  (5.67a/IDA-1.5 for conspire-post@firefly.prairienet.org); Sun, 18 Sep 1994 17:53:49 -0500
Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 2 Num. 14


              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 2  Num. 14
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
THE LEFT HAS BEEN TURNED
by Brian Francis Redman, Editor-in-chief, Conspiracy Nation
Copyright (c) 1994 -- All Rights Reserved
 
 
In listening to a local radio show called "News From Neptune", 
one hears the banter of Paul "The Truth" Muth and Carl Estabrook. 
The show is above-average in the level of its discussion. (Below- 
average would be O.J. Simpson trial discussion *ad nauseum*.) Yet 
from time to time Mr. Muth and/or Professor Estabrook will "diss" 
the idea of a conspiracy behind the JFK assassination.
 
When I say "diss", I don't mean that they offer any reasons as to 
*why* the idea of a conspiracy is erroneous. I mean, rather, 
that they offer periodical snorts of disapproval; they "diss" the 
idea by letting out a hiss at the idea. They "diss" the theory 
(i.e., they disrespect the theory), but they don't go into any 
depth about why exactly the theory is wrong.
 
So, for example, Mr. Muth will mention Oliver Stone's movie, 
*JFK*, and then will add a mocking snort of disapproval. Or, 
Professor Estabrook will mention (again, just in passing) the 
idea that maybe it wasn't Oswald, only to punctuate this with 
mention of the latest book that really (oh, but I mean *really*, 
this time) closes the book on the Kennedy assassination.
 
So we have Muth and Estabrook, mightily concerned about East 
Timor and Russian coup d'etats and the true news from Cuba -- all 
of which is fine, to an extent. But should the focus get closer 
to home, closer to the *source* of these far away problems, the 
estimable gentlemen -- so loquacious on other matters -- are 
reduced to "knowing sighs".
 
And it's often the same with other fashioned leftist 
intellectuals: On some subjects, you get no answer from them. You 
get instead the arched eyebrow, the "knowing smile", the "(sigh) 
Oh *really* now!" -- but no discussion, no answers.
 
My view on so-called "leftists" -- the kind that hang out at 
universities, are aces at parlour room chit-chat and wizards of 
the afternoon teas, who study the vocabulary so as to wow the co- 
eds in their pursuit of young, idealistic pussy -- is that there 
are "leftists" and there are leftists. Some leftists acknowledge 
and, in fact, favor the idea that yes, we *do* live in Conspiracy 
Nation. But other "leftists", while offering nothing substantive, 
still routinely throw a little mud at ideas of conspiracy. For 
example, the already mentioned Muth and Estabrook. Or we also 
have Noam Chomsky (a.k.a. "St. Noam"), who *will not say* his 
opinion as to who killed JFK; who will not say, but who does 
"diss" the idea. As Dr. Michael Parenti pointed out in a lecture 
["Conspiracy and Class Power", available from Pacifica archives],
 
    There are those that said, "Yeah. So three-fourths of 
    the American people believe that John Kennedy was killed 
    by a conspiracy. So what? Three-fourths of the American 
    people..." -- [Alexander] Coburn's made this argument. 
    [Noam] Chomsky's made this argument to me. -- "...Three- 
    fourths of the American people believe in miracles, 
    too."
 
Note here how the idea has been dismissed as unworthy of serious 
discussion. Nothing concrete is seriously debated, rather the 
idea is put down as being unworthy of discussion. The hidden 
message is "I am so much smarter than you who have brought this 
conspiracy idea up, because I won't even bother to discuss it. If 
you were as smart as I, then you would have seen that this is not 
worth discussion."
 
Dr. Parenti responds to Coburn's and Chomsky's "dissing" as 
follows:
 
    Well that's a very facile argument; it's a confusion. 
    They're confusing the gullibility about miracles with 
    the public's refusal to be gullible about the *story* 
    that the officials are handing down to them about how 
    Kennedy was killed. It's quite different.
 
 
For a long time I couldn't understand how persons such as Muth 
and Estabrook *could* see the evil overseas, but could not see it 
here, all around us. But then, after hearing yet another snort of 
disapproval from Mr. Muth, an idea dawned on me: "Muth has been 
turned." <<Naw... can't be,>> I argued back. But again: "Yes. 
Muth has been turned."
 
When I say "turned", I do not mean (in the case of Muth and 
Estabrook) that anyone has been paying them off or that the CIA 
is blackmailing them to close their eyes. (Though this may have 
in fact occurred in the higher reaches, at the apex of the 
"leftist" pyramid.) By "turning" (in the case of Muth and 
Estabrook) I mean rather that the current fashionable thinking 
will be aped. Because there are many "leftists" who have turned 
their minds over to their top leadership, because many "leftists" 
choose to worship at the shrine of Coburn, Hitchins and Chomsky 
(rather than think for themselves), all it would take to "turn" 
the likes of Muth and Estabrook would be for word to come down 
from the top that the "current thinking" of the "leftist" Trinity 
did not favor conspiracy theory. Then you would have Muth and 
Estabrook aping the opinions of their "leftist" elite.
 
Thus we have the Big Three -- Coburn, Hitchins and Chomsky -- 
turning a thumbs down on conspiracy theory and you have the 
myriads of "leftists" aping the latest opinions. So when it 
dawned on me that the reason such seemingly intelligent people 
could be so ignorant in a particular area was that they had been 
turned, what I was seeing was the *effect* of a "turning" that 
had occurred at a higher level.
 
So, has the "left's" leadership been turned? How else to explain 
their consistent avoidance of something that is staring them in 
the face? Well, one theory would be that of a graduated series of 
ideological defenses. Defense level one would be for persons 
describable as belonging to a level of awareness that watches and 
enjoys television sitcoms. But for those who break through this 
first perimeter, defense level two would be, "Yes. You have 
discovered the truth about East Timor, etc." These people then 
become convinced that they need go no further; that they have 
broken through the ideological perimeter and that there is no 
further to go. *BUT THE MORE SOPHISTICATED AWARENESS WILL 
CONTINUE ON, AND WILL BREAK THROUGH A PERIMETER NOT SEEN BY THE 
LESS SOPHISTICATED AWARENESS*. The more sophisticated awareness 
will continue on, to the heart of the corruption, while the less 
sophisticated awareness will snort and declare that there is no 
further to go! This would be an alternative explanation why the 
higher-echelons of the "left", the one's who are supposedly doing 
the top-level thinking and leading the way for the rest of the 
troops, cannot see what is staring them in the face.
 
But that is the charitable explanation. Sherman Skolnick, veteran 
investigative reporter, offers another view:
 
    Many in the left wing and the liberal press are tied in, 
    like Chip Berlet, with that Cambridge group, that are in 
    with foundations connected with the CIA, *Z Magazine* 
    and that... Most of the so-called left press is financed 
    by the intelligence agencies. I can prove that. So 
    they're not independent. I know it's a terrible thing... 
    and I could go into a long rap about how the ACLU has 
    been taken over by the Baldwin Foundation, which runs 
    the *Nation* magazine, which is very liberal and runs a 
    lot of good stories but heaven help you if you raise a 
    thing about the CIA and the Baldwin Foundation. 
    ["Sherman Skolnick Sounds Off!" *Steamshovel Press* 
    Issue #11.]
 
 
The "left" has been turned. Either by hook or by crook, the 
"left" has been turned. Now, the "left" upsets no one. Now, the 
"left" sticks mostly to the safe issues -- super-citizen status 
for gays, super-citizen status for women -- and ignores things 
that the big money boys really care about. The big money boys 
don't give a damn if the gays or the feminists take the good 
jobs. It's no sweat off them who does the work. But the big money 
boys don't want you focussing on who *really* runs things in the 
U.S. because then you might find out what's going on. And if you 
found that out, then the people might take back this country. And 
if the people took back this country, then those same people 
might *effectively* help put a stop to massacres in places like 
East Timor.
 
So instead we have the turned "left" in turn now turning *our* 
attention to other things: turning our attention overseas; 
turning our attention to "political correctness". The "left" now 
serves to distract us, to keep us from looking where it really 
counts. The "left" has become an endless committee meeting that 
exists just for the sake of existing. The "left" has become an 
elaborate *poseur* in love with its pose and actually not wanting 
change.
 
But gee, if things got changed there'd be no more "News From 
Neptune", right guys??
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     I encourage distribution of "Conspiracy Nation."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you would like "Conspiracy Nation" sent to your e-mail 
address, send a message in the form "subscribe conspire My Name" 
to listproc@prairienet.org -- To cancel, send a message in the 
form "unsubscribe conspire" to listproc@prairienet.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Aperi os tuum muto, et causis omnium filiorum qui pertranseunt.
Aperi os tuum, decerne quod justum est, et judica inopem et 
  pauperem.                    -- Liber Proverbiorum  XXXI: 8-9 

 Brian Francis Redman    bigxc@prairienet.org    "The Big C"
--------------------------------------------------------------
"Justice" = "Just us" = "History is written by the assassins."
--------------------------------------------------------------

