Conspiracies or Institutions: 9-11 and beyond

[Selwynn]

Conspiracies Or Institutions: 9-11 and Beyond
by Stephen R. Shalom
& Michael Albert

Conspiracy theorists begin their quest for understanding events by looking for groups acting secretly, either outside usual institutional norms in a rogue fashion, or, at the very least to manipulate public impressions, to cast guilt on other parties, and so on. Conspiracy theorists focus on conspirators' methods, motives, and effects. Personalities, personal timetables, secret meetings, and conspirators' joint actions claim priority attention. Institutional relations largely drop from view.

(snip)

Because personalities matter so much in conspiracy theories, attention focuses largely on what one individual said to another, whether a phone conversation implicates so and so, the credibility of this or that witness, and who knew what when. Suspicion abounds. For conspiracy theorists, no sooner does something happen, then a conspiracy is suspected. Is there a new disease called AIDS? A biological warfare lab must have created it. Did Clinton aide Vincent Foster appear to commit suicide? Someone must have killed him. Did flights TWA 800 and Airbus 587 crash? There must have been a missile involved.

(snip)

(by contrast) An institutional theory emphasizes roles, incentives, and other institutional dynamics that promote or compel important events and, most important, have similar effects over and over. Institutional theorists of course notice individual actions, but don't elevate them to prime causes. The point of an institutional explanation is to move beyond proximate personal factors to more basic institutional factors. The aim is to learn something about society or history, as compared to learning about particular culpable actors. If the particular people hadn't been there to do the events, most likely someone else would have.

To the institutional theorist, the behavior of rogue elements is far less important than the ways in which the defining political, social, and economic forms lead to particular behaviors. An institutional theory of the U.S. missile attacks on Sudan or the Iran-Contra affair focuses on how and why these activities arose due to the basic institutions of U.S. society, not on the personal quirks of a womanizing Clinton or a loose-cannon Ollie North.

http://www.zmag.org/content/Instructionals/shalalbcon.cfm

[Minstrel Boy]

1. But conspiracy theories of merit ARE about institutions.

I don't understand this: "personalities matter so much in conspiracy theories." What we talk about when we talk about "conspiracy theories" is the National Security State and its hidden, criminal history. Read Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. What is said above about "institutional theory," that it "emphasizes roles, incentives, and other institutional dynamics that promote or compel important events and, most important, have similar effects over and over" can be said of Scott's work, which situates the assassination in the nexus of industrial, intelligence and criminal institutions. He did the same for covertly sanctioned drug-running (Cocaine Politics), William Pepper, similarly for the MLK murder in An Act of State. And there are many more examples.

And where does the personality enter in the forensics of, say, the Robert Kennedy assassination? There are photographs of more bullet holes than could be accounted for in Sirhan's gun, and Kennedy's wounds were contact wounds, of rear and upward trajectory, and yet Sirhan was standing directly in front, no closer than two feet. There was a guard standing in the precise position to inflict the wounds, and he admitted drawing his weapon, but it was never tested. None of this is a matter of "personality."

[YNGW]

2. If I really wanted to discredit the Democratic Party...

... what would be the one thing I could do? What crack-pot appearing scheme could I do that would appear perfectly legitimate when viewed by the many of the rank-and-file, yet I could still be able to call upon the Lush Rimbaugh's and Faux Skews of the world to point in my direction and handcuff a whole party to it?

I have every reason to believe those who are posting the "911/Bush Knew" theories at DU are COINTELPRO agents sent here to mix and mingle with the crowd, make themselves out to be legitimate liberals wanting to "expose" Bushite, but who's true agenda is to post these "theories" in a co-operative and deliberate manner so that their pundits in the corporate media can use these things against our party and our nominee in 2004. This whole thing stinks of a BushCo COINTELPRO scheme. Plant these theories at DU, get their mouthpieces to draw attention to it, say "Do you really want to be part of a party where wingnuts like this spout unfounded theories?", and the damage is done.

So tell me all you prominent "911/Bush Knew" theorists on here, how is everything at Langley AFB today?

[RBHam]

5. That's me!

CIA mole.

Just like truthisall, minstrel boy, sterling, (aside: remember frank stein! he was a card. his first post re:the 9-11 anomolies, he sounded the cry of revolution. "When do we storm the bastile! I'll be first in the breach!"...ah, those were the days...)
q, 902015, bpilgrim, paul thompson...hell, so many more...

Yep! We're all collecting checks from James Baker, through a secret swiss bank account handled by ABB Brown and personally signed by Buzzy Krongaard. Uh huh. Scout's honour.

(Secretly, I admire G-Dub's fortitude and leadership, Cheney's deft handling of the security apparatus, Ashcroft's moral absolutism, and don't get me started on Rummy! I adore Rummy! I'd probably leave my family and join the US Army in Iraq if he'd just ask me!
(heart a-twitter!)

Alas, we couldn't fool YNGW! Curses!

Fellow Bushco infiltrators! We have been foiled! Please rendzvous at the chosen site for Plan C-1A. That's Plan C-1A. Our cover's been blown! Go to ground!

[YNGW]

6. That's exactly what I would expect...

... a COINTELPRO agent to do to cover his/her tracks. You guys haven't changed your methods much in the last 30+ years. You haven't had to, especially with an unsuspecting public. You're already having a field day here. Why am I not surprised?

How's everything at Langley?

[Stephanie]

10. Why are you spamming this crap all over the board?

Forgot your meds?

[Rainbows]

7. Haven't you just created ...

Your own conspiracy theory?

[Indiana Democrat]

9. I agree with you!

And if they're NOT "COINTELPRO" as you say, they're either liars or totally and completely NUTS!

Either way, they are an embarrassment and need to be silenced by the mods. In my opinion only, of course.

Like it or not, this is "DEMOCRATICUnderground.com", not "NoPartyAffiliationKooks.com".

[Minstrel Boy]

12. Your argument aside, you joined DU on Dec 23.

That's a week ago yesterday.

Isn't this a tad early to be suggesting that a large contingent of longtime posters are an "embarassment" and ought to be "silenced by the mods"?

I don't care much for seniority and post totals, but if I were new here, I'd be a bit more circumspect. I wouldn't claim to know what is and what isn't acceptable discourse in this place.

[Indiana Democrat]

13. I've been lurking since just after the 2002 elections.

And my opinion is just that...My opinon...Nothing more. Basically it's how I would run a place like this if I was bright enough to start it in the first place...Which I obviusly wasn't.

Just throwing my honest thoughts out there...

[Selwynn]

3. I posted in more of a "discussion" spirit than an "in your face" spirit..

To me, this article and the other one I posted represent important food for thought. But there is certainly plenty of room for debate.

The only thing I don't like in these discussions is when people come in and absolutely assume a conclusion is true and then, after that fact, seek to find evidence to support a conclusion they already hold. I don't believe that is the best way to approach a search for truth.

[Minstrel Boy]

4. Another Gatekeeper of the Left on 9/11 "consipracy theory":

From David Corn:

"to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes... is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme." http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12536

So, the attack was beyond the scope of the apparatus of the National Security State, but a guy in a cave on the other side of the world masterminded it and 19 guys with boxcutters pulled it off?

And:

"I recall interviewing one former CIA official who helped manage a division that ran the sort of actions listed above, and I asked him whether the CIA had considered "permanently neutralizing" a former CIA man who had revealed operations and the identities of CIA officers. Kill an American citizen? he replied, as if I were crazy to ask. No, no, he added, we could never do that. Yes, in the spy-world some things were beyond the pale. And, he explained, it would be far too perilous, for getting caught in that type of nasty business could threaten your career."

Corn, here, takes a former CIA official at his word that No, heaven forfend, we would NEVER kill an American citizen. He applies this statement to his case against 9/11 complicity: since the CIA would never kill an American citizen, how much less thousands. (Michael Springman, 20-year veteran of the State Department, who witnessed the CIA issuing visas in Jeddah to al Qaeda members, has a different take: "It's only a few thousand dead, and what's that against the greater gain for the United States in the Middle East?" http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/dispatches/audio/020116_springman.rm.)

Here's what everyone must ask: does the United States government draw the line at committing murder of Americans, regardless of its strategic objectives?

[plaguepuppy]

15. Logical fallacies

There's an implicit fallacy in Corn's argument that reminds me of the old Marxist accusation of being "objectively counter-revolutionary" because one's ideas, whether true or not, would somehow work against the interests of the working class (for example). The effect is to take the focus off the content of what one is saying and shift it instead to what the accuser claims will be the "objective" effects of saying it. This frees the accuser from having to rebut any substantive point of fact, leaving him in the position of attacking the bearer of the undesired truths for the (imagined) effect that telling these truths might have on an (hypothetical) audience. Since it is the accuser doing the imagining there is no real way to defend yourself.

But for those of us with my philosophical persuasion at least, there really is an objective world out there, and we cannot not be content to define truth according to how others might feel about it. So we have to ask, at least hypothetically, what would it imply if what we are saying is true? If even a few core elements of the "grand unification CT of 911" are true, the strategy that Corn advocates as being a better use of our time amounts to lambs marching into a meat grinder.

But these "high road debunkers" treat the ideas themselves as objects of disgust, and refuse to dirty themselves with the messy details. If you know in advance that "all conspiracy theories are false" it's easy to make sweeping claims and slurs against the character of those you disagree with. Even a little knowledge of history tells us that the rich and powerful have always conspired ("breathed together") to advance their own interests, often in spectacularly bloody and evil-minded ways. Did all this come to a screeching halt some time after WW-II?

[DrBB]

8. Thanks--a useful point of departure anyway

A lot depends on what you think "the conspiracy" was. I think there's a bit of a straw man, regarding the darker theories about 9/11. MIHOP versus LIHOP--which are we talking about (if we are)? Stuff like the Pentagon plane was a missile, the towers were booby trapped, etc--all that active MIHOP stuff is one thing. But LIHOP is another. It attracts me, during those times when I find myself leaning toward it, precisely because it is so much closer to the institutional side of the institutional-vs-personal analytic proposed here.

Really, it's almost a matter of definition, or a distinction without a difference. On my more cynical, LIHOP-believing days, I imagine that institutional dynamics were simply allowed to take their inertial course. I imagine that the top echelon of Bush's security apparat simply took the view that, if something big was coming, it might not be the worst thing in the world if it happened. A wake-up call for the country, free reign for things like the PNAC scheme for Middle East pacification, a position from which to discredit all opposition, impose laws leading to a vast increase in the surveillance power of the Executive branch, all kinds of "beneficial" things. And all you need to do is look away, let the institutions charged with preventing such attacks drift in their institutional way.

They had reports. There are indications that people knew something was in the offing. So maybe some people decided it was better not to know the things that they knew (to paraphrase Rummy). Maybe they didn't even think about it this explicitly. Maybe there was only a certain reluctance to push policy in a certain direction. It all gets rather fuzzy, after all. Maybe there's a threat out there, maybe there isn't. Maybe it's my job to do something about it, maybe not--always plenty to do, after all.

Or maybe it was just an institutional predisposition to focus on things like SDI and overlook evidence of some wholly other threat coming in below the radar. Maybe it was just incompetence. What I get stuck on, though, is if it was mere incompetence, why has not ONE SINGLE PERSON lost their job over what happened on 9/11? Not ONE. And in place of a real desire to understand what happened and correct any failures that led to it, an absolute stonewall resistance to looking into any of it, on the part of the *administration.

As if any admission of error, or any genuine finding of institutional culpability could threaten the whole house of cards.

I find MIHOP goes right over the limit of credibility. But LIHOP, well.... If they didn't do anything they're afraid to have the public know (including not doing anything), why do they act like they've got so much to hide?

Why has no one lost their job?

[Rainbows]

11. After reading the Entire article ... Who's accountable ???

This article by implying all conspiracy theories are counter productive by implying it diverts the lost minds of conspiracy theorists from the real and needed 'institutional changes' is three-fold in purpose.

One it discourages looking into individual and/or group corruption of institutions as a means of garnering public awareness of needed corporal enforcement of actions defying the purpose of institutions. Otherwise if you can't debase the entire need or function of an institution don't bother with more subtle smaller perversions that create the same effect.

Two it creates the same unaccountability in government, as is seen in corporate domination of economics, society, and politics. Corporate 'person hood' has surpassed the rights of citizens while shedding responsibility of liabilities. Corporations never lose their charters for crimes, nor are the CEO's held accountable for crimes average citizens would spend years in jail for committing. How do you hold an institution accountable other than policing those entitled to its intended function.

Three it sends the message that anything short of restructuring or disbanding an institution is counter productive, yet provides not one concrete suggestion from an institutional level the citizens can effect change of corruption deeply embedded in every institution.

In short it suggests individuals and self interest groups of individuals aren't accountable but rather the institution itself, without providing a viable alternative, yet condemns all other criticisms other than of institutions as conspiracy generated wasteful counter productive energy. A great recipe for maintenance of status quo, with no hope for change. Such enlightenment leads to darkness (IMHO).

[Rex]

14. I just usually use common sense

but that's just me.

[plaguepuppy]

16. That works sometimes! n/t