Conspiracy Nation -- Vol. 3 Num. 21

("Quid coniuratio est?")

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 -- To cancel, send a message in the form "unsubscribe conspire" to
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 "The Big C"

Coming to you from Illinois -- "The Land of Skolnick"