This post had a very interesting conspiracy theory, regarding the “Fast And Furious” scandal. It shows a much greater amount of corruption than the “official” explanation.
Under “Fast And Furious”, ATF policemen allowed guns to be sold to Mexican gangsters. When those guns are used to commit crimes, they could be traced back to US gun stores. The scandal imploded when a gun was used to kill a policeman, and someone admitted the gun smuggling plan.
How do State criminals benefit, by giving Mexican gangsters guns? When those guns are used in crimes, it would be an excuse for stricter gun control laws. That excuse sounds wishy-washy. Any mass gun crime can be used as an excuse for stricter gun control laws, such as James Eagan Holmes or Jared Loughner. What is the real reason for giving guns to Mexican gangsters?
This is a common propaganda trick. When there is a scandal, the mainstream media covers the details of what happened. They never ask “Why did ATF agents smuggle guns to Mexican gangsters?” The excuse usually is “They’re stupid.” “They’re stupid!” is a superficial and wrong reason. “They’re stupid!” is always a cop-out excuse, when insiders get caught committing crimes.
When a CEO gets caught robbing shareholders or customers, he says “I’m stupid! I didn’t do it on purpose.” If the CEO is well-connected like Jon Corzine, that excuse is accepted and there isn’t even an indictment.
Many people debate the details of “How was President Kennedy killed?” A much more important question is “Why was President Kennedy killed?” With Fast and Furious, the media focus is on the details of the gun-walking scandal, and not “Why did they do it?”
That’s the official explanation of the story. “We’re stupid!” or “We did it so we could pass stricter gun control laws.” That makes no sense. The above link shows a much bigger conspiracy. The source for this story is Jesus Vicente Zambada-Niebla, a Mexican gangster currently in prison in the USA.
The conspiracy theory is “The US government intentionally armed one Mexican drug gang, so they could wipe out competing drug gangs. Then, there would be a monopoly for importing drugs into the USA. Those gangsters would give huge kickbacks to police, for looking the other way.”
One big benefit of the “War On Drugs” is that it maximizes corruption opportunities. A dishonest policeman can take bribes to ignore favored smugglers. Then, the police shut down competing smugglers. The police enforce a monopoly for the criminals they’re protecting. By giving criminals a monopoly, that maximizes the size of the kickback bribe.
The correct solution is almost never discussed. Those drugs should be legal to possess and sell. Just because a drug is bad for you, doesn’t mean it should be illegal. If those drugs were legal, then violent drug smuggling crime would disappear. Drug profits would crash as prices fall.
If the “War On Drugs” ends, that eliminates a huge corruption opportunity. For that reason, the “War On Drugs” won’t end, until the State collapses. Police make a lot of money via the “War On Drugs”. A lot of policemen are hired to enforce the law. Prison guards make money from the large number of criminals in jail. Dishonest policemen make extra money via corruption.
If this conspiracy theory is true, it represents another classic propaganda technique, “Limited Hangout”. In “Limited Hangout”, suppose that State criminals are doing X and Y, where Y is much more serious than X. State criminals get caught doing X. After much wrangling, they finally get busted for X and admit X. The State propaganda says “Crime X was caught. Therefore, all crimes related to this issue were caught.” This helps cover up Y. People are satisfied that crime X was caught and punished.
If this conspiracy theory is true, it follows that pattern. X is “Allow guns to be smuggled to Mexican gangsters, as an excuse to promote stricter gun control laws.” Y is “Supply one Mexican gang with guns, so they can eliminate rivals. With a drug smuggling monopoly, they can pay us huge bribes.” By admitting one part of the crime, that helps cover up the more serious part.
Is this conspiracy theory true? I can’t be sure. It sounds reasonable. The “official explanation” for the Fast And Furious scandal seemed fishy. Why allow Mexican gangsters to get guns? They don’t need that as an excuse for stricter gun control laws. They already control the mainstream media. They could use any mass gun crime as an excuse for stricter gun control laws.
The official explanation of the “Fast And Furious” scandal makes no sense. How due State criminals benefit, by giving Mexican gangsters guns? Did they make a deal with one Mexican gang? Did they supply them with guns so they could wipe out their rivals? Then, with a smuggling monopoly, they can pay bigger bribes. The “War On Drugs” maximizes corruption opportunities for dishonest policeman.