Project Censored's Peter Phillips recently penned an article on the topic of 'conspiracy theory', presenting a strangely obscurantist, fence-sitting reading of current events and their treatment in the media, as well as raising rather pedestrian and well-trodden complaints about the supposed 'cynicism' inherent in investigating government conspiracies.Project Censored, closely linked to many prominent establishment left figures, has not lived up to its grand name and mission when it comes to many important government coverups and real conspiracies... is this article an acknowledgement or a stonewall?

Conspiracies, Plots and Other Anti-democratic Notions (Peter Phillips, 10 Nov 02)

commentary by Joseph Wanzala:

So powerful is the stigma of being labeled a 'conspiracy theorist' that writing about the phenomenon muddles the thinking even of people like Peter Phillips. In writing this article, Phillips embraces and perpetrates the prejudicial and pejorative nature of the term 'conspiracy theorist'. One of the many problems with this article is revealed in the first sentence - and the ensuing list. THESE ARE NOT CONSPIRACY THEORIES. What Peter Phillips lists are interpretations of certain political events in which malevolence by powerful people is suspected or assumed. Of course Phillips himself never lets on as to what he himself believes about any of these things. He is after all, the 'agnostic, sober minded sociologist', who is prescribing 'more investigative reporting' as an antidote to this 'conspiratorial' malaise.

It is not that a lack of investigative reporting has led to a proliferation of "conspiracy theories". It is that investigative reporting of the kind done over the years by Ace Hayes of the Portland Free Press, the much maligned Mae Brusell (the putative 'mother' of 'conspiracy theories'), the not-accidentally-late Danny Casalaro, and April Oliver, which has skirted too close to the nerve centers of power has been labeled with the stigma "conspiracy theory" to discredit and ridicule the journalists who quickly fall from grace -- a recent example being Gary Webb -- who was doing exactly what Phillips is suggesting and was tarred and feathered out of mainstream journalism for his pains. In journalism, as in science or any other area of intellectual endeavor the more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know. So the notion that through investigative reporting each political story can be tidily explicated, leaving no room for 'conspiratorial' speculation is false - usually a long series of investigative reports is merely the tip of the iceberg, and to me, effective journalists raise more questions than they pretend to answer.

Phillips' use of the term conspiracy theory also perpetuates a class bias about understanding political phenomena. Illiterate peasants and India, Zambia and Paraguay and factory workers in Sao Paolo cannot benefit from long investigative articles in the Sunday New York Times. They nevertheless have an acute understanding of the way in which power works, they way in which the World Bank, in collaboration with corrupt politicians in their countries 'conspire' to fleece them.

In the interests of people actually reading this hurried posting I shall make one final counterpoint. While in general I would agree with Phillips that more transparency revealing the workings of the Trilats et al is in order. The thing is: their plans are already a matter of public record. They are not that secretive about their plans for us. Whatever they do decide to keep secret we shall perhaps never know But they do rely heavily on anti-conspiracists like Chip Berlet, Norman Solomon and unfortunately now also perhaps Peter Phillips to act as intellectual scarecrows to ward off those who are not only too curious, but who have a penchant for interpreting and disseminating their coded plans which can be read in journals like 'Foreign Affairs' and in books like Zbigniev Brezinski's 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives' which includes charming passages like the following: "...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together."

Joe W.