Someone Would Have Talked? Someone Would Be Crazy
By Russ Baker on Apr 10, 2012
Would covert operatives whose work involves subverting democratic governments abroad—including violent coups such as the one that brought down Chilean President Salvador Allende in 1973—hesitate when ordered to participate in comparable activities at home?
We’re constantly told that no such thing could happen in the good ole USA (certainly not in the deaths of JFK, RFK, MLK, for example), if for no other reason than that it is impossible to keep such plots secret.
Or, in the common parlance: “Someone would have talked.”
The logic goes: since no one has come forward to describe their role in such plots, therefore no plot has existed.
In fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
Read the rest of the article HERE:click here for linkNow, what I really wanted to discuss: There was a truly EXCELLENT comment by "Capt. America" in the above link, which I will re-post in its entirety with my comments in italics:
"Someone would have talked": On Believers and Questioners
by "Capt. America"
Person #1: [States a plausible theory concerning how the government may have conducted a nefarious operation and then lied to the public about it.]
Person #2: "That's impossible. There would have to have been so many people involved. Someone would have talked."
Who is right: Person #1 or Person #2?
No matter how much research Person #1 does, he can never attain absolute certainty about his theory. Absolute certainty about empirical matters is impossible. See Rene Descartes, Meditations I. However, the difference between Person #1 and Person #2 is not in the truth-value of their respective beliefs, but rather their orientation towards truth itself.
(Hear, hear! That is absolutely right! Do a search on "Apophatic Learning." That is key. Look up what Jiddhu Krishnamurti said about that. He said, "Until the false is seen as the false, truth is not." Look up what Arthur Conan Doyle said. "When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, MUST be the truth."
Person #2 is a Believer whereas Person #1 is a Questioner. Most Questioners used to be Believers; it is rare to find a Believer who used to be a Questioner. (Well, of course, unless that person decided to start taking SSRI drugs somewhere along the way...)
Questioners are a tortured lot. On one hand, they are constantly attempting to save Believers from their certainty in the "consensus opinion." On the other hand, Questioners are constantly attempting to test those few beliefs that they have attained, which they acknowledge to have been imperfectly established. This is a never-ending task and the Questioners are never satisfied.
Believers, by contrast, spend most of their time in blissful ignorance.
They see the world as "given" and spend their time worrying about things like sports, interpersonal relationships or career advancement.
(I would add, "mornings, and recent purchases"
While some Believers get their worldview from watching or reading the News...
(Or mainstream science magazines and college textbooks...
...most get it by osmosis, by referring to what "most people think" as a guide.
Believers and Questioners are fundamentally at odds. Questioners either view Believers as simpletons or (as stated above) as naive souls to be saved.
(Note: I have given up on trying to "save" anyone, a long time ago. That is a lost cause. I just put interesting information out there occasionally and hope that at least a few of you will read it and give it some thought.
While many Questioners find Believers boring or pathetic, Questioners do not usually hate Believers. However, Believers invariably detest Questioners. See Plato, The Trial of Socrates.
(That has CERTAINLY been my experience during my many years of posting at this website.
The reason for Believer's hate of the Questioner is based on the fact that the Questioner, simply by posing the question, succeeds in momentarily jolting the Believer out of his blissful ignorance. This momentary jolt is painful, of course, which causes the Believer to recoil at whatever idea the Questioner had momentarily created in his mind. The Believer's salve is to reject that idea outright as preposterous. He will rely on any handy method to do so.
("Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Didn't read." "Blarga blarga hurf durf." "Jewz did 9-11"
The "someone would have talked" argument is a handy method that Believers use to get rid of an uncomfortable idea. If the "someone would have talked" phenomenon is as true as the law of gravity, then why, the Questioner asks, does the government go to the pains of conducting background checks? Why did no one talk about Operation Northwoods before it became declassified? Why does barely anyone talk about it now? (That document, by the way, is HERE: click here for link
The Questioner is relentless. If he goes to too far, though, the Believer is going to have to rely on other means to get back to the blissful state to which he has become attached. When he fails to refute the Questioner on his own, he will resort to others. He will turn to other Believers and say "Look at this guy! How crazy is he!?" The other Believers will be quick to rally around the irked Believer-cum-leader. Before you know it, the Questioner has become an outcast. Or worse. When the Believers are done with him, the Questioner will eventually become "no one."
This is the reason why the "someone would have talked" argument fails: because whoever talks is no longer someone worth being listened to, at least as far as the Believer is concerned.
But I wouldn't try to explain this to a Believer, if I were you.