons and forces which consummate a successful coup would not be satisfied to surrender to honest critics the task of analyzing the implications of the cover story or stories and the consequent effects of the coup on our society. It is safe to say that the killers would place in the critical community various persons who would occupy the whole spectrum of possible analyses.

    One or more would defend the Commission's findings but attack the Commission's methodology and explain away mistakes on the basis of poor methods, sloppy execution, time constraints, etc. Others would entertain a possible conspiracy but would emphasize the prolix nature of the evidence, the need to ascertain all the hows of the execution of the killing and the error of seeking to draw any conclusions about the meaning of the assassination until all the mysteries of how it was accomplished were resolved beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Others would undertake to apply scientific analyses to the data of the Commission's findings and seek to attribute evidence that ran contrary to the Commission's conclusions as requiring further experimentation. Others would leap to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy of a communist nature. Others would emerge from the Birchite direction to announce that there was a U.S. governmental conspiracy so as to discredit that explanation. Others would leap forward with various other false sponsors such as the Mafia, low-level right-wing, rogue intelligence elements, and the like.

    Others would come forward with an all-inclusive combination of big oil, big business, military-industrial, C.I.A., Joint chiefs, Mafia, Johnson, Southern Rim, etc. to make the conspiracy so large as to reduce it to an absurdity. Others would emerge to trash JFK as the quintessential cold warrior and point in the direction of Castro. We can go on and on with this. I feel that I can identify persons who came forward with these approaches with the result that rather than improved political insight and knowledge growing out of the killing of Kennedy we got babble.

    VS (10/18/94)

    Thirty years of microanalysis has converted simple, incontrovertible proof of a high-level coup for significant policy reasons into a cloud of mystery. I submit that such "truth hunting" serves the purpose of hiding the truth under a pile of worthless dung. I further submit that this research has been to a great extent government driven and directed by skillful agents.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  2. Victronix
    Member

    The Michael Morrissey who states:

    Perhaps if Green and his friends Jim Hoffman and Victoria Ashley spent less time trashing their fellow truthers (see here, here, here, and here) hope could be re-engendered for making common cause with myriad groups that have organized against the 9/11 lie and the wars and anti-constitutional laws it has brought us.

    He kept trying to get members of STJ into endless debate with nonsense advocates.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  3. JohnA
    Member

    yeah - i have a problem with this source also.

    Victoria - i've known you for years and you are one of the LEAST trashing-talking activists i know. you RIGHTFULLY challenge research that is weak - but i've never known you to trash fellow truthers.

    but - i have to be honest - the concept in this thread is something my wife and i talk about frequently. and with recent revelations like Barrie Zwicker suddenly coming out of the closet as an advocate for OBVIOUS disinformation, it is both depressing and illuminating that so many of the activists who STARTED 9/11 truth now turn out to be totally bogus.

    can i go as far as to speculate that they were plants from the very beginning?

    you see - i do NOT want to be like Barrie - willy nilly accusing people of being infiltrators. but - sooooo many names associated with 9/11 in the early days suddenly have appeared to have lost their marbles.

    even the term 'in plain sight' gives me the willies - because on some level it appears (to my fevered and paranoid mind) that crimes were committed in plain sight - intentionally. suspicion and clues actually PLANTED in the public debate.

    i just don't know what to believe anymore - but it is all so depressing

    Posted 14 years ago #
  4. truthmod
    Administrator

    We're pretty good at demoralizing ourselves, but they definitely do their best to foster it.

    I don't necessarily buy into the "transparent conspiracy" argument. I believe that creating the "legends" for patsies and the scenarios for false flags is complicated stuff and that they have a hard time covering all their tracks. And, sure they may get sloppy with all of these "big lies" because they know that only the "wacko conspiracy theorists" will question them.

    If they were really diabolical (but not all-powerful) like I think they are, they would promote the idea of the "transparent conspiracy" as a way to show people like us that they are laughing in our face, that they are nearly all-powerful, and that it makes sense to be increasingly paranoid.

    On the other hand, Vincent Salandria's insights are always invaluable.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  5. mark
    Member

    I'm more of a fan of Salandria's work than Morrisey's.

    I think the lack of careful thinking is a bigger problem than provocateurs. There are far more people who don't stop to think than government agents. Sure, some who started apparently sane and gradually promoted insanity are on some three letter agency payroll, but the increasing insanity shifts the discussions, changes the demographic, and creates "group think" to go along with the "new normal" of truthiness.

    In support of the "transparent conspiracy" hypothesis is the fact that the Kennedy family privately sent an envoy to the USSR shortly after Dallas to inform the leadership there was a virtual coup d'etat in the US. This fact was found in Soviet archives by the authors of "One Hell of a Gamble" (about the Cuban Missile Crisis). The authors, one of them Russian, expressed puzzlement why the Kennedys would do that (the obvious answer - it was the truth - and the family wanted their negotiating partners to know the truth). It's mentioned also at the end of in James Douglass's "JFK and the Unspeakable." Nevertheless, Ted Kennedy's memoir "True Compass" written on his deathbed included the claim that the family always believed the Lone Nut Theory. I don't know how many Democratic Party politicians know what happened in private yet deny it in public but I'd be surprised if it was a minority of them.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  6. JohnA
    Member

    thank you for thos thread. there is some really interesting stuff here i want to look at.

    Sure, some who started apparently sane and gradually promoted insanity are on some three letter agency payroll,...

    but this is the interesting thing

    in the wake of 9/11 the government may have intentionally sewn the seeds of paranoia in the public??!!

    lets say - HYPOTHETICALLY - "The New Pearl Harbor" was put out there by some agency. Later, the presumed author is neutralized - deactivated - by attaching him to various bogus claims like 'cell phone fakery.'

    this would be the story of the century it it was true.

    think about that for a minute.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  7. mark
    Member

    They did the same thing to the JFK Truth Movement ... read Jim Garrison or Gaeton Fonzi for details on that.

    http://www.oilempire.us/jfktruth.html

    JFK Truth Movement -- lessons Bogus Evidence sabotaged the only trial of a conspirator in the coup against President Kennedy

    ... and it's fascinating that Fox TV ran a documentary promoting the "we never landed on the moon" hoax in February 2001, just after Dubya was installed as the occupant of the White House. We all know Fox's politics, why would they run such "moon bat" nonsense except to deliberately boost this fake conspiracy theory. (Their "Lone Gunmen" show was in March 2001).

    It WAS Donald Rumsfeld who first floated the "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax. Lots of sincere people fell for it (I found it intriguing for a few months in 2003) but there's no doubt about Rumsfeld's lack of sincerity. The propagandists are very good at reverse psychology.

    http://www.oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html

    http://www.oilempire.us/fake-debate.hml


    “If the organizing principle is that the government lies, but there’s no organizing principle to how you get to the truth, then anything is possibly the truth. People will organize around disinformation just as easily as information. The way covert operations do effective disinformation is they give the truth to the people who are discredited and they give the lie to the people who have great credibility - the way they disinform from both ends and confuse people. They put out stories - as we know from the assassinations - that will lead us down false paths, that will lead us to false sponsorships.” -- John Judge, 2005 Coalition on Political Assassinations, June 5, 2005 37th anniversary of RFK assassination conference

    Posted 14 years ago #
  8. JohnA
    Member

    It WAS Donald Rumsfeld who first floated the "no plane hit Pentagon" hoax.

    i'm not sure -

    i am embarassed to admit that the very first thing that triggered my interests in 9/11 Truth was the French website that started challenging people to 'find the missing boeing' at the Pentagon.

    didn't that predate Rumsfeld's missile comment?

    Posted 14 years ago #
  9. mark
    Member

    Rumsfeld and Meyssan released their effort at the same time, more or less. But Meyssan first floated the idea of a truck bomb, his missile claim came later (once the initial absurdity had been ridiculed). Rumsfeld's October 12, 2001 interview was the first time the word "missile" was used, allegedly a transcription error, but that alleged "error" was still on the DOD website years later after it got a lot of attention.

    http://www.oilempire.us/no-plane-timeline.html

    It's hard to imagine a scenario where the two of them were not in coordination.

    My interest started the moment I found out what happened and escalated the next day when I heard the story of the alleged altercation at the Boston airport parking lot by the hijackers (which resembled similar stories of the "Two Oswalds"). Hearing a few days later that the Pentagon was hit in the mostly empty part clinched it.

    Posted 14 years ago #
  10. JohnA
    Member

    I remember Nicholas Levis telling me the found passport at Ground Zero triggered his suspicions.

    amidst all the burned paper and debris and ashes and everything else - the passport of the hijacker himself was found

    pretty amazing story

    Posted 14 years ago #
  11. truthmod
    Administrator

    Michael Morrissey was pushing no-planes in 2019. I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his association with Vince Salandria, but his record looks pretty questionable.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  12. mark
    Member

    now we have a lot of truthers pushing "don't wear masks" and "Covid is a hoax"

    not all, but more than enough

    it's bizarre to see left wingers promoting ultra right wing, religious fundamentalist websites as quality sources

    confirmation bias - people who don't like to admit precautions are needed latch on to liars who say live carefree in the middle of the pandemic

    funny "coincidence" that these conspiracy claims (that the virus was engineered, or the result of radio waves, or masks are a conspiracy to muzzle patriotic people, etc.) never hint that the Trump administration has screwed up the response

    Posted 4 years ago #
  13. truthmod
    Administrator

    I know a large family where five of the siblings have been converted from left-leaning conspiracy types to full-on Qanon Trumpers in the last couple years.

    It's not unreasonable to question the motives of the elites when it comes to Covid, but most people's attitudes are based on either gut response skepticism or propaganda. I'm not convinced that the official response to Covid is entirely altruistic and based on saving lives, giving the public the truth, and fostering equality and humanity.

    Posted 4 years ago #
  14. BrianG
    Member

    I've seen a prominent California Green and Truther go over to Trumpism. I don't know why.

    I don't see how the elites could have responded to the Covid crisis in a coherent way if it were a surprise to them. But I've seen no evidence that they knew beforehand. I think the elites recognized decades ago that 8 billion people was going to stress the planet and a population of 1 billion could live sustainably and comfortably indefinitely.

    Would the elites want to kill off the elderly population? Maybe some of them would.

    Back to the original point: "They want us to know." I remember Ian Craine at the Santa Cruz conference, who claimed we were ruled by extraterrestrial overlords, and said that when they inflicted a crime on humanity, they always inserted clues on the record so we would know.

    (For a couple of weeks up to now I was locked out and unable to see more than a list of posts, but not the content.)

    Posted 3 years ago #
  15. truthmod
    Administrator

    Yes, the site was down for a while. I thought it might be gone forever, but we salvaged it. The front page of truthmove still doesn't work, but the content pages work. We may be trying to fix this in the near future.

    Posted 3 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.