That Batshit Zero-Conspiracies Theory

 

If there is any conspiracy that has its jaguar claws sunk deeply into the Western occiput, it is the ongoing, intense, society-wide promotion of a truly bizzarre and pseudo-positive idea:  that the super-rich and super-powerful somehow wield their super-influence over, frankly, every aspect of our lives with everyone’s best interest in mind--or they at least they they never do anything too heinous.  This remarkable error has us all drowned in a high tide of national naivete--or, worse, in a self-righteous tsunami of conspiracy-loon smears.

The conspiracy of disinformation that I am discussing here would have us believe that, despite the beastly huge influence their lawyers, guns, press and money have, and the profit they gain from it, and their insane insulation from criminal or civic liability; something, somewhere stops these power brokers from crossing certain lines.  Their baked-in sense of ethics keeps them from sitting down together in private, and planning to consolidate their power at others' expense, rip off large numbers of people, and even assassinate successful agitators.  Therefore, conspiracy theories are wing-nut klaptrap--always and forever.  In this fantasy, the powerful simply don't act like the powerful always have.  Not here in the U.S.!  They are, they must be, in general a lawful, ethical bunch.

Power corrupts, but the 'opposition' to power's malfeasance often amounts to no more than a sharing of pithy social media memes, a watching of politically correct TV, and outraged tweeting to our respective choirs.  At most, the big Kahunas of white-collar crime get off with a nominal fine--and they who can get away with murder very often will.  Somehow, despite our passivity as a nation and the skyrocketing wealth (and immunity from prosecution) of a very few families and companies, despite the spiraling lethality and invasiveness of technology, plus greater and greater incursions of Big Money into politics--all of which might logically lead to an increase in conspiracies--“conspiracy theory” has become a smutty slur with which few care or dare to associate themselves. 

One branch of this conspiracy to deny conspiracies holds that insanely powerful people rarely commit acts of terror and malfeasance in defiance of the democratic process.  Not wanting to seem too naïve, supporters of the zero-conspiracy conspiracy do acknowledge that certain individuals commit felonious acts, but mainly in isolation (witness our fascination with serial killers, who commit but a tiny percentage of total killings).  On the other hand, that a conspiracy-minded detective would even suspect an organized, widespread association of business interests and government agencies working in tandem, and in secret, to further the ends of profit (and fuck the general welfare)--that very suspicion is what's offensive.

 

Sounds like a very successful PR coup d'etat, to me.  I'm hearing laughing all the way to someone else's bank. 

To be clear, what's offensive here is not the tendency for the powerful to get away with whatever they can, at the same time amassing the sort of power that buys immunity from prosecution--it's the act of pointing this out.

This naïveté amounts to thinking the best of those most likely to be corrupt!  Or at least we try not to think the worst, but as many have re-quoted, “power corrupts,”  and as the equation goes, more power equals more corruption.  The unquoted corollary, of course, is that the corrupt do more damage in proportion to whatever level of power they wield.  Add to that the very real tendency to corrupt the people and institutions around them, making them dependent on your agendas and cash--money in politics, anyone?  Pile on the idea that the more they can get away with, the more they will get away with, and you have a grim picture of corrupted, corrupting power that ought to inspire people to to adopt a very tenacious sense of skepticism (if not an itchy guillotine finger).  This is the stuff that should inspire the I know you're probably lying reflex--and never its opposite.

Perhaps people have a certain threshold beyond which they can think no more ill of authority, or of people in general.  Maybe it's just too stressful to think about the power structures in our beloved country as being more like the mafia and less like the democracy we're supposed to be so proud of.  Anyway, fuck pride--we want to feel safe! We want to sleep at night.

 

In any case, the logical solution is to ensure that democratic power be more evenly distributed—in other words, that our democracy be more democratic (Socialism!  The accused will cry, while they work hard to get you living out of a refrigerator box).  To put it more starkly, those with too much power should have the excess removed from them, by all reasonable means.  This would appear to be self-evident to most, and a principle which, on paper at least, is the very cornerstone of this nation from the time of its bloody rebellion against the tyranny of England (which was ultimately, despite the nominal monarchy, economic).  

 

So, accepting the powerful's selfish, destructive and conspiratorial tendencies means taking on the power structure, and ain't nobody got time for that.  But I'm betting that nobody has time for what happens when you deny all that.

 
Actually, to not take the overly powerful down from their pedestals is to invite conspiracy (because that unchallenged power grants them immunity and makes them bold), or even to see it made legal (because they have the power to author laws).  In fact, due to their current legality, actual conspiracies have regressed to the point where they are no longer technically conspiracies  (take, for instance, the perfectly legal, unlimited bribes of campaign contributing corporations and lobbyists a la 'Citizens United').  This is perhaps a bigger issue than the existence of technically illegal conspiracies.  FFS, actual secret conspiracies would be progress at this point.  But I digress.

One point of dogma among sand-sucking ostriches and positive patriots: profitmongers would never assassinate a duly elected president, or steal votes, poison and ruin citizens’ lives, or lie to the public—or the media would expose it.  The media, which is owned by the very corporate interests it is charged with investigating and exposing in the event of foul play, is supposed to go ahead and tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—despite the guarantee of crackdown on journalists, who would be and have been smeared, cancelled, fired, exiled and imprisoned, bombed and beheaded.  To expect fair and balanced media in this anti-press environment is like expecting the fox to replace all the chickens in your henhouse at his own expense, and then go fetch you some turkeys in payment of psychological damages…

 

Sooner expect the fox's amends than expect corporate moguls, via the media outlets that they themselves own, fund and control, to tell on themselves and agitate for limits on their own wealth, power and brutality.  Sooner see them carrying signs that say, "PEOPLE OVER PROFITS" at a protest against themselves and organized by themselves.  For you see in that instance they would be accepting a pay cut—and, as word got round, be cut off from former business and social connections who could not afford to be associated with such magnanimity. They would be isolated, and exiled themselves--perhaps they'd take a bullet to the brain.  Or so I imagine.

...Wait, hold on!  It’s unbelievable!  I see them lining up, right this very moment, to tell on themselves.  And the child molesters and incestors are there, all the closet-queer Christians, the Wall Street grifters, the genocidal war profiteers...they all want to publicly confess, recant, to change their evil ways and make reparations, to give back their ill gotten gains, spend some time in the middle or lower class, or prison. Time to board the true-confession-and-financial-ruin train—All ABOOOOOOOOOOOOARD!  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Not hardly....The true confessions of corrupted elites, en masse, will never, ever--EVER EVER happen.  We have to ferret their malfeasance out for ourselves, along the way being labeled nutjobs, tinfoil-hatters, Alex Jones devotees, Q-Anon cranks....Tell me, is Oliver Stone really any of those?  Is Julian Assange?

The real conspiracy is a clinging to and spreading of the shockingly trustful idea that these people will go only so far in their malfeasance—just ‘cuz.  Maybe people feel that they paid especially close attention in kindergarten, when they were taught everything they needed to know? Maybe it was precisely all those lessons on mutual respect and caring that led them to wealth and power as adults?

 

Please.

Just for clarification, and as a working definition of the obscenely rich, let’s consider them “those wealthy enough to directly affect laws and political policy well out of proportion to their wisdom and numbers.”  It goes without saying that such folk employ lobbyists, who in many cases actually pen legislation that becomes law (this last reality ought to trigger jaw-dropping shock, but it's legal, and so not a conspiracy--which ought to trigger jaw-dropping shock).

We’ve all been taught in our public schools that the system of checks and balances, and this mighty democratic system set up by Founding Fathers who were very suspicious of power, will rein in the worst excesses in case Senator Joey was busy pooping his pants in the corner as Mrs. Schachter was explaining to the rest of the kindergarten class that "We keep the room clean not just for ourselves, but for everyone".  Having missed the lesson, Joey takes money from the petroleum industry to mint legislation that will protect the oil barons from liability no matter how many ecosystems they destroy with their toxic greenhouse goo.  Theoretically, either the House of Reps, the Executive Branch, or the Courts will remedy this pollution of the process and put into effect what Senator Joey missed in Kindergarten—concern for others, be they fish, fowl, or the people who depend on them for food or a living. 

We see, however, that large corporations universally get away with their twisted perfidy, suffering, if anything, a token punishment in the event one of our pseudo-democratic pageants of justice occurs at all.  They pay a tiny fraction of their profits for a cosmetic cleanup, while the rest of the cost of cleanup and remediation of other consequences (if they are addressed at all) falls on the shoulders of the taxpayer, who will also be the ones to breathe in the fumes and contract the cancer and lose their house to the flood waters.  This is known as corporate capitalism (see glossary), and such was the case with BP and its Deepwater Horizon leak from the floor of the Gulf, and has been/will be the same for many other eco-criminals (just kidding; there is no glossary).  

 

The name of the game is to maximize profits by sidestepping measures that would protect people and ecosystems (which cost money), minimize liability for the resulting catastrophes by pawning it off on the public (because corporate liability would cost money), all the while keeping up a snappy PR and a lively lobbying practice, all of which are “good investments”.  Turns out they are great investments, really fantastic. The cost of a lobbyist, for instance, and campaign donations--or even fines for fraud or damages--are a pittance compared to the profits companies can gain as a result of a big score, an industry-friendly bit of legislation, and a get-out-of-jail-free card. 

Again, this is no conspiracy, this is happening right in our faces, and is simply the way business centrally motivated by sheer profit and protected from liability plays out.  From this point of view, the meetings wherein decisions to sacrifice the general welfare for the sake of more money are not cabals of evil men, meeting in secret on Halloween Eve while they sacrifice infants to the Owl God; they are simply everyday business meetings guided by their god, the Profit Motive.  On the other hand, no company on earth is publicizing either the way they influence the laws of this country, nor the negative consequences of their activities, nor their efforts to censor the press regarding the damage—nor the way they leave the taxpayer holding the bag.  They’re not stupid, Stupid! 

There is certainly a blanket policy of secrecy and spin, a campaign to keep the citizenry from getting too alarmed about policies that are truly anti-democratic, homocidal (poverty kills, as do CIA-blessed assassins), ecocidal (and thereby globally genocidal, since none of us 7.5 billions can live without a viable habitat).   There MUST be a conspiracy of misinformation set in motion to deny it all, as evidenced by the fact that most people don’t even see the spin as spin—instead, they spin along with it as words like "butthurt nutjob" spew from their lips (along with some spittle).

The conspiracy-against-conspiracies uses the Straw Man Fallacy to set up any conspiracy “theory” as born from the leg-humping, aluminum-hat-wearing, high-all-the-time core of the lunatic fringe.  Thus, what it mocks are not the legitimate criticisms of thoughtful people but rather highlights the ideas of the fringe of the fringe which may be along for the ride—say, that “the Illuminati” are meeting in satanic covens in order to discuss world domination with their Cthulu overlords from deep space (who were responsible for creating human beings and civilization in the first place).  Amidst the barrage of derision for these seemingly ridiculous tenets, the plain fact of business meetings and what they’re designed to do, and at what long-term cost they operate, is lost among the chortles of those who have no wish to be lumped in with flat-earther loons who do so "want to believe". Furthermore, it is more than logical to assume that the spin-meisters managing all this narrative were the ones that have invented some of the whackier theories that have so satisfyingly muddied the waters, thereby smearing the names of many a legitimately skeptical researcher.

Never mind my opinion that the obscenely rich would gladly participate in idolatrous rites if they found it fashionable and could get a hold of the very best and sexiest Cthulu costumes—what we are discussing here is simply a business meeting.  Do people with money ever get together to discuss how to make more money?   Hmmmmm—only all the time.  Do they ever discuss how to influence or even negate the democratic process in order to make even more money?  The answer, since Citizens United officially gave corporations a legal mandate to bribe the most profit-and-power-friendly candidate they can find, is a very public “Yes!”  Case in point: they not only found a way to get ‘Citizens United’ passed, but got the the ridiculous misnomer ‘Citizens United’ to stick despite its polar distance from the reality of whose plutocratic interests the bill actually serves.     

The point is that what anti-conspiracy conspiracy theorists paint as a wacky, deluded fantasy propounded by a group of losers is actually just another godforsaken business meeting.  And whether they paint you as a winner or a loser, business meetings happen all the time, and just about every time they makes plans to secure profit over and above ethical principles, if the two should conflict (and if the latter should even be mentioned).

Now here’s a fevered delusion for you, one to challenge even the fringiest, schizoid funky mushroom of ideas:  the fantasy that what is profitable to some also coincidentally will bring about the greatest good for all.  Despite a landslide of evidence to the contrary, this wild PR claim has been loaned the honorary title of "Trickle-Down Theory (let's call it 'TDT')," just as if it were as valid as other theories like, say, the theory that the universe is expanding, a scientific consensus supported by measurement after measurement and equation after equation.  However, the TDT, as a "theory" which is ridiculous on its face (containing the absurd idea that the rich, when they get richer, will gladly allow the wealth of the entire population to swell along with their own rather than take definitive steps to consolidate their own control over said wealth).  As an extreme claim, it would require extreme proof; however, the moneyed class who owns the media has, ever since it's dissemination by said media as a 'theory,' with its actions done everything it could to prove the idea wrong but with its words continued to pretend that money really does trickle down.

Our corporations and banks are now “too big to fail,” and are considered "people" with the right and privilege to contribute infinite amount of money to the shills of their choice, and--coinciding with these coups d'etat with scientific precision--the gap between the über-rich and the lower classes has widened to a chasm of Grand-Canyonesque proportions.  So much for trickle-down.  Even in this age when science has been reduced to a mere chronicler of the dismantling of the biosphere, or, worse, the object of a hate campaign for doing even as little as that, this fantasy of how wealth trickles down should really be put in the ground and composted (along with the purveyors of the theory).

Mother Nature is life.  She is oxygen, water, fertile soil, food—and all the rest.  In reality it is Nature that is too big to fail.  To the exact extent (or greater) that She is compromised, then sooner or later so is our quality of life—and then our lives themselves are taken.  And yet, everywhere you look Nature has been, and continues to be, replaced by things of our own construction that in the long run make air, water, soil and food more scarce and/or more foul.  I look out my window, and what was once a marsh where a man with a gun could shoot 100 ducks in one hour (that was the description found in the records from the 1800's) is now a concrete street with asphalt patches, tar-shingle-roofed houses, and a scurry of squirrels but relatively few trees, and a small number of songbirds (most of which are invasive species).  Continuing this process as a matter of course, we degrade our quality of life in ways that are becoming increasingly obvious in the age of chronic and extreme illnesses.  Our numbers climb while resources dwindle, with the endgame nothing less than the most hideous of mass die-offs in our foreseeable future (perhaps progressing in somewhat less hideous stages, but I’m taking the long view here). 

And yet, every single degradation of the environment has made (or saved) money for profit-makers.  Arguably, moneymaking in our culture is the antithesis of long-term survival, to say nothing of thriving, and not the reverse.  Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” has picked our pockets, tossed our topsoil in the rivers, and made sure that every fish in the U.S. has mercury and antidepressants in its flesh.  Business-as-usual has brought us to the brink of worldwide environmental and societal collapse, and yet to some people it sounds crazy to suggest that those in power might in some premeditated, coordinated fashion conspire to enlarge their place of privilege--and along the way "kill some folks," sabotage our democracy, and cut short our long-term survival.  But from Armageddon to conspiracy is really not such a leap, if you think about it.

This means that they sit down and figure out in their business meetings not only how to “stay the course” of our extinction, but to accelerate it—because profits.  It means that they also discuss how to bribe lawmakers (or to make doing so legal), whom to kill or ruin, and how to put a nice spin on things, as well—but no, the belief that this is how it goes is a conspiracy theory.  And conspiracies don’t actually happen except in the minds of outsiders who confuse The X-Files with reality—right?

The anti-conspiracy conspirators may actually accept the fact that the George W. Bush administration completely fabricated the accusations of Iraq’s WMD’s and Iraqi involvement in the 9/11 terrorist attack which were the very basis for our invasion of that country, which at the very least exposes them as lying, swindling profiteers gunning for control of Middle Eastern oil.  They may even accept that the invasion has done the country few favors, trashing it on the one hand and giving rise to a civil war on the other, which has further devastated it, plus spawned a new generation of anti-U.S. terrorists.  

 
But say that Bush cronies pulled off the controlled demolition of the twin towers as a “false flag” operation in order to muddy the public’s thinking and shove its opinion far over in their favor (and in the process raise Dubya's approval rating 50 points), so they could invade an innocent country and get control of that oil and make a killing on arms-and-oil sales and mercenary contracts for Blackwater, etc.—and what you get is “I can’t believe they would do that”.  This despite the fact that 3 buildings fell when only 2 planes hit--and each unprecedented steel-skeleton collapse looked just exactly like a controlled demolition.

 

 

 

 

My point here is not to prove that 9/11 was an inside job; rather, it's merely to point out how plausible it would be for it to have been an inside job.  It shouldn't be so plausible, but it absolutely is.  If Bush, Inc. hadn’t gained the public’s blessing to enter Iraq, a shit-ton of money would absolutely not have been made by certain very connected, mercenary, oil-hungry interests--starting with his own family, the business of which has always been--what?--oil.  We could talk about Cheney and Haliburton, while we're at it.  We are talking about profits in the trillions for the war machine and Bush-Cheney Oil, a resounding success from the point of view of net income for the companies in question.  We’re talking high fives, and bonuses, and extra homes and vacations.  We're talking about people who made peace long ago with the idea of making money off of the suffering, death and gore experienced by the common soldier or citizen.  So I ask you, anti-conspiracy conspirators, what, exactly, would keep these obviously profit-obsessed people from blowing up, crushing, and burning to death thousands of their own countrymen if the massacre meant billions of dollars in profits for them?  Would Senator Joey, and CEO Justin, and President Billy stand up for everything they learned in kindergarten, or turn a blind eye—and take the money?  You tell me.
 

One more time: I am not here to argue that 9/11 was an inside job.  My only point here is that a conspiracy is, at the very least, a completely plausible explanation for why those 3 towers fell--and not at all a theory to be waved away with talk of aluminum hats and "someone's off his meds, ha ha!".  Paranoia is thinking that evil gnomes are painting skid marks on your underwear at night, while you sleep off a bean-eating binge.  To say that the super-rich will throw any ethics they ever claimed to have out the window in order to get even richer is not paranoia at all.  As the Godfather said, It's nothing personal: it's just business. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, said Lord Acton, historian.  Follow the money, said some savvy journalist, somewhere....

 

Actually, if you really want to follow the post-9/11 cash cow, here's an excellent and thorough source:

 

https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar/files/cow/imce/papers/2021/Profits%20of%20War_Hartung_Costs%20of%20War_Sept%2013%2C%202021.pdf

But I digress: another point to emphasize with conspiracy theories:  if there really IS a conspiracy, the physical evidence will be relatively scarce--by definition.  And that is simply because the authorities who pull the main strings of justice are the ones who committed the crime.  They will therefore destroy the evidence, and discredit or threaten--or even kill--witnesses.  They will sway judges.  That they will generally do so expecting impunity goes without saying, since their connections often protect them from prosecution.  They'll find a patsy, probably--you know the drill.  And yet, zero-conspiracy nuts like to say, without any ado, "there's no evidence for that".  Not that the desire for evidence is a bad instinct, at all--it just amounts to a sort of anti-logic: conspirators destroy evidence, and the more powerful they are the more coroners' reports stop making sense, the more DNA simply fails to turn up at a crime scene, the more defendants get off on a technicality, the more witnesses disappear off the planet. But the conclusion made, in the interest of being objective and honoring the "innocent until proven guilty" principle, is exclusively this: there is a lack of evidence indicting these elites here; therefore, there must be no conspiracy (besides which, They would never do that! They couldn't get away with that...That's crazy to think that, etc).  

 

This conclusion isn't near as logical as it pretends to be, unless you assume that conspirators try but do not succeed in destroying evidence, or, due to their high ethical principles and fears of the efficiency of law enforcement, don't even want to get rid of the evidence, or they want to but are still dutifully following those lessons learned in America's kindergartens--all of which are questionable takes on the behavior of highly empowered, liability-free, dirty power brokers.  

 

As far as succeeding in round filing evidence, zero-conspiracy theorist, meet your doom:  the common office shredder.  Meet the toilet.  Meet fire.  Meet the "Delete" button on any computer, and techies well paid and well versed in making the traces disappear. Meet "We know where your kid goes to school, what time he arrives and when he leaves!".  Meet crooked judges that swim in the same circles as the corporate sharks.

This does not mean that  a lack of evidence is always proof of guilt--that's taking the point too far, since innocence is also, of course, marked by a lack of evidence.  What it means is that a lack of evidence, in case of an actual conspiracy, is such a given that it almost could be evidence--so dig further.  In the case of overwhelming circumstantial evidence against powerful figures who could have stymied the course of justice, and where motive is evident,  a lack of physical evidence is as fishy as the shores of Lake Michigan after the alewife die-off.  Even if an absence of evidence could not (and should not) be used in court, it would, in an impartial system, call strongly for a deeper and more rigorous investigation--as opposed to the abandonment of that investigation in a cascade of sniggers.  

 

The point is that a certain lack of evidence, in a true conspiracy, does not necessarily disprove the conspiracy.  It may point to, not only a conspiracy, but a meta-conspiracy to  obstruct justice by burying that crime (and certain witnesses).  It may indicate not less wrongdoing, but more.  By definition.  The higher up the conspiracy goes, in fact, the less dense the available hard evidence will be, but the denser the thicket of circumstantial evidence will be.

Again, the conspiracy is not some secret about how people behave when profit is their ultimate motive.  This is no secret at all—they will pursue profit, period, or go out of business.  Such is our economic system.  In an age of corporate takeovers, you've got to mind your bottom line!  The real conspiracy here is that of give absurdly wealthy human beings, in a grow-exponentially-or-die system, the benefit of the doubt.  The actual conspiracy is that of characterizing anyone accusing elites of coordinated efforts to swindle the public as an automatic wing-nut.  The CIA wouldn’t kill JFK, Grandpappy Bush wouldn’t profit from The Holocaust, the Bush-Cheneys and their cronies wouldn't sacrifice 3,000 people in order to make a killing on a dirty war--That's just crazy! 

The conspiracy I'm talking about here is the one that convinces the very people being screwed out of their (tax) money for the crude purpose of lining a few silken pockets that, no, power does not corrupt, and absolute power does not corrupt absolutely--BUT RATHER, people who do see the corrupting influence of power, to the point where they point out probable conspiracies, ARE crazy/stupid/paranoid/etc.  This anti-conspiracy conspiracy is brought to bear by the public itself, as its naïveté provides free PR for even the most obscenely rich and viciously self serving, by refusing to believe that those who are most addicted to profits ever get together to coordinate vile acts in order to secure more...profits?

C'mon.

That refusal to believe that the worst can occur is what allows the worst actions to occur.  And actions speak louder than thinking.  To believe that  a cold cost-benefit calculation of the monstrous desires of a few--which discounts the monstrous suffering of many--does not exist, or hardly ever happens outside of movies, is to show a shocking level of trust in human nature.  This is even more true in the case of the very inhumane behavior that the very powerful (which is to say, the very corrupt) engage in.  To believe that conspiracies cannot be coordinated among large numbers of people is to be ignorant of the power of propaganda, PR, and manipulation--and professional ruin and threats thereof, and murder and threats thereof.  To believe that the media, and those who pay them, would never create lies both huge and heinous is to ignore who writes the media's paychecks, and why.

I am not here to advocate witch hunts.  But the opposite of a witch hunt, what is that?  When you refuse to prosecute, resist, or even see the evil that people actually do, what do we call that?  The most descriptive phrase in the English language that we have for this is "burying your head in the sand", but that is hackneyed and euphemistic--hey, how about "shoving your own head up some rich asshole's asshole and eating what you find there, and then going around and telling everybody how good it is, and calling anyone who points out you are eating shit a lunatic"?  So disgusting--and yet so much more appropriate than ostrich-based tropes.

 

Far from truth-dodging displays of cowardly ignorance, our society's--any democracy's--success hinges on it's opposite: the free press's role as whistle blower, and our First-Amendment rights to expose and remedy all that is unwise or destructive.  This is the cornerstone of all the other checks and balances to unbridled power.  Looking the other way is what allows evil actions, and their consequences for all, to continue. Nature abhors a vacuum--but evil loves it.  Evil loves to suck itself into that vacuum of denial, and to see just how much it can hollow out the space so as to expaaaaaaaaaaaaand into it further.

Think about it: if you are going to reflexively shame and mock all conspiracy theories, this means that there is no need for the First Amendment.  We could get rid of it, because conspiracies never actually happen, so there’s no need to report on them.  In fact, if George W. Bush and cronies didn’t murder a million people in Iraq and destabilize the whole region based on lies and in order to get control of oil and markets, aided by a false flag/planned ignorance of a bomb plot against the Twin Towers--then just get rid of the whole Constitution, because, evidently, we don’t need it.  Nothing to see here.

As a certain someone might have said, had circumstances and personalities been radically different, "If you're not against conspiracies, you're with them!"  With them means you're on board with secrets and lies, unchecked power, absolute corruption, environmental catastrophe, murder, war and the relative disempowerment of all of us "citizens dis-united".  You're an unpaid marketer-cheerleader for corrupt and destructive 'elites' whose guiding light is, and will always be, profit at your own expense.