Home > THE INCOMPETENT CONSPIRACY
by Monica Benderman
As we watch the events of our lives unfold millions of people breathe the word “conspiracy” as if everyone is out to get them. Why?
The only conspiracy is the conspiracy of incompetence.
It begins by being afraid - very, very afraid. Of what - the men with guns? That happens later, much later. This fear is far more simplistic, and it truly threatens your way of life.
The conspiracy begins with very small people living in fear of being discovered - to protect the illusion of competence, they tell a lie.
Uh-oh. The fear grows. Now they’ve done it. They’ve told everyone they can be trusted - so they lied. Who will know? Just one little white lie — an experience they never had - but in their mind they are sure they “would have been an expert at it if they had tried.”
Hide the fear behind a flourish of good will - a helping hand, an unsolicited gift, an expensive meal. And the world is good and fear lurks in the shadows - until the next question is asked.
UH-OH. The fear grows. And the white lie takes on a shade of gray as the story grows to encompass the fear.
Ah, the lies. It is far easier to pretend competence than to own it.
What is integrity? Strength of principle. Where does it come from? Knowledge.
A knowledgeable man has nothing to hide - and nothing to fear.
Truth comes from Knowledge, but to have knowledge one must learn. Who has time for learning these days?
Our world is full of smart people but smart doesn’t give you knowledge. Smart sometimes fuels incompetence. A smart man with very little knowledge - perfect “petrie dish” for breeding an incompetent conspiracy.
The great American success story - it’s not so much about integrity. Those with integrity do not often announce their own success - preferring to quietly help others find theirs.
The “great American success story” is the smartest demonstration of a lack of incompetence, cleverly accomplished with the eventual establishment of a conspiracy.
The American way - destroying many before they ever see it coming.
Why are military commanders so determined to punish soldiers who think with their own mind? Why do they use such desperate measures to keep the voices of these soldiers from being heard? To preserve national security - or prevent being discovered?
UH-OH. The fear grows - incompetence discovered.
Why do we go after “evil” dictators? Long ago we courted them, gave them their wings, taught them to fly. But the lessons backfired when the student became more than the teacher, and we could no longer control their flight. A conspiracy forms, so the incompetence of the teacher remains hidden behind the façade of a protector, a benefactor for good and “national security”.
“Destroy everyone,” the smart man cries. “Be very, very afraid.”
“For reasons of national security we must classify our words. We must get to them before they get to us.”
Fear of discovery - the downfall of a very smart, but unknowledgeable man.
The conspiracy grows and control is a must - to keep lies from being discovered. But incompetent men have never lived, and therefore, have never learned. In the bubble of their fabricated world all is good until the next question is asked.
UH-OH. The fear grows. And the gray lie draws closer to black as the story grows to encompass the fear.
Walls are built, and fences raised up as the blinds are pulled down. The inner circle becomes the only people who will never tell the secrets of one very smart, incompetent man. The conspiracy expands to those faithful cronies who will do whatever they must to protect their benefactor. It’s part of the plan - as the circles of their own little life’s conspiracy intertwine in a grand web of deception.
Control tightens as fear deepens. Furtive glances across the table at co-conspirators whose silence is bought with the promise of power and prestige. How can you trust someone whose silence has been paid for?
Tensions mount as forgotten nights blend with remembered days - and confidantes lose their confidence with twisted facts that no one dares to discuss for fear of being discovered as - incompetent.
UH-OH. The fear grows. And the black lies come together as the story grows to encompass the fear.
Incompetent Conspiracy. Be very, very afraid.
Monica may be reached at monica@bendermantimeline.com or mdawnb@coastalnow.net.
Please visit the Bendermans’ websites at www.BendermanDefense.org and www.BendermanTimeline.com to learn more about Sgt. Kevin Benderman’s battle for Conscientious Objection.
Forum posts
2 November 2005, 15:47
Absolutely beautiful. And perfectly on the mark. More!
2 November 2005, 19:40
Michael Moore
owns Halliburton!
3 November 2005, 00:56
Michael Moore Owns Halliburton Stock
World Net Daily| November 2 2005
"I don’t own a single share of stock!" filmmaker Michael Moore proudly proclaimed.
He’s right. He doesn’t own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in "Fahrenheit 9/11."
If you want to see Moore’s own signed Schedule D declaring his capital gains and losses where his stock ownership is listed, it’s emblazoned on the cover of Peter Schweizer’s new book, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy."
And it’s just one of the startling revelations by Schweizer, famous for his previous works, "Reagan’s War" and "The Bushes."
Other examples:
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who proclaims her support for unions, yet the luxury resort, the vineyard and the restaurants she partly owns are strictly non-union. While she advocates tough new laws enforcing environmental regulations on the private sector, the exclusive country club she partly owns failed to comply with existing environmental regulations for the past eight years – including a failure to protect endangered species.
Noam Chomsky has made a reputation for calling America a police state and branding the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth," yet his entire academic career, writes Schweizer, has been subsidized by the U.S. military.
Barbra Streisand is another proponent of environmentalism, yet she drives an SUV, lives in a mansion and has a $22,000 annual water bill. In the past, she has driven to appointments in Beverly Hills in a motor home because of her aversion to using public bathrooms.
Ralph Nader plays the role of the citizen avenger – the populist uninterested in wealth and materialism, pretending to live in a modest apartment. In fact, he lives in fancy homes registered in the names of his siblings.
This is not just a book of "gotcha" journalism, explains Schweizer. He says the dozens and dozens of examples of "liberal hypocrisy" he cites in his book "are of central importance in evaluating the validity and usefulness of liberal ideas."
"Using IRS records, court depositions, news reports, financial disclosures and their own statements, I sought to answer a particular question: Do these liberal leaders and activists practice what they preach?" he writes. "What I found was a stunning record of open and shameless hypocrisy. Those who champion the cause of organized labor had developed various methods to avoid paying union wages or shunned unions altogether.
"Those who believe that the rich need to pay more in taxes proved especially adept at avoiding taxes themselves. Critics of capitalism and corporate enterprise frequently invested in the very companies they denounced. Those who espouse strict environmental regulations worked vigorously to sidestep them when it came to their own businesses and properties. Those who advocate steep inheritance taxes to promote fairer income distribution hid their investments in trusts or exotic overseas locales to reduce their own tax liability. Those who are strong proponents of affirmative action rarely practiced it themselves, and some had abysmal records when it came to hiring minorities. Those who proclaim themselves champions of civil liberties when it comes to criminal or terrorist cases went to extraordinary lengths to curtail the civil liberties of others when they felt threatened or just inconvenienced. Advocates of gun control had no problem making sure that an arsenal of weapons was available to protect them from dangerous criminals."
4 November 2005, 13:31
Who gives a shit what Michael Moore owns? Does he run the country? Is he in an elected public official with access to public revenues? Is he responsible for allocating huge Federal Government contracts? The answer to all these questions is an emphatic no.
This writer with the World Net Daily obviously agrees with the many neocon simps who believe Michael Moore is an icon of the ’loony left’ and by trashing him they believe that the momentum of this now ever growing anti-war movement will slow down or even cease.
The anti-war movement isn’t about celebrities, my mentally challenged necon Moon Bats. The anti-war movement is about ideals, ancient ideals, the ideals that created the American Revolution. Ideals are impossible to trash, but for the typical neocon simp it is much easier to smear people, even if they are irrelevant to the issues on hand. Trashing, smearing, coughing up irrelevancies, constantly using emotional appeals to buttress their weak arguments. That’s how most of these neocon simps think.
Most of the people I know [all of us are anti-war, most of us are military veterans] couldn’t care less who and what Michael Moore represents. We don’t hold him up on some kind of pedestal. I personally haven’t seen any of his movies. I personally think his intellectual equipment is deficient, on par with the necons. If I were to rely on Mr. Moore’s criticisms of this administration, I wouldn’t have aligned myself with the anti-war movement in the first place, for I find him likely to use very much the same sort of tactics, bullshit really, that the necons use when they ’debate’. The first article in this blog, written by Ms. Benderman is all about independent thinking, for crying out loud, a mindset which the typical reactionary Neanderthal cannot fathom. This second article’s main thrust denies the first article’s premise. I suppose Ms. Benderman is trying to show how objective she is, with these two articles; all she shows me is her schizophrenic tendencies, something I believe is afflicting the entire American journalistic profession. Let’s try to stay focused on the prize, Ms. Benderman. Either you believe that the majority of the American people can think independently, or you don’t. Without independent thought, a democracy becomes an amorphous mob, who bow down to any demogogue that comes down the pike. I suggest that whenever you see your shrink, tell him that ’Nardil’ be your required medication.
Reactionaries cannot think independently, they need icons to look up to. They need guidance, a central mind to give them direction, they are eternally 16 years old. The vast majority of the people who are against this war made up their minds without the use of the mass media, who are nothing but a Propaganda Ministry, who for years supported this war, and still do, despite this administration’s current unpopularity, waving the red, white and blue after every report coming out of the Middle East. Unike the reactionary, unthinking mob, we did our homework every night, we did our own research, we did not rely on celebrities, like Moore, to do it for us. So, get this straight, my little neocon simps:
We do not need icons. We do not need guidance. We are mature adults who can make up our own minds without anyone else’s help, thank you very much, and we would like to keep it that way. One way to keep our independence of thought, as well as our sanity, is to call out the horseshit, such as this last article by Ms. Benderman, when we see it. We approach reality with reason and logic, we don’t character assassinate, we don’t obfuscate life and death issues with utter bullshit, & we don’t attempt to use irrelevant celebrities to hide the obvious corruption of our political leaders.
3 November 2005, 02:57
Re: the incompetent conspiracy, I used to write disorganized, long-winded, vague rants when I was in high school, too. But I learned from reading the writings of people I admired that it’s important to have a point, to illustrate with examples, and persuade with rational arguments. A first time visitor to your website, I thought perhaps you were trying to persuade me with this posting when it dawned on me that you are probably still in high school. The realization put a damper on my enthusiasm to criticize. I’ll see if I can actually learn or be persuaded by reason somewhere else. Good luck though.
3 November 2005, 17:31
68..82,,
Bush did that to you too..