What happens to a conspiracy revealed?

[Joseph Tracy]

You don't really seem sure of anything. Pol Pot? Hitler? Pinochet?  "not so sure"? Do we have any moral responsibility in this world? Do you see it as meaningless movement, just ants and their little wars, or do you have some sense that moral conflict just distracts from spiritual development? I guess that's pretty personal, which is where a lot of this leads and may be the deeper dividing line underlying people's thoughts. Are we morally powerless and are all these words utterly irrelevant to the endless meaningless turn of the cosmic wheels.?  
 I do seem sure and feel sure. I know I may be wrong but I am willing to play the fool for love that is more real to me than my life and everything in it. 
On Mar 10, 2014, at 3:05 PM, rich wrote:

> when you know they have been or are actively engaged in planning terrorist operations like Awalaki?
What about people planning terrorist operations like Bush or Obama or Gates or Cheney?
> i have no problem with that frankly. 
You have the secret proof that this man planned murder? What abut his Son? You believe in  secret courts; where does this fit into the constitution? You know when men who lie regularly are telling the truth? 
> russians have been doing it so has iran iraq, the UK, Israel, etc. thats what cover ops is about. is it moral? can we judge what countries do in moral terms? i'm not so sure
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:47 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> It is all out in the open. See: Jeremy Scahill's book (or documentary version) Dirty Wars. That was my original point: it doesn't change anything when these clandestine activities are aired.
> 
> So, Rich, when the US perceives someone's rhetoric as a threat, it's OK to go into whatever country houses them and murder them, collateral damage be damned? I assume then, that this response is also OK for Russia, for Iran, for North Korea, etc.? 
> 
> Laura
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: rich 
> Sent: Mar 10, 2014 2:33 PM 
> To: Monte Davis 
> Cc: kelber 
> Subject: Re: What happens to a conspiracy revealed? 
> 
> u expect all this to be out in the open? all we can hope for is proper oversight. and I do trust our current President on this.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Monte Davis <montedavis49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, Laura, that's classified. As is the process by which the decisions were made. As is the modified revised extended FISA protocol by which you will be put under surveillance -- well, *more* surveillance -- if you keep asking. 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:59 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Which were warranted? 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: rich 
> Sent: Mar 10, 2014 1:45 PM 
> To: kelber 
> Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org" 
> Subject: Re: What happens to a conspiracy revealed? 
> 
> some of those "murders" were warranted. just saying
> Look, I get the concern here but I also think that total transparency is just as dangerous. Not sure the snowdens and assanges really get that.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 1:33 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> Acceptance from the right-wing is a given. It's harder to take from people, politicians and newspapers who present themselves as thoughtful and socially progressive.
> 
> LK
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Monte Davis 
> Sent: Mar 10, 2014 1:25 PM 
> To: kelber 
> Cc: "pynchon-l at waste.org" 
> Subject: Re: What happens to a conspiracy revealed? 
> 
> Casual acceptance, hell -- rousing ovations! Check out Charlie Pierce's coverage of star speakers at CPAC over the last few days:  Ollie North, Scooter Libby, Bernard Kerik...
> 
> http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/crooks-at-cpac-2014-030714
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:59 PM, <kelber at mindspring.com> wrote:
> What happens when a conspiracy is revealed to the public? Not much. What about anything has changed since Snowden's revelations? The shadowy group journalist Jeremy Scahill was investigating, Joint Strategic Operations Command - responsible for thousands of covert murders across the globe - was revealed and publicly lauded in the midst of Scahill's investigation. What happened? Nothing.
> 
> Today, another conspiracy is cheerfully reported in the NY Times in the guise of a story about business prowess:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/10/business/staking-1-billion-that-herbalife-will-fail-then-ackman-lobbying-to-bring-it-down.html?hp&_r=0
> 
> Which leads to the question: is it still a conspiracy if it's completely out in the open? Isn't the excitement of delving into a conspiracy the stray hope: "once people find out about this ..."
> 
> Not sure that Pynchon answers this fully in any of his books. Sure, he points to a lot of tips of icebergs and facades: industry as the front for something much more sinister, on an almost metaphysical plane. We understand that his "They," while they may have specific servants, don't exist in any tangible form. Can't un-elect them, can't storm their chateaux. But the problem is, when "They" get too metaphysical, they start blending in with the metaphysical scenery - God, Nature, The Universe, Fate.
> 
> But what would happen if the really sinister characters were revealed? If there was a complete analysis of Scarsdale Vibe's or Brock Vond's doings on the front page of the paper of record, and it was treated as a celebration of ingenuity, rather than an indictment or a history-changing moment? To me, this is scarier than any "They" in Pynchon's writings, because this is really happening today here in our world. Pynchon's always known about these people. We all have. It's the casual acceptance of them that comes as a shock.
> 
> Laura
> 
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> 
> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> 
> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> 
> 
> - Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
> 

-
Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l