View Full Version : "The Transparent Conspiracy" by Michael D. Morrissey: A Review

Ed Jewett
08-02-2010, 08:44 PM
Posted by stuartbramhall (http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee/author/stuartbramhall/) at 7:09 pm
July 31, 2010
http://c0573252.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspacecloud.com/talk_box.jpg7 COMMENTS (http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee/2010/07/31/they-want-us-to-know-on-conspiracies-and-cover-ups/#disqus_thread)
They Want Us to Know: On Conspiracies and Cover-ups

Posted by stuartbramhall (http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee/author/stuartbramhall/) on @ 7:09 pm
Article printed from speakeasy: http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee
URL to article: http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee/2010/07/31/they-want-us-to-know-on-conspiracies-and-cover-ups/

The Transparent Conspiracy by Michael D. Morrissey: A Review

http://blogs.alternet.org/refugee/files/2010/07/41pVuTdeotL._BO2204203200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-clickTopRight35-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Transparent-Conspiracy-Michael-David/dp/0557503299/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280628761&sr=8-1)
The Mass Psychology of Partial Disclosure

The Transparent Conspiracy is a collection of essays written between 2006 and 2010, mainly about the 911 and JFK conspiracies and cover up, with a short collection of poems on the same topic. Morrisey’s latest bookis a definite departure from other conspiracy literature. Morrissey has no interest in proving or disproving either the 911 or the JFK conspiracy – he feels this territory is well-covered by other authors. The topic of this book is mass psychology. Morrissey believes our government’s propaganda arm (whatever they call it now) is fully aware that a well-managed conspiracy cover-up can have a very intimidating effect, which can be very effective in keeping the public docile and obedient.
The Government Wants Us to Know
Specifically he argues there is major value (from the government point of view) in disclosing a limited amount of information concerning government culpability in atrocities such as the JFK assassination and 911. He bases his view on something he calls “Transparency Theory” – thus his title The Transparent Conspiracy. He says the CIA has long recognized that “telling part of the truth is the best way to lie.” They even have a term for it: “white propaganda.” Morrissey argues that for the government to brazenly commit criminal acts can be quite effective in demoralizing and alienating the tuned-in segment of the population that fully comprehends the corrupt nature of our government institutions.
He then lays out the hypothetical question: if the reality of the 911 conspiracy were widely accepted by the American public, would they be capable of doing anything about it? Morrissey believes that at this point in history they would be powerless (that they lack the power to bring the culprits to trial or even impeach them). Which he contends is a powerful basis for demoralization and alienation.
Contrasting 911 with the JFK Assassination
He then contrasts the 911 conspiracy cover-up with the cover-up of the JFK assassination, in which years of advanced planning went into creating a fictional identity (as an unstable Marxist) for a US intelligence agent named Lee Harvey Oswald – and in which scores of witnesses were murdered and evidence secretly destroyed and/or fabricated.
In the case of 911 there was very limited – a few fictitious cell phone calls from a high altitude that weren’t technologically feasible in 2001 and some clumsily forged bin Laden videotapes. The government made no attempt to conceal that they were destroying evidence at Ground Zero – they simply loaded all the twisted steel onto trucks and shipped it to Long Island to be melted down into something else. The 911 Commission was more of a whitewash than a true cover-up.
Noam Chomsky’s Puzzling Position on Conspiracies

Morrissey’s essays also cover, at length, his correspondence with American’s pre-eminent dissident Noam Chomsky, regarding the JFK assassination conspiracy and cover-up. Morrisey, who has always been one of Chomsky’s greatest admirers, describes his initial dismay at his hero’s categorical rejection of the mountains of irrefutable evidence that the JFK assassination conspiracy originated at the highest levels of government. He was even more troubled, after their lengthy correspondence (published as Looking for the Enemy in 2008), at Chomsky’s inability to rationally justify his position. He initially tended to side with media critics who believe Chomsky plays some deliberate “left gatekeeping” function (having to do with right wing foundation funding). He now believes Chomsky more likely has other reasons – relating more to what is increasingly self-evident in the 911 Truth movement – that the endless investigation of government conspiracies playing little pragmatic role in the massive institutional change (such as the end of capitalism) which is the only hope for real and permanent change in the US.
Morrissey also touches on his correspondence with Vincent Salandria (published in 2007 as Correspondence with Vincent Salandria). Salandria, a “left leaning” Philadelphia lawyer, was the first to publicly challenge the Warren Commission (in 1965). Morrissey is also careful to credit Salandria’s ideas about the propaganda uses of a well-managed cover-up for helping to develop his own thinking.
The poems make a moving addendum to the essays. They convey quite poignantly Morrissey’s personal struggle with the despair and heartache of learning a government you believed to be fair and democratic is actually deeply corrupt.


62 year old psychiatrist, activist and author of a recently published memoir THE MOST REVOLUTIONARY ACT: MEMOIR OF AN AMERICAN REFUGEE. Which describes my decision in 2002 - owing to extensive government harassment for my political activities to close my 25-year Seattle practice and begin a new life in New Zealand. What commenced as unrelenting phone harassment and illegal break-ins progressed to attempts on my life and an affair with an undercover operative who railroaded me into a psychiatric hospital

Peter Lemkin
08-03-2010, 04:41 AM
Sounds like 'my kind' of book!~and great. Also sounds depressing. I hope there is a ray of hope in there somewhere.....or someone else will write such a book. That said, I'll likely read it and reconfirm my worst nightmares..... :viking: :bandit:

John Judge and others have made this point...(that they want the cognoscenti to know they did it and are powerless to do anything about it), like the taunts of the schoolyard bully. Only the current schoolyard bully it the Global bully.....and is not likely to 'grow out of it'....unless challenged by a mass movement of enraged world citizenry and led by righteously indignant 'family' members of the bully...i.e. Americans and their lapdogs.

Carsten Wiethoff
08-03-2010, 06:29 AM
For this item a file download (for a charge) in PDF format is available at

Certainly an alternative. I am not affiliated in any way with the book.

[Edit:] Many of the articles and poems in the book are also available online at https://sites.google.com/site/michaeldavidmorrissey/home

Peter Lemkin
08-07-2010, 02:55 PM
Vincent J. Salandria speaking to Gaeton Fonzi in 1975. Quoted in The Last Investigation (1993):

I'm afraid we were misled. All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one - not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official - no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless. And the people eventually got the message. Consider what has happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously.

The tyranny of power is here. Current events tell us that those who killed Kennedy can only perpetuate their power by promoting social upheaval both at home and abroad. And that will lead not to revolution but to repression. I suggest to you, my friend, that the interests of those who killed Kennedy now transcend national boundaries and national priorities. No doubt we are dealing now with an international conspiracy. We must face that fact - and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do. They have kept us busy for so long. And I will bet, buddy, that is what will happen to you. They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down.

Peter Lemkin
08-12-2010, 04:12 PM
Controlled Demolition as a Limited Hangout
Oct. 1, 2009
I have been saying this for several years (most recently in "9/11 Aletheia"),
and the recent articles by Kevin Ryan144 support my point. As I wrote in
Thus one can argue that it is in the interest of Big Brother to limit the
discussion to the question of controlled demolition at the WTC.
Now, three years later, when everybody who is ever going to believe it (unless
they hear it on Fox News) does believe it, thanks to the long-awaited and
highly touted scientific proof of explosives at the WTC provided by the
paper146 published by Jones et al. last April (one of whose authors was Kevin
Ryan), the limited hangout can begin it's second phase. I am not saying that
Jones or Ryan are government agents. I am saying they have been dealing with
what Michael Green calls a tar baby – although he misidentifies it. (Green is
one of those who most vociferously argue that "no plane [at least, no 757] hit
the Pentagon" is the tar baby.147)
I have not heard a single report of anyone being persuaded by the
"definitive" thermite paper who was not already persuaded that the Towers
came down by controlled demolition. It has made zero impact on the
"scientific community," the government, and on the public at large, which
should in itself validate my argument that "truthers" who insist on limiting
discussion to this one – most obvious, to anyone who sees the WTC videos
and has also seen videos of controlled demolitions – aspect of 9/11 are
serving the interest of Big Brother.
What the thermite paper does seem to have signalled is the end of the
"research" phase regarding explosives and the beginning of the "forensic"
phase. Ryan provides us with enough suspects for placing the explosives in the
Towers to keep "independent researchers" busy for many years. Let me list
them, in the order they appear in the first two parts of his article (a third is yet
to come) to make the point:
Al-Qaeda operative Ramzi Yousef, Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, Marsh & McLennan, Baseline Financial Services, First Commercial
Bank, Fuji Bank, Mizuho Holdings, Deutsche Bank, AON Corporation,
Chuo Trust, Washington Group International, Primark Corporation,
144 See http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20090713033854249 and
145 See "The Onion Peeled," in this volume.
146 See http://stj911.org/press_releases/ActiveThermiticMaterial.html.
147 See "9/11 Aletheia," in this volume.
The Transparent Conspiracy
Bankers Trust, Exco Resources, Oppenheimer & Co., Morrison-Knudsen,
Komatsu, Aoki Construction, Special Devices Inc., In-Q-Tel, TASC,
Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Halliburton, SAIC,
Dresser Industries (now Halliburton), UBS, BCCI
and this is only from Part 1 – "approximately fifty people ... and their possible
links to explosive technology and expertise," as Ryan begins Part 2. In Part 2
he adds Kroll Inc., Electronic Systems Associates, E.J. Electric Installation,
Ensec International, Securacom Inc., Silverstein Properties, and a bunch of
other names of people who, he summarizes, "were deceptive and/or corrupt,
and appeared to have benefited from the attacks," who "were connected to
each other and to the investigations into previous acts of terrorism and the
terrorist financing bank BCCI," who "did major work for the Saudi Arabian
government, or the royal family of Kuwait," or whose history "shows a level
of greed and corruption that overshadowed all preconceptions about U.S.
I have not read the article carefully, I confess, because the tar is sticking to
my fingers, and my point here is not to question the accuracy of Ryan's
research – nor, in fact, the value of it, for those who want to continue dealing
with the tar baby. There is obviously plenty more work to do, and it is equally
obvious, I think, that it will lead everywhere and nowhere. I would feel sorry
for Ryan, who like Stephen Leacock's comic hero Lord Roland now wants to
fling himself upon his horse and ride madly off in all directions, except that
his previous behavior does not exactly qualify him as a naif. He joined in the
denunciation of the 2008 effort by Joel Hirschhorn et al.148 to get Congress to
look at aspects of 9/11 that (in Ryan's view) are "poorly defined, and highly
implausible" because it "minimizes the chances that Congress would be willing
or able to investigate the actual evidence for the demolition of three WTC
It could be that Ryan et al. have actually increased the possibility that
Congress will investigate "the actual evidence for the demolition," and if and
when that evidence is officially acknowledged, the door will be open,
presumably, to further investigations of how the explosives got into the
Towers. Enter Ryan's current foray into the murky networks of corporate and
state intelligence networks. Imagine how long it will take Congress, comprised
of people who are themselves hugely involved in such networks, to become
"willing or able to investigate" any of this! If they will not take his physics
seriously, how can he expect them to take his detective work about possible
sinister connections among dozens of companies and individuals seriously? Or
more to the point, why does he feel it preferable to point in this direction
148 See http://stj911.org/press_releases/Misrepresentation.html.
The Transparent Conspiracy
rather than to the further investigation of the physical evidence regarding
many aspects of 9/11 other than controlled demolition?
For example, just to mention one such aspect, Pilots for 9/11 Truth149
have just produced a video full of technical data that proves that either the
data supplied by the NTSB regarding the speed and trajectory of the airplanes
that supposedly crashed into the WTC is false, in which case, the narrator
says, no one should set foot in an airplane again, or whatever hit the buildings
was not a "stock, airline fleet, Boeing 767." Previous videos have said the same
about Flight 77 that supposedly hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 that
supposedly crashed in Shanksville (both 757s). This is hard, technical data that
is at least as compelling as the evidence for explosives adduced by Ryan et al.,
and yet you can search in vain on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
site150 – or Jim Hoffman's site(s),151 to which STJ911 frequently links – for any
sign that people who challenge the government line on Flights 77 and 93
(except for the possibility that it may have been shot down) are anything but
"disinformation agents."
The latter, it should be said, though it seems to be a well-kept secret,
would have to include David Ray Griffin, who has consistently presented
evidence demonstrating the falsity of the official story of Flights 77 and 93, as
well as 11 and 175. Griffin is far and away the most popular 9/11 "truther,"
and has been careful (and wise) to avoid the internecine squabbles among
fellow truthers, but he presents a plethora of evidence about much more than
controlled demolition that, if it came from anyone else, I am certain Hoffman
and the Jones Boys (STJ911.org, whose spokesman is however a Girl named
Victoria Ashley, who is close to Hoffman) would also denounce as
The Pilots are a conservative group, too, but they are not blind. Their data,
at the very least, proves the official story of what happened on 9/11 with
regard to all four planes is false. They try hard not to speculate, but what they
are saying is that no 757s or 767s (at least, they will add, no unmodified
planes, meaning no commerical jetliners) crashed on 9/11. This is the rocket
science, for me – at least, airplane science – but the further conclusions based
on this are not, even though the pilots refrain from saying them out loud. The
planes were supposed to be ordinary jetliners. That is the official story. If they
were not ordinary jetliners, not only is the official story false, but all of the
questions about what really happened on 9/11 scream out at us for answers.
We are at one fell swoop far beyond the question of demolition and the
hopeless morass of the question of who put the explosives in the buildings.
149 See http://pilotsfor911truth.org/.
150 See http://stj911.org/.
151 See http://911research.wtc7.net/.
The Transparent Conspiracy
This is true of many other aspects of 9/11, which as I say David Griffin
and others have consistently presented but which Kevin Ryan and his
associates at STJ911.org have consistently refused to deal with and
aggressively demonized. (My reward for objecting to this patently unscientific
behavior was to be thrown out of the organization.) Instead of chalking up the
"proof" of thermite in the WTC dust as a (modest) victory and going on to
more interesting questions, such as the questions the Pilots have taken on,
questions which are much more likely to show the hand of the military in the
events of 9/11, Ryan et al. want us to ride off madly in all directions after the
bad guys he has discovered at the WTC, who are at the most small fry in the
context of what happened on 9/11. Well, thanks, but no thanks.

Darius Alexander
08-14-2010, 08:36 PM
I have mentioned this in more clarity before... does this not make you wonder of the nature of this forum, and exactly what is being discussed here?

Jack White
08-15-2010, 01:51 AM
I have mentioned this in more clarity before... does this not make you wonder of the nature of this forum, and exactly what is being discussed here?

We all know the nature of this forum and what is being discussed here.


Darius Alexander
08-15-2010, 02:18 AM
I find it strange for you to have such a high post count if you do know its true nature and content. Nonetheless, I do hope you really do understand.

Magda Hassan
08-15-2010, 03:01 AM
Darius, I don't understand what it is you are referring to. Can you please explain?

Darius Alexander
08-15-2010, 03:17 AM
Darius, I don't understand what it is you are referring to. Can you please explain?

Hello Magda,

Yes, I will explain succinctly. The nature of this control mechanism, which has been placed within our immediate and distant reality, orchestrated the wave, i.e. promotion, of current news via the media and extended media. The purported news of today, e.g. imminent threats, financial scandals, assassinations, and the like, are intended for mass consumption, whether by means of mainstream outlets or counterculture movements. The latter seemingly oppositional force is still controlled by the same collective entity.

That is the explanation I can provide in a nutshell. I do have podcasts which are intended to speak of such matters. In the future, I will have documentaries which explain this system in better detail and realization.

Thank you for reading Magda and regards,
Darius Alexander

Magda Hassan
08-15-2010, 03:41 AM
Thank you Darius. Feel free to post your articles or podcasts here. Jack definitely understands by the way. He is a long time critic of many 'offical' stories and some of the 'alternative' one's too.

Peter Lemkin
08-17-2010, 02:55 PM
MITOP and the Double Bind
March 15, 2008
I want to elaborate somewhat on the idea of transparent conspiracy,34 lest
the idea seem too big to chew. It is chewable, but it takes a little work. Even
though I have been chewing on it for some time, I am only now arriving at the
conclusion, as I pointed out in "Back to Ground Zero," that the theory is
First of all, let's give it a name that will itself be more transparent: MITOP.
We are familiar with LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made
It Happen On Purpose). Now we have "Made It Transparent On Purpose."
What do so many people now think 9/11 was an inside job? Because there
are so many reasons to think so? Yes – for all of those reasons, and for one
more that not so many people may have thought of: we are supposed to think
so. The perpetrators, the people on the inside (Orwell's "Inner Party") want us
to think so.
This is not as much of a leap from MIHOP as one might think, just as the
leap from LIHOP to MIHOP is not as big as it used to be. In fact, as has been
often pointed out, there is no dichotomy or any real difference between
LIHOP and MIHOP. There is just a logical extension of degree of guilt, the
difference in degree being completely negligible when we are talking about the
highest authorities in the land, the most powerful military and intelligence
forces in the world. When these most powerful forces allow a crime to be
committed, they are not criminally negligent; they are perpetrators.
The distance from MIHOP to MITOP is even less distinct. Once MIHOP
has penetrated our red-blooded American minds, MITOP cannot be far
behind, if reason and common sense are our guides. The question that must
keep coming to mind as we are confronted with fact after astounding fact, lie
after lie, contradiction after contradiction, is "How can they have been so
stupid?" I mean, really. Could they really have thought that we would be so
stupid as to believe the 571-page lie35 the 9/11 Commission foisted on us?
Could they have been stupid enough to think that we would be so stupid, at
least for very long? They must have known the 9/11 "truth movement" would
be inevitable. How could they possibly have been clever enough to do what
they did, and yet be so stupid as to think they could keep all the gaping holes
in the official story from being exposed?
The simplest and most logical answer to this is that they were not that
stupid. On the contrary, they wanted us to know. They have always wanted us
– at least those of us who are not yet fully lobotomized by the mainstream
propaganda – to know that they can do whatever they want to with us, which
34 See "Transparency Theory," in this volume.
35 See http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050523112738404.
The Transparent Conspiracy
includes not only 9/11 but also jamming a ridiculous and totally incredible
fairy tale down our throats. They want us to know, very clearly but without
having to come out and say it explicitly (this may come if martial law is
imposed), as I have put it more bluntly earlier, that they've got us by the balls
(short hairs for the politically correct).
I have discussed "Stupidity Theory" in an earlier essay. This keeps floating
to the surface, it seems, as the catch-all explanation for all troubling questions.
Thus we have rejection of the "inside job" thesis on the grounds that the
government (and in particular the current president) is too stupid to have
pulled it off. This is not very different, if at all, from the official theory of what
actually happened, namely that the government is too stupid to have
prevented it or stopped it while it was in progress, 19 Arabs with box cutters
being just too much for the most sophisticated air defense system in the
history of the universe. They just couldn't "connect the dots." Was too stupid, I
mean, of course, since now Homeland Security and the perpetual War on
Terror have made everyone much smarter.
This pattern of Stupidity continues as we progress from LIHOP to
MIHOP. We must assume, given either of these scenarios, that the Insiders
were just too stupid to have pulled off 9/11 any better than they did. Yeah,
they were able to bring down those buildings, maybe with secret high-tech
weaponry, but they just couldn't get old Ted Olson to get his story straight,
Cheney to get his story straight, the military to get their story straight, couldn't
get the names of the hijackers on the flight manifests, couldn't get enough
debris at the crash sites to look realistic, couldn't make holes in the Pentagon
walls that would look realistic, couldn't keep the BBC from announcing that
WTC 7 had fallen 26 minutes before the fact, couldn't produce a whitewashed
Commission Report that would fool a ten-year-old, etc., etc. – in short,
couldn't do anything right but instead produced a mountain of evidence
pointing directly to an inside job.
Is this credible? Are we going to fall for Stupidity Theory once again? Are
we going to be even more stupid than the 9/11 Commission (although
stupidity cannot explain their failure either)? Are we going to say that we, too,
cannot connect the dots? Are we going to ignore the obvious logical
conclusion that people diabolically smart enough to pull off 9/11 would
certainly have been smart enough to cover their tracks better than they did,
smart enough not to leave so many screaming questions unanswered, if they
had wanted to?
Common sense tells us that this degree of bungling is unlikely, and that
they wanted us to know that they could do it and get away with it. Is this not
precisely what has happened? Tens of millions of people do "know," despite
the official story and the mainstream cover-up, that 9/11 was an inside job.
And has there been a real investigation as a result? Have any of the Bush gang
been impeached or indicted, or even subpoened, much less punished? Have
The Transparent Conspiracy
the docile lapdogs in Congress or the mainstream press showed any sign of
life, any sign that they are willing to do what they are supposed to do? No.
And let's be honest. Is this situation likely to change? Once Bush and Co. are
out of office and we have a Clinton or Obama or McCain as president, who
can claim, credibly enough, that they had nothing to do with it, will the truth
be any more likely to emerge "officially"?
From the point of view of the perpetrators, 9/11 has been a success.
MITOP has been successful. We have a "non-consensus reality" that Lev
Grossman36 (Time, Sept. 3, 2006 ) correctly depicts as World No. 1 and World
No. 2: Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT) and MITOP exist side by side.
What this really means is that we are farther down the road to doublethink
than we have ever been as a nation. Preemptive and perpetual war is peace.
Torture is humane. Fear is security. Constraint is freedom. Tyranny is
democracy. Occupation is liberation. Violations of the Constitution are legal.
This is the world we live in now.
Let us analyze more closely the mind-control operations that have brought
us to this point of insanity. OCT is the Big Lie, a well-known technique known
as such at least since Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf 37
In this they ["the Jews"] proceeded on the sound principle that the
magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the
great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be
corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore,
in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a
victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little
things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood
will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the
possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation
in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt
and waver, and continue to accept at least one of these causes as true.
Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and
stick – a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world
know only too well and also make the most treacherous use of.
The same Wikipedia article I have taken this quote from notes how Walter C.
Langer of the OSS (precursor of the CIA), in his psychological profile of
Hitler, correctly understood the technique:
…people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it
frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
36 See "A Reply to Time."
37 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Lie.
The Transparent Conspiracy
It can readily be seen how the tale of Osama bin Laden and his 19 box-cuttercarrying
hijackers making fools out of the U.S. Air Force qualifies as a Big Lie.
MITOP is essentially the same technique, reversed. The mirror image of
Big Lie is the Big Truth. This is an even better-established principle of
psychological warfare. In more general terms, in sports, for example, it is
known as demoralizing one's opponent. We know it from the 2003 invasion of
Iraq as Shock and Awe. The goal of this strategy is to convince the enemy of
this indelible point: "We are so much more powerful and ruthless than you are
that you might as well surrender." The formal term is "rapid dominance,"
introduced in 1996 at the National Defense University by Harlan Ullman and
James Wade,38 who say the purpose of this doctrine is to
impose this overwhelming level of Shock and Awe against an adversary on
an immediate or sufficiently timely basis to paralyze its will to carry on"[to]
seize control of the environment and paralyze or so overload an
adversary's perceptions and understanding of events that the enemy would
be incapable of resistance at the tactical and strategic levels.
The Wikipedia author continues:
Shock and awe is most consistently used by Ullman and Wade as the effect
which rapid dominance seeks to impose upon an adversary. It is the
desired state of helplessness and lack of will. It can be induced, they write,
by direct force applied to command and control centers, selective denial of
information and dissemination of disinformation, overwhelming combat
force, and rapidity of action.
Thus we have two well-known propaganda techniques which are mirror
images of each other – the Big Lie based on a lie which is so big it must be
believed, and the Big Truth (Shock and Awe) based on a truth that is so big it
must believed, either one of which would be effective on its own.
Of course our leaders don't admit to using the Big Lie at all, because we're
the good guys (except in the case of the attack on the U.S.S Maine, Pearl
Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, etc.). The Big Truth, however, as we've seen, is
perfectly acceptable. When both techniques are used together, the result could
be described as a binary weapon, whose combined effect is even more
devastating than either weapon used alone.
The battleground, we must remember, is our own heads. The Big Lie, the
Official Conspiracy Theory expounded by the 9/11 Commission Report, raises
the general level of anxiety and insecurity by conjuring an ever-present but
unidentified "Terrorist" threat, but has no serious pathological effect. It's Us
against Them (whoever and wherever they are).
38 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_and_awe.
The Transparent Conspiracy
MITOP is the real wolf at the door, because this threat is not outside but
inside with us. Rather, he is both inside and outside, since both OCT and
MITOP (Grossman's two worlds) co-exist.
MITOP is particularly threatening to Americans, because our mass culture
inculcates so strongly in us that our government is "good." People in many
other countries are much less convinced of the inherent goodness of their
governments, and therefore more easily accept the idea that their leaders are,
or can be, their enemies. Italians, to take a western example, while remaining
"proud Italians," would not necessarily fall apart or even be surprised to learn
that their government is full of lying, murderous scoundrels. We Americans,
however, are conditioned to identify with our government, and since MITOP
identifies the government as the Enemy, it is tantamount to the fully
schizophrenic view of Ourselves as the Enemy, the inimical Other. As long as
we actually believe the government is democratic – which it most certainly is
not – we will have this problem.
From the perpetrators' viewpoint, the illusion of democracy works
perfectly to maintain the schizophrenia that results from the co-existence of
the two contradictory worlds of OCT and MITOP. Why is this good – for
them? Orwell defined doublethink39 in his novel 1984 as
The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind
simultaneously, and accepting both of them". To tell deliberate lies while
genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become
inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back
from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of
objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one
In more clinical terms, this is what is called a double bind:
The double bind is often misunderstood to be a simple Catch-22
situation, where the victim is trapped by two conflicting demands. While it
is true that at the core of the double bind are two conflicting demands, the
difference lies in how they are imposed upon the victim, what the victim's
understanding of the situation is, and who imposes these demands upon
the victim. Unlike the usual no-win situation, the victim is largely unaware
of the exact nature of the paradoxical situation he or she is in. This is
because a demand is imposed upon them by someone they regard with
respect, and the demand itself is inherently impossible to fulfill.40
39 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublethink.
40 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_bind.
The Transparent Conspiracy
Doublethink can be thought of as the end point of the double bind, the point
of no return, of complete insanity. One is not just schizoid but stark raving
The double bind is created by the conflicting demands imposed on us by
OCT and MITOP. Both theories emanate from people we respect. The anti-
OCT people have much more trouble establishing their respectability than the
OCT supporters, of course, but I think it is fair to say by now that this has
happened. There are scholars for 9/11 truth, pilots for 9/11 truth, architects
and engineers for 9/11 truth, veterans for 9/11 truth, students for 9/11 truth,
"patriots" for 9/11 truth, movie stars for 9/11 truth, etc. We have respectable
sources on both sides. Yet we know that both sides can not be correct.
Lev Grossman treats this as a lack of "consensus reality," as if it were a
disagreement over a truly insoluble question, thus granting a degree of
legitimacy to both "worlds," as he puts it, even though he obviously favors
World No. 1. If he actually believes this, he is deeply schizophrenic. He is
caught in a double bind, and since he does not know how to get out of it, he is
helpless and completely disempowered.
This is precisley the goal of these mind-control strategies – to make all of
us feel helpless. In order for the few to control the many, they (the few) must
either use physical force or psychological force. The latter, historically, has
proven more effective. Noam Chomsky has often pointed out how concepts
like "manufacturing consent" and the "philosophy of futility" have originated
in the constant struggle of the "political class" (in Orwell's terms, the "Inner
Party") to control the "rabble" (us):
When you have a formal democratic system, when people have won
rights after years of struggle, like the right to vote and participate in
elections, you have to take the risk out of democracy by ensuring that there
is very little substance to their democratic choices.
This is done by organising the world so that the major decisions are
not in the public arena. And by imposing on the people - I am now
quoting from manuals of the public relations industry - a "philosophy of
futility". This is done so that the attention of the people is focussed on the
superficial things of life like fashionable consumption.
From infancy children have drilled into them, from television,
advertising and in every possible way, that they have to have a "philosophy
of futility" as far as serious decisions are concerned and that they have to
perceive themselves as passive consumers. It does not really matter what
you know about the world. The less you know, the better.
That is the model. It does not work, but that is the model. The rabble
never accepts this. It continually resists and struggles against this. That also
requires the use of other techniques to try and control people. The elite
media are mostly directed to the small decision-making sector - people
who make choices in decisions that run society. They have to be properly
indoctrinated by not just the media but by the education system and
The Transparent Conspiracy
everything else. The true mass media that go to the general audience, they
mostly distract, making people pay attention to something else – popular
music, purchasing.41
Paul Nystrom42 was talking in 1928 about keeping people feeling helpless so
they would be good consumers:
One's outlook on life and its purposes may greatly modify one's attitude
toward goods in which fashion is prominent. At the present time, not a
few people in western nations have departed from old-time standards of
religion and philosophy, and having failed to develop forceful views to
take their places, hold to something that may be called, for want of a better
name, a philosophy of futility. This view of life (or lack of a view of life)
involves a question as to the value of motives and purposes of the main
human activities. There is ever a tendency to challenge the purpose of life
itself. This lack of purpose in life has an effect on consumption similar to
that of having a narrow life interest, that is, in concentrating human
attention on the more superficial things that comprise much of fashionable
But the same idea applies, as Chomsky says, to making and keeping
people "good citizens," i.e., people who will accept the choices offered to
them and not demand more.
What better way to make us feel helpless than to put us in the double
bind of OCT and MITOP?
I am not a psychiatrist, but it is clear that the first thing we have to do
– and I am talking now about regaining our sanity, not necessarily putting
the 9/11 murderers in jail – is recognize the problem. The double bind is
essentially a communication problem. 9/11 truth must out. There is only
room for one reality, one world. If that leaves us with MITOP, we can
deal with it, because the truth is that we are not helpless. We are only
helpless if we believe we are helpless, and that is what must change.
41 Frontline, November, 2001: http://www.flonnet.com/fl1824/18241170.htm.
42 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_futility.