I need people to adequately explain this to me:
Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2017, 06:28 PM - Edit history (1)
In popular literature dating back to the 1930's and possizbly before, the notion of international intrigue has almost always involved elaborate conspiratorially-driven plans conceived and implemented by governments, agencies, or even rogue elements within governments. The list of novels, short stories, plays, and films is too long to mention here.
One in particular comes to mind however: in Ian Fleming's From Russia With Love, the chess master Kronsteen conceives an elaborate plot to shame the British Secret Service and the Government. Later fiction has given us even more intricate plots and the audiences cannot get enough of the machinations of our enemies, our friends, and ourselves. Sales of books and box office of films relevant to this type of material has been in the billions upon billions, but that being said, why does the American Public accept the rather offhand rejection of any plot proffered as a "Nutty Conspiracy Theory" as though it is impossible for such a notion to exist?
Does it seem radical to suggest that elements of Group A, in order to defeat Group B, might pool the resources of all types available to them and go after each other? Really?
There is no question in my mind that there exist many "someones" who are orchestrating many many plots and machinations and we will never know the origins of many issues which have come to pass here in America and elsewhere around the world. This latest move by the Russians is only the one that we are aware of publically at the present time: they are probably 14 steps ahead of us now and may be 17 steps by the time I finish writing this post. Why is it therefore, that Americans often outright refuse the notion that anyone could possibly plot against the government in groups, and regurgitate the lone-nut theories of the Kennedy era?
= new reply since forum marked as read
