This is a
very even-handed book, even though I'm pretty sure that the author and/or a
lot of his friends, at some level, feel like me when I think there is lots of
evidence for a particular conspiracy theory.
I feel like
jumping up and down and screaming, “Don’t you guys get it?!? _____ got away with ___ and you must be blind
if you can’t see it!”
The book starts
with an examination of the modern concept of “conspiracy theory” as a
label. You see, it is an historical fact
that many times political change has occurred as the result of a small group of
planners implementing a series of actions that brought about a change that had
a big effect. Do the words “et tu,
Brute?” ring any bells?
Yep,
insider actions for various reasons have been around a long time. De-Haven-Smith (what a nuisance to type!)
compares and contrasts the views of
three thinkers, Karl Popper, Leo Strauss, and Charles Beard, regarding
“Political Perspectives on Conspiracy Theory,” a section beginning on page 82. As with many deep things, it made sense to me
as I read it, but I would have to re-read and think about it before I could
repeat it to you and make sense.
Suffice it
to say, political conspiracies have been around a long time. Some are undertaken for the benefit of a few
in power; some are supposedly to benefit an entire nation. However, all are wrong in that they subvert
the informed will of the people! Taking
a secret action and then hiding it, or setting up another to be blamed, is not
what we want members of our government to be doing -- at any level!
It’s for
this reason that de-Haven-Smith proposes the acronym SCAD, standing for State
Crimes Against Democracy. If you Google
the acronym or the phrase, you will learn a lot about some proposed SCADS that
you may or may not agree with.
It also
interests me (but doesn’t surprise me) that the framing of “conspiracy theory,”
in the general consciousness, as the belief of a whacko, came from the CIA in
its attempts to undermine the credibility of Warren Commission opponents.
That belief
is certainly true nowadays, vide the
1997 Mel Gibson film of that name. I
think a big part of how this framed opinion, that conspiracist = unbalanced
loon, is also more easily accepted by people who don’t want somebody rocking
the boat of the “we’re-the-good-guys” worldview. I know that I, at least, fervently wish for
our government servants to take our founding ideas seriously. But being human, sneaky people seek and find
ways to subvert the individual rights intended by our founders.
A big
example is the Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed in 1868. Specifically, part of it gives corporations
the same constitutional protections as persons.
This isn’t right! A company is
NOT a person.
There is a
lot of discussion and theory here. I
encourage anybody interested in free will, our government, or “conspiracies” to
read the book. As I said at the top,
some of the SCADs that the author sees, I may not agree with. But to his credit he frames a broad
discussion without emphasizing the things he sees as most egregious or harmful.
One
description of a SCAD, from page 11, is that “it refers to a special type of
transgression: an attack from within on the political system’s organizing
principles.” I would agree, wouldn’t you?, that such a thing is wrong!
It’s one
thing to steal an orphan’s money; it’s a lot worse when the thief is the banker
in charge of the account. In the same
way, the fact that such offenses are instigated by people in power is what
makes them even more outrageous than “ordinary” crimes.
I encourage
you to read this book and start to take the idea seriously. Scoundrelism DOES occur at high levels. Sometimes, in my opinion, it takes the form
of murder. The more we realize that
crimes such as these DO occur, the less
likely that the crimes can be covered up for long. In parting I leave you with two examples that
YOU may or may not agree with.
“I DID NOT
have sex with that woman … It depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
“I am not a
crook.”
Read the
book and learn about SCADs.
