Secret Management
If you’re assuming that a large group of people couldn’t possibly keep a secret, then your instincts are pretty good. Like an ex (?) spy friend once told me, “Everybody talks too much.” So the game changes. The object isn’t so much to keep secrets, but rather manage them after they come out.. How does one do this? (A) By leaking accurate information to people you couldn’t believe if your life depended on it; and (B) circulating so many alternative versions, each containing a kernel of truth, that no one can make heads or tails out of all the competing stories. Instead of picking out what might be verifiable, reasonable, obvious or documented about each individual version, people tend to cling themselves to one explanation and fight to the death to see that their pet theory prevails.
Lately, we’ve seen a fissure in the paranoid community over whether the current Bush administration deliberately allowed the events of 9/11/01 to take place, or actively fostered the terrorist acts. The MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) faction of conspiratologists has specifically attacked the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) faction, the former claiming that the latter is attempting to whitewash government complicity. Both sides, clinging to their pet theories, never seem to come to any consensus about what they so obviously have in common. Common sense would ndicate that if the Bush people planned the plot, then they allowed it to happen. Conversely, if they allowed it to happen, even if they did not play a role in formulating and executing the plot, then the administration is no less culpable. So, why the fuss?
The squabbling masks the harsh, but valid points raised by the 9/11 inquiry, the families of the deceased, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s ad hoc committee review: (1) no good evidence links Osama bin Laden to the attacks; (2) even less proof fingers Saddam Hussein as the culprit; (3) facets of the FBI (specifically Colleen Rawley and Sibel Edmonds) received good intelligence indicating a plot within the confines of the existing law, but were consistently stonewalled by superiors from investigating further; (4) someone placed put options on the airlines in question, while someone else warned California politico Willie Brown and former Secretary of State George Schultz not to fly on that date; (5) all eight flight recorders from the four flights were apparently destroyed, yet other evidence (e.g. a passport) was found intact near the scene of the crime; and so on.
The competing versions of conspiracy floating in the ether as binary code diminish the importance of addressing these points as one side attacks the other, with conventional media dismissing the valid points raised by all as just so much ‘conspiracy theory.’ Meanwhile, concerned and conscientious citizens might understandably throw up their hands, firmly believing that no one will ever know the truth, and accept the official conspiracy fiction as the truth because they see no other alternative.
See what I mean? You don’t have to keep a secret to ensure its safety.
Lately, we’ve seen a fissure in the paranoid community over whether the current Bush administration deliberately allowed the events of 9/11/01 to take place, or actively fostered the terrorist acts. The MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose) faction of conspiratologists has specifically attacked the LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) faction, the former claiming that the latter is attempting to whitewash government complicity. Both sides, clinging to their pet theories, never seem to come to any consensus about what they so obviously have in common. Common sense would ndicate that if the Bush people planned the plot, then they allowed it to happen. Conversely, if they allowed it to happen, even if they did not play a role in formulating and executing the plot, then the administration is no less culpable. So, why the fuss?
The squabbling masks the harsh, but valid points raised by the 9/11 inquiry, the families of the deceased, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s ad hoc committee review: (1) no good evidence links Osama bin Laden to the attacks; (2) even less proof fingers Saddam Hussein as the culprit; (3) facets of the FBI (specifically Colleen Rawley and Sibel Edmonds) received good intelligence indicating a plot within the confines of the existing law, but were consistently stonewalled by superiors from investigating further; (4) someone placed put options on the airlines in question, while someone else warned California politico Willie Brown and former Secretary of State George Schultz not to fly on that date; (5) all eight flight recorders from the four flights were apparently destroyed, yet other evidence (e.g. a passport) was found intact near the scene of the crime; and so on.
The competing versions of conspiracy floating in the ether as binary code diminish the importance of addressing these points as one side attacks the other, with conventional media dismissing the valid points raised by all as just so much ‘conspiracy theory.’ Meanwhile, concerned and conscientious citizens might understandably throw up their hands, firmly believing that no one will ever know the truth, and accept the official conspiracy fiction as the truth because they see no other alternative.
See what I mean? You don’t have to keep a secret to ensure its safety.
posted by X. Dell at 11:52 AM
2 Comments:
The rumor was it was Condi Rice who warned Willie Brown--they're good friends.
Interesting. Being neocons and everything, I would've assumed that Condi was rumored to have warned Schultz. But you're right: Brown is a much more interesting rumor.
Post a Comment
<< Home