	id AA29765; Fri, 16 Dec 94 19:16:51 CST
Subject: Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 3 Num. 21


              Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 3  Num. 21
             ======================================
                    ("Quid coniuratio est?")
 
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
 
WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW
Editorial by Brian Francis Redman
Editor-in-chief, Conspiracy Nation
 
 +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +  +
 
Suppose that the mainstream media outlets were withholding 
information from you. Would you know that information was being 
withheld?
 
Suppose, for example, that the major networks and the major 
newspapers knew that Fort Knox was empty, that the gold had long 
since been removed. If they didn't tell you about it, how would 
you know? And what is more -- and here is the point -- you 
wouldn't know that you didn't know.
 
For all we know, when we turn on the alleged "news" at night, we 
are being given the *whole* truth. But do we really know this? 
How can we know for sure that we are being given the *whole* 
truth? Might not the major media outlets, for whatever reason, 
routinely "kill" certain stories?
 
We know of course that stories are in fact routinely "killed". 
For example, a story might be deemed not interesting or redundant 
or not credible, and for that reason it will be "killed". But 
what if stories were being "killed" for more sinister reasons? In 
theory at least there could well be a whole realm of news that we 
are routinely not being told.
 
Can you see how this would be easy for the major media outlets to 
both do and get away with? If, for example, news that dealt with 
corporate and governmental crime were routinely suppressed -- 
well if they don't tell us about it, then how are we going to 
know that we're not being told?
 
Of course, corporate and governmental crime *is* regularly 
reported in our mainstream media. But how do we know that there's 
not a great deal more in this area of which we are not being 
told? Suppose that the "elite crime" that we *do* know about is 
just a sort of "limited hangout". Suppose that the "news" 
conglomerate parcels out such information only to the extent that 
they must in order to maintain a supposed credibility. Suppose 
that, yes, we are told from time to time about Charles Keating 
and Leona Helmsly -- but only sparingly, only due to the fact 
that if *no* "elite crime" was reported then it would be too 
obvious that information was being withheld.
 
Just as the U.S. government, under the pretext of "national 
security", now routinely withholds ever greater amounts of 
information from the public, so too we seem to now have a "double 
filter" situation in which the mainstream media takes the 
information doled out to them and, in turn, doles that 
information sparingly out to us.
 
And yet, in our political discourse we, as a people, routinely 
argue about what ought to be done regarding the great issues of 
the day. We argue about crime and the "war on drugs" as if we are 
generals possessing full knowledge of the situation. But what if 
there are key aspects of the situation which we know nothing 
about? When we discuss these issues, we assume we have all the 
needed information available to us on which to base our decision. 
What if we have not been told, for example, that the U.S. 
government is one of the major importers of illegal narcotics 
into the United States? If they don't tell you that, then how are 
you going to know that you do not know?
 
Without the knowledge of this one key factor, that the U.S. 
government is itself one of the major importers of illegal 
narcotics (First the government declares them illegal, then 
demand rises, then prices rise, then the government imports the 
"illegal" narcotics for a whopping cash bonanza! And we always 
thought the government was stupid!) into the United States, 
public discussion about what to do about crime and the "war on 
drugs" is going to miss a key aspect of the problem. By missing a 
key aspect of the problem, the wrong solution will be arrived at. 
And this wrong solution, which will take the form of public 
opinion, will have occurred because crucial information had been 
withheld.
 
But nobody would *know* that crucial information had been 
withheld.
 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
     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"
--------------------------------------------------------------
    Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"        
--------------------------------------------------------------

