Government Conspiracy

How has government conspiracy altered American’s knowledge toward informed justice?

From the beginning of time there has been an evident gap between the people and the government. In a democracy the government is supposedly, by the people, for the people, yet this hypothetical gap still exists. The gap is either censored or overall information common citizens do not know, it is what the government holds back from its naive citizens. Although society has evolved and the gap has become smaller, information and world events are still being altered in order for government to achieve what they want, not what the people want. Through the gap comes conspiracy, it is the belief that powerful people have worked together to orchestrate or withhold the

truth of some important practice or terrible event. Conspiracy in government leads both directly and indirectly to distrust and backlash from the citizens. Government conspiracy as a whole has become more evident in recent decades with the birth of new technologies. It has become increasingly easier for theories of government conspiracy to gain an audience and to inform citizens. This not only allows society to view government in a new light, but also undermines how and why certain questionable events occur. In order for citizens of the United States to regain trust and respect for the government, high ranking officials need to dispel conspiracy and make to clear to its citizens the true justice from which America was built upon.
It seems that after every crisis in America the government, and more specifically the media, has an exact answer to the who, what, when, where, and why questions.

Yet the so called answers pose even more questions. Such as, just how much of our media outlook has been skewed to fit what government officials have in mind (“Media-Elite Conspiracy”). It is only until red flags start appearing in stories, that high ranking officials and media begin altering viewpoints and previous information. With that being said, it seems suspicious being that the U.S government has never officially confirmed or denied that major world and national events, primarily seen as acts of terrorism or backlash, were in fact done on purpose in order to carry out a specific task or need within society. From a government official’s viewpoint it seems probable to not want distrust from citizens. On the contrary, however, the public in both federal and state governments believed that the elite were interfering too much in both state and local issues, therefore hindering trust. Stemming from this belief comes conspiracy theories. The situation of paranoia worsens when the representatives of a social interest, such as opposing theories, are shut out of the political process: having no access to political bargaining and decision making (Drezner). While the government has yet to confirm any conspiracy to this day, there are still people that give up everything to prove what they rightfully believe as truth. In a society that solely believes the government does good, these people are not only brave for speaking out, but also have some definite points they want to get across to the world. Another thought about how so these so called theories may have some truth behind them is that events that raise conspiracy flags are too convent in timely terms. Whether the government needs a law passed, patriotism up, or a reason to go to war with other countries, there has been speculation that there is a direct

correlation to said theories and congressional acts. Overall the government knows that in order to carry out a task, using its citizen’s fear to their advantage is most effective. In order to really illustrate this thought, it is best to look at acts of terrorism and world events individually.
Starting with a theory that has been circulating since 1969, the Moon landing conspiracy, which claim that elements of the Apollo program and the associated Moon landings were in fact hoaxes staged by NASA with the aid of other organizations (Noack). This accusation is one that is not necessarily the most politically correct, hence the Lunar landings signified America’s unsaid win in the Space Race against the Soviet Union. Though NASA and the U.S government have debunked any speculations, a 1999 Gallup poll showed that it's comparatively durable: 6% of Americans said they thought the lunar landings were fake ( “The Moon Landings” 6). Through advancements in technology and more knowledge about space exploration in total, more and more Americans believe the conspiracy to be true. It is apparent that at the time of the alleged Moon landings, society did not have the technological aid to send men into space, better yet the moon. Technically there was in fact no video broadcast during either the landing or takeoff because of technological limitations (Steven-Boniecki). Though society did have the technology to fake the moon landings with the use of hollywood props. The film 2001: A Space Odyssey directed by Stanley Kubrick, is partly set on the Moon and features advanced special effects (Lewis). It has been claimed that when the film was in post-production in early 1968, NASA secretly approached Kubrick to direct the first three Moon landings. Though Kubrick has denied any affiliations with NASA, there is deffinent hidden innuendo in his next film The Shining (Room 237). Kubrick indirectly approaches the subject by altering the original book written by Stephen King to fit his screenplay. The theory that Kubrick directed the landings, and indirectly told his audience in The Shining is a bit of a stretch, yet not completely undoubtable. Many similar theories have surfaced since the landings, all having their truths and doubts. Yet the overarching theme in this conspiracy is that the U.S government has made it possible for citizens to not only buy into said theories, but believe them. Skeptic or not this conspiracy has altered American’s view toward NASA and the U.S government.
Moving on to another theory that is thought to be a bit politically raunchy are the speculations that the attacks of 9/11 were carried out not by Al Qaeda, but by Israel or even the United States. In the months leading up to September 11, 2001 anthrax was being mailed to both the media and the offices of two Democratic U.S. senators. The Anthrax originated from the U.S. bioweapons lab at Fort Detrick (Niman), this was news considering the U.S government was claiming the Anthrax was being sent by the Iraqis. The FBI later reported that they speculated the Anthrax was being sent by an American Citizen through microbiology and forensic experience. Another factor that lead to the conspiracy theories is that even before the first plane hit the World Trade Center, U.S. troops were already in the Middle East. With forces already being deployed to Pakistan the United States pressured the country to choose sides in the prevailing war. The Guardian reports that U.S. State Department officials in early July of 2001 informed their Russian and Pakistani counterparts of possible plans to invade Afghanistan in the fall (Niman). The most evident and shocking evidence leading up to 9/11 is the insider trading against corporations that were either located in the World Trade Center or profited directly off of Middles Eastern oil. In the days leading up to September 11, put options (a tool in which investors profit from a falling stock price) were purchased on companies whose stocks plummeted after September 11th. Most prominent among these companies are American and United Airlines, whose hijacked planes hit the twin towers, and the investment firms of Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, whose offices were destroyed in the towers. Between September 6th and 7th, investors purchased 4,744 put options in United Airlines at the Chicago Board Options Exchange. At the same time, only 396 call options (where an investor bets on a stock price increasing)- were purchased. On September 10, investors bought 4,516 put options in American Airlines verses 748 call options. In the three days prior to September 11, investors bought 2,157 put options in Morgan Stanley, a company which occupied fifty floors of office space at the World Trade Center. Likewise, investors bought another 12,215 put options for World Trade Center tenant Merrill Lynch (Gilson).What is evident in this trading is the possibility that people both knew in advance, and profited directly from, the September 11 tragedy. Although it is not certain who orchestrated the attacks, there is evidence that points to the U.S government and high-ranking officials. The attacks not only gave the United States an excuse for the invasion of Iraq, but also used American citizen’s fear to increase patriotism and support to justify the war in Afghanistan (Lileks).
What these two major conspiracies have in common is the way in which the media portrayed them in a way that glorified the U.S government while placing accusations on opposing countries or denying any speculations. Henceforth the idea that media and government elites are on the “same side” in terms of propaganda, does not seem unreachable. The information Americans view on the news is censored whether they know it or not. Any program leans either democratic or republican, and as of today the only truth in media is up to the viewer. The U.S government knows exactly what its citizens like to see, and when an event occurs the media seems to turn any ethical situation into a complete debauchery. Accusations are thrown around, and the finger almost never points back to the U.S government (“Government Cover-Ups”). In terms of movies, American Sniper has been said to have a direct correlation to Americans prevalent knowledge of the war in Iraq. Clint Eastwood's film glorifies American soldiers and demonizes Iraqis with cartoonish simple-mindedness (Horgan).