Conspiracies happen. Witch hunts also happen. They both are part of the "shit" that happens.
Be that as it may, I think it's
abundantly clear that politicians take money from large corporations with truly toxic effects, and I wonder if you think, reader, that the
idea that politicians cater to their donors is witch hunt stuff, or
self-evident, or somewhere in between.
It has been pointed out that, once a bonafide witch hunt gets going, it's very hard to divert the witch hunters from their brutal conviction, no matter what the evidence. Innocence is by its nature hard to prove, marked as it is by a lack of evidence. Plus, the human brain is hard-wired to focus more on potential threats than on all which is hunky-dory, so a sort of ingrained paranoia is our lot.
Now, I think the irrational nature of witch hunts is an idea that enjoys congenial acceptance in our society, to the point where I don't think I need to spend more time on it. But if we
are going to talk witch hunts AND conspiracies, it should be pointed out
that, in the case of actual conspiracies with high-level officials
participating, it is by definition very difficult to prove guilt. This
is because those in charge of justice are, instead of actively gathering
and evaluating evidence, industriously getting rid of it, plus silencing
witnesses, etc. THEN they can point to the lack of evidence and say,
"You can't prove anything, you're a whacko conspiracy theorist"--and, as
far as anyone can see, this is the truth. Because there is little to no
evidence. By defintion.
A really good example is the
assassination of JFK, where the official story--one shooter, from a
certain building--completely contradicted what is plainly seen in the
Zapruder film, as well as the laws of physics. Obviously, those who
sponsored this official story were implicated, but they were
governmental officials and were thus able to get rid of evidence, and
witnesses, and discourage testimony in a way that you and I cannot.
Given the lack of corroborating evidence, the Zapruder film, though
incontrovertible, could not stand alone. So the real movers and shakers behind the blown-out brains of JFK were never apprehended, much less charged or convicted.
A
conspiracy, by definition, leaves little evidence. In fact, a
conspicuous lack of concrete evidence in the face of significant
circumstantial elements, plus motive, may itself be evidence that justice has been corrupted. Maybe. In any case, lack of evidence is not proof of innocence in every case.
My question is, Why don't people make
THAT point more often? When there is money to be made, and power to be
gained, but the law stands in the way, what do you think people in power
do? Back off and remain law-abiding citizens? Do the boy-scout thing,
and stick with only the one yacht? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no, is
the obvious answer. Sometimes they engage in conspiracy, and sometimes
they don't. Often enough, given human nature (especially when it wields undue power), they engage in conspiracy, and take the extra yacht. Is this in
dispute, somehow? I don't think so; the question is how common
conspiracies might be.
I wonder why people
reflexively trot out terms like "witch hunt" in order to smear attempts
to criticize public officials with dubious ties to big business. Most U.S. politicians with strong corporate ties have a mixed record, simply because the corporate agenda and that of the average citizen and worker are often at odds. There is much they have done, as a matter of
record, which has been destructive, generally, but has helped line the
pockets of their cronies. And that seems to have been the point; at
least, if you can take campaign contrubutions as proof of favor by
corporate elites.
And, really, this is the main
thing, the issue hiding in plain sight: politicians who make themselves
part of the corporate system are part of the problem--and it's a truly
YUGE problem--because they are not part of the solution. Politicians
who give corporations what they want--and what they want, bottom line,
is profit above all else--are participating in a very vicious cycle. In
fact, the very worst thing about our system is that, usually, you don't
HAVE to engage in conspiracy in order to create massive, irreversible destruction. If the Arctic National Refuge is desecrated by oil operations, it will all be by the book, because money has worked within the system
to change the laws to work in its favor, no matter what the
consequences.
Citizens United. TPP. NAFTA. The globally reckless
corporations are grabbing more and more power, in front of God and
everybody. Who the hell needs conspiracies?
The
consequences of unregulated capitalism that does not make amends for its
destruction--assuming such amends were even possible--are chilling. Are
killing. Us.
Look at the fisheries of the world: 90% of the large
fish eliminated (atlantic cod and many others, essentially gone), and most of what's left is contaminated. Garbage gyres
the size of small continents spin as fish ingest broken-down pieces of plastic. Nukes are still very viable, and global
relations between nuclear powers are marked by pillaging and passing the
buck. Our topsoil is eroded, its minerals and supporting biota flushed
away into the rivers and replaced by chemicals you would never, ever
serve in a shot glass. Wild animals, both individuals and species, are
being erased from existence to make room for our destructive lifestyles
and sterile-toxic landscapes--and we have no idea at what point ecosystems go
into freefall without them. I could go on and on--but this is the sort
of shit that can NOT go on; not if we are to survive, and thrive.
I never thought I'd say this, but fuck
conspiracies. I do think they are important, because they demonstrate the blatant disregard for justice on the part of elites.
They show that power corrupts. They show that power murders and lies.
But the real story is what's going on all around us, every day, the
legal stuff, and their effects on our already half-dead world. Will you
really be cheering as the likes of __________ (any politician to be found in the
corporate purse) and her donors work to kill off the other half?
Even
some conspiracies seem, in the long term, rather insignificant compared
to the health of the planet. Chomsky notes that there was no
significant policy changes post JFK assassination, and so his murder was
no more important than that of any John Doe. He has a point, though
some dispute it.
His main point is that our
energy is better spent dealing with what's happening right under our
noses, which is beyond dispute: corporations are taking over the world,
and destroying it as they go. Even if you dispute individual phenomena
like climate change, all you have to do is look around to see that we
have replaced strong, diverse virgin ecosystems that purified and
nutrified with artificial, monocultured and denuded landscapes that
toxify the environment and remove nutrients.
Will you tell your grandchildren that you
did nothing, that you even defended the corporations by labeling the
politicians they controlled as victims of some witch hunt? Will you tell them
you missed the forest for the trees?..."What's a forest,
grandpa?...What's a tree?"
No comments:
Post a Comment