The release of those documents will happen the day after the US federal government collapses, just like with the USSR, most of the classified secrets came out right after collapse.
I have taken issue with the pejorative use of the term "conspiracy theory" for many years. A conspiracy is when two or more parties secretly plan to carry out an act that is usually considered criminal or at least negative. A theory is when evidence is used to construct a proposal for solving a problem or answering a question.
So if evidence shows that some people more than likely planned and carried out a nefarious act without admitting they did it, one can (and should) construct a conspiracy theory. On its face, there should be absolutely nothing wrong with doing this, since anyone even remotely paying attention to events in the world should be able to spot such evidence, and especially since there are numerous organizations whose sole purpose is to carry out acts in secrecy, most of which could be viewed as nefarious by somebody somewhere.
The fact that a huge percentage of Americans have a knee jerk dismissive response to anything called "conspiracy theory" seems to indicate that someone has gone to great lengths to give that phrase a negative connotation. In fact, I would go so far as to propose a theory that people have conspired to do this, and those people do not have your best interests at heart.
"I would go so far as to propose a theory that people have conspired to do this" - it's been claimed that CIA had a hand in giving the phrase a negative connotation in the wake of JFK event. Just do a search on "conspiracy theory cia" or similar.
See Lance deHaven Smith, for instance: Conspiracy Theory in America:
Most Americans will be shocked to learn that the conspiracy-theory label was popularized as a pejorative term by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a propaganda program initiated in 1967. This program was directed at criticisms of the Warren Commission’s report. The propaganda campaign called on media corporations and journalists to criticize “conspiracy theorists” and raise questions about their motives and judgments. The CIA told its contacts that “parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.” In the shadows of McCarthyism and the Cold War, this warning about communist influence was delivered simultaneously to hundreds of well-positioned members of the press in a global CIA propaganda network, infusing the conspiracy-theory label with powerfully negative associations. [21]
I suspect that people who believe what some of our political leaders call “conspiracy theories,” are not likely to be deterred by those persons in assessing news allegations. It may impact those predisposed to believing politicians and the dominant narratives from on high, but I really don’t think there are a majority of adults who accept as true what politicians and our commercial media say regarding the government.
Note patterns (Rich people have more power, and the more wealth, the more power)
2. hypotheses
Abstract causal relationships (Rich people hang out together in organs that promote objectives through corrupt practice)
3. theory
Formulate predictive model (Most rich people will do nearly anything to get richer)
4. testing
determine if predictions match new observations (Joe Biden Admin Congress, and CIA officials average wealth goes up as behavior becomes more and more extreme)
5. rinse and repeat
improve observations, make more hypotheses to create better theory and testing.
A simple heuristic is to ask who benefits from a conspiracy, and then to ask whether those beneficiaries have any influence over the prevailing officially sanctioned narrative.
To use a favorite thought experiment: pretend that Jeffrey Epstein were to have died in a Russian jail under comparable circumstances. Under such circumstances,
nobody of influence and authority would say that "Epstein didn't kill himself!" was a conspiracy theory, and they certainly would not feel obligated to append "unproven and unsubstantiated" to every mention of "conspiracy theory", just in case the rubes still don't get that this is a taboo subject.
Anyway, for decades the CIA and its cuts produced reams of literature insisting that allegations of its involvement in the 1974 Chilean coup, or the 1953 coup in Iran were baseless conspiracy theories, and that anyone who suggested otherwise was a nutter. Until the CIA eventually had to fess up.
Blinken's candid comment concerning the "tremendous opportunity" the bombed Nord Stream pipeline offers in no way implicates US guilt. We will believe, because we're all idiots, is no doubt his rationale. Funny that George W. Bush spoke of the same opportunity for US engineers and technicians to rebuild Iraq, right after he attacked it on the highest of principles. The money was just an add-on. A windfall. Incidental. Someone recently suggested the US, pumped up by its long record of lying, might drop a false flag nuke somewhere, and blame Russia. A ridiculous idea, we both agreed, because blaming anyone would be automatically irrelevant. But now, considering the madness of King Biden and support system, I'm not so sure the irrelevancy would be an adequate deterrent.
Could the Americans be calibrating their BS effectiveness on their own population? Former Reagan CIA Director stated: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
The nonchalant posture of Biden’s admin is probably intended to appear as innocent, but it!s really difficult to argue that all suspicion doesn’t fall on them. It’s as if outrageous denial and fabrication is par for the course in American culture, and nothing can move the needle. This is approaching theater of the absurd.
I forget the guys name but some years back Biden said during a short interview that this person was the one in charge of the US Propaganda Department! I could not believe how open they were about it and the praise given to him. First I thought this was the US of A! How do we end up with an actual department for propagandizing the American people!?
Edward Bernays was considered a pioneer in the application of propaganda to a culture. He was celebrated as the “father” of public relations by ad industry insiders, and not coincidentally, he was an immigrant from Vienna. His emigration to the U.S. preceded WWII by a few decades I think, but the American elites from politics, and industry all were smitten by how functionally effective was the propaganda of the Nazis. They pursued the leaders of German propaganda for repatriation. And I think we are seeing why it was so highly regarded. TV has helped to mold the boomers into obedient consumers...believing that their parochial worldviews are applicable to the whole wide world.
No, but some of what he says is right. He's a broadcaster with a high public profile.
Like you, I disagree with his narratives on China. I am very disappointed by that.
But he often talks honestly and critically about American foreign policy, he never bought into Russiagate, and he interviews and gives public platforms to left wing pundits and journalists such as Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore.
Sometimes what he says impacts negatively on him and his family.
There's no journalist or broadcaster that I agree with 100%. Even you Caitlin!
He might give an accurate account of selected news items, but every breath that shill takes is calculated. He can pose as a truth-teller and people who agree with his point may be impressed, particularly when he contradicts MSM propaganda like Russiagate, but he’s all about catering to a niche that thinks Trump is a viable alternative to the status quo. He’s got a large following...which says more about the cognitive capabilities of many Americans than it does about Carlson’s veracity.
Maybe the question here is whether or not a TV man who tells the truth sometimes and gives a voice to lefties critical of the Democratic Party for good reasons sometimes is worse than, say, Sean Hannity on the same network. The same Hannity who, last I heard, was arguing for American forces to directly attack Russian forces. Being less shitty than Hannity, or than anyone on CNN or MSNBC for that matter (all of whom seem to stop just slightly short of such insane recommendations in favor of only slightly less insane ones), may be a low bar, but it should count for something IMHO.
Is the average Tucker viewer going to believe everything he says uncritically because he's told enough truth to earn their trust? Or will they reject what he says about China and Taiwan because they're consistent when it comes to proxy wars?
Tucker is excellent, night after night. I know that point is unpopular with the left wing populists, but the right wing populists appreciate his desire to avoid war, and to not sell our lives and bodies to corporations. He is our friend.
Reminder that every American war since 2001 is the same.
1. Get Americans angry at one individual, who gets demonized as “another Hitler.”
2. Divert $ to corrupt arms industry and foreign crooks.
3. Insist that negotiations are impossible.
4. Kill 100,000 to 1,200,000 people.
5. Lose.
6. Withdrawal in shame.
7. Repeat.
Trump disrupted all this. That’s another reason they hated him. Sometimes, they embarrassed him into some stupid conflict, but he also signed five Middle East peace treaties. He certainly wasn't perfect, but he started zero new wars. And he's better than the people running our current senile, puppet.
If you think Trump disrupted anything, wait, are you related? He argued and whined, and then had to apply sanctions on Russia, because he was pressured by the State that he was “disrupting.” He did nothing about the genocide in Yemen. He upped the transactional affection for a Saudi regime that is stuck in the 16th century, and let’s talk about how he kissed the asses of the pro-Israel lobby while slandering the Palestinians. It is a crock of excrement to argue that the flim-flam man did ANYthing to disrupt the crooked State!
Yes, and like most of his time in office, he obediently promoted the agenda of the National Security State. Ukraine could have provided him a great stage to challenge the hollow rhetoric from the imperialists, but he showed no inclination to make a principled stand. Perhaps his lack of principles was why.
Well, I probably shouldn't have mentioned Trump. Because even when he did things like sign 5 peace treaties, and start no new wars (unlike Bush & Obama), opinions on Trump are too carved in stone for anyone to think otherwise.
You don't like Orange Man. I don't like senile puppet. But I think we both can agree that this current nuclear conflict needs detente and de-escalation.
They’re two posers who don’t represent voters, but have different schticks. Trump sees himself as “the only one” who can fix the broken system…what a laugh. And Biden thinks he’s a unifier, another joke. Both of them will prey on the good intentions of naive voters, both of them are deeply invested in spilling blood, and both serve at the pleasure of the handful of multi-billionaires who own everything. Trump is an overt, pathological liar who will tell you up is down, and morons will follow the moron. Biden is a more nuanced liar, and represents a fraudulent tradition, but he’s mimicking Trump when he insists that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked.” That is clearly a bald-faced lie.
“ . . . Secretary of State Antony Blinken explicitly said that the sabotage of pipelines delivering Russian gas to Germany offers a "tremendous opportunity" to end Europe’s dependency on Russian energy.” How did he say this without gleefully snickering?
Thank you for all of the links to articles. Anyone doubting or questioning the US official narrative is thrown into the uneducated, disillusioned, nonsensical category by design. We “nonbelievers“ are meant to feel like lepers or marginalized so that we don’t speak up or raise our voices. Thank you for being our loud and proud voice! Critical thinking and questioning all leaders’ narratives need to be considered as an important exercise NOT as a conspiracy theory.
I'm not keeping a precise score, but casual observation over the last couple of years would indicate that in the "Narrative vs ConspiracyTheory" head-to-head... ConspiracyTheory is up about 20-nil.
"QAnoners who think pedophile Satan worshippers rule the world."
Of course they do! The basement in Comet Pizza was filled in with concrete the night before the invasion!
OK, enough sarcasm. The USA did it. I have no doubt they did it. The only question that remains is whether or not anyone will effectively stand up to the American Oligarchy. I'm reminded of the Matrix scene when Neo said "guns, lots of guns".
People never seem to consider that governments aren't the only actors in this drama. There are plenty of corporations and even a couple of mercenary companies who could have built underwater drones capable of mining the pipelines from an island nearby, and they would love to ensure that Europe is stuck purchasing expensive gas from overseas. The same with the WTC, the new owner was looking at a mandatory multibillion dollar asbestos remediation project that would have made the site a money loser for two decades, but bought it anyway. Instead he got it removed at taxpayer expense and got taxpayer subsidized funding to put up the new and more profitable building.
Yes, whether it was the US military or a private military contractor or a combination, in the end it was because some member of the American Oligarchy sees a way of gaining wealth.
The difference between conspiracy theory and reality is a few weeks.
Not always. Can take centuries. I wonder when all JFK files get finally declassified.
Highly doubt the CIA would allow that to happen.
That's why I used "centuries". When no one is around who would be hurt or care to remember they probably will.
I thought it was pretty good, but I'd have stated it as:
The difference between conspiracy theory and reality is on average a few weeks.
Highly doubt that most of those files even exist any longer. Some that were scheduled for declassification have already turned up missing.
When they want to demonstrate their power, and that no one can touch them, then they will.
The release of those documents will happen the day after the US federal government collapses, just like with the USSR, most of the classified secrets came out right after collapse.
They'll probably be declassified when all the redacted portions of the 9/11 "official" report are released.
I haven't heard much from the US condemning the Nordstream sabotage as an act of terrorism. No, not much outrage or righteous indignation at all.
And surely if they were not involved, they’d make a show of their concern. This ought to be a powerful lesson for the Europeans.
Ought to be. IMO the Germans should be very angry with the US.
I'm sure they are angry. I predict major civil unrest there this winter.
Maybe they enjoy it?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10284237/German-convicted-castrating-men-kitchen-table.html
I have taken issue with the pejorative use of the term "conspiracy theory" for many years. A conspiracy is when two or more parties secretly plan to carry out an act that is usually considered criminal or at least negative. A theory is when evidence is used to construct a proposal for solving a problem or answering a question.
So if evidence shows that some people more than likely planned and carried out a nefarious act without admitting they did it, one can (and should) construct a conspiracy theory. On its face, there should be absolutely nothing wrong with doing this, since anyone even remotely paying attention to events in the world should be able to spot such evidence, and especially since there are numerous organizations whose sole purpose is to carry out acts in secrecy, most of which could be viewed as nefarious by somebody somewhere.
The fact that a huge percentage of Americans have a knee jerk dismissive response to anything called "conspiracy theory" seems to indicate that someone has gone to great lengths to give that phrase a negative connotation. In fact, I would go so far as to propose a theory that people have conspired to do this, and those people do not have your best interests at heart.
"I would go so far as to propose a theory that people have conspired to do this" - it's been claimed that CIA had a hand in giving the phrase a negative connotation in the wake of JFK event. Just do a search on "conspiracy theory cia" or similar.
See Lance deHaven Smith, for instance: Conspiracy Theory in America:
Most Americans will be shocked to learn that the conspiracy-theory label was popularized as a pejorative term by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in a propaganda program initiated in 1967. This program was directed at criticisms of the Warren Commission’s report. The propaganda campaign called on media corporations and journalists to criticize “conspiracy theorists” and raise questions about their motives and judgments. The CIA told its contacts that “parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by Communist propagandists.” In the shadows of McCarthyism and the Cold War, this warning about communist influence was delivered simultaneously to hundreds of well-positioned members of the press in a global CIA propaganda network, infusing the conspiracy-theory label with powerfully negative associations. [21]
What the author is referring to here is CIA Dispatch 1035-960 (https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/CIAmemo1053-960-Apr-01-1967.pdf), dated January 4, 1967, which went out to “Chiefs, Certain Stations and Bases.”
This was repeated more recently and more "in the open" by the Obama admin's "expert: on conspiracy theories, Cass Sunstein: https://www.rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups
Yes you are correct, but in the modern context the phrase has become a useful tool of propaganda.
Authority uses it precisely to get the masses to dismiss out of hand explanations that differ from their "official" narratives.
I suspect that people who believe what some of our political leaders call “conspiracy theories,” are not likely to be deterred by those persons in assessing news allegations. It may impact those predisposed to believing politicians and the dominant narratives from on high, but I really don’t think there are a majority of adults who accept as true what politicians and our commercial media say regarding the government.
1. Observations -
Note patterns (Rich people have more power, and the more wealth, the more power)
2. hypotheses
Abstract causal relationships (Rich people hang out together in organs that promote objectives through corrupt practice)
3. theory
Formulate predictive model (Most rich people will do nearly anything to get richer)
4. testing
determine if predictions match new observations (Joe Biden Admin Congress, and CIA officials average wealth goes up as behavior becomes more and more extreme)
5. rinse and repeat
improve observations, make more hypotheses to create better theory and testing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1FlXcwhsp4&list=PL1cV5YStGRA0NOiZc0sNeW0jG5tcWhi7o
Exactly my point. Thank you for illustrating it so thoughtfully.
A simple heuristic is to ask who benefits from a conspiracy, and then to ask whether those beneficiaries have any influence over the prevailing officially sanctioned narrative.
To use a favorite thought experiment: pretend that Jeffrey Epstein were to have died in a Russian jail under comparable circumstances. Under such circumstances,
nobody of influence and authority would say that "Epstein didn't kill himself!" was a conspiracy theory, and they certainly would not feel obligated to append "unproven and unsubstantiated" to every mention of "conspiracy theory", just in case the rubes still don't get that this is a taboo subject.
Anyway, for decades the CIA and its cuts produced reams of literature insisting that allegations of its involvement in the 1974 Chilean coup, or the 1953 coup in Iran were baseless conspiracy theories, and that anyone who suggested otherwise was a nutter. Until the CIA eventually had to fess up.
Exactly! People should watch "Coup 53" a documentary which shows the "Proof in the Pudding"!
Magic 8 Ball points towards "Yes".
But that's just a "Conspiracy Theory"! Isn't it!?
Blinken's candid comment concerning the "tremendous opportunity" the bombed Nord Stream pipeline offers in no way implicates US guilt. We will believe, because we're all idiots, is no doubt his rationale. Funny that George W. Bush spoke of the same opportunity for US engineers and technicians to rebuild Iraq, right after he attacked it on the highest of principles. The money was just an add-on. A windfall. Incidental. Someone recently suggested the US, pumped up by its long record of lying, might drop a false flag nuke somewhere, and blame Russia. A ridiculous idea, we both agreed, because blaming anyone would be automatically irrelevant. But now, considering the madness of King Biden and support system, I'm not so sure the irrelevancy would be an adequate deterrent.
Expect Russia to nuke Moscow as its next dastardly act of provocation.
Yeah really! "That Crazy Bastard"!
Pretend that Jeffrey Epstein had died under comparable circumstances, but in a Russian lockup.
Pretend US pipelines supplying gas to Canada were to be blown up underneath the nose of the Russian Baltic Fleet.
In each case, nobody would so much pretend to believe the official story.
Pedophile Satan worshippers DO run the world. Denying that is a conspiracy theory.
Maybe if you believe Satan=Power/Money
Could the Americans be calibrating their BS effectiveness on their own population? Former Reagan CIA Director stated: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false."
The nonchalant posture of Biden’s admin is probably intended to appear as innocent, but it!s really difficult to argue that all suspicion doesn’t fall on them. It’s as if outrageous denial and fabrication is par for the course in American culture, and nothing can move the needle. This is approaching theater of the absurd.
I forget the guys name but some years back Biden said during a short interview that this person was the one in charge of the US Propaganda Department! I could not believe how open they were about it and the praise given to him. First I thought this was the US of A! How do we end up with an actual department for propagandizing the American people!?
Edward Bernays was considered a pioneer in the application of propaganda to a culture. He was celebrated as the “father” of public relations by ad industry insiders, and not coincidentally, he was an immigrant from Vienna. His emigration to the U.S. preceded WWII by a few decades I think, but the American elites from politics, and industry all were smitten by how functionally effective was the propaganda of the Nazis. They pursued the leaders of German propaganda for repatriation. And I think we are seeing why it was so highly regarded. TV has helped to mold the boomers into obedient consumers...believing that their parochial worldviews are applicable to the whole wide world.
So true but you can't tell them that!
I think Caitlin’s barrage of columns addressing bogus assumptions and full-on propaganda are very apt happy meals for the boomers’s minds!
Tucker made some these exact same points tonight. Too bad you’d rather bash him than actually listen to other points of view.
The TV man is not your friend.
No, but some of what he says is right. He's a broadcaster with a high public profile.
Like you, I disagree with his narratives on China. I am very disappointed by that.
But he often talks honestly and critically about American foreign policy, he never bought into Russiagate, and he interviews and gives public platforms to left wing pundits and journalists such as Glenn Greenwald and Jimmy Dore.
Sometimes what he says impacts negatively on him and his family.
There's no journalist or broadcaster that I agree with 100%. Even you Caitlin!
The broken clock metaphor seems applicable here
He might give an accurate account of selected news items, but every breath that shill takes is calculated. He can pose as a truth-teller and people who agree with his point may be impressed, particularly when he contradicts MSM propaganda like Russiagate, but he’s all about catering to a niche that thinks Trump is a viable alternative to the status quo. He’s got a large following...which says more about the cognitive capabilities of many Americans than it does about Carlson’s veracity.
Maybe the question here is whether or not a TV man who tells the truth sometimes and gives a voice to lefties critical of the Democratic Party for good reasons sometimes is worse than, say, Sean Hannity on the same network. The same Hannity who, last I heard, was arguing for American forces to directly attack Russian forces. Being less shitty than Hannity, or than anyone on CNN or MSNBC for that matter (all of whom seem to stop just slightly short of such insane recommendations in favor of only slightly less insane ones), may be a low bar, but it should count for something IMHO.
Is the average Tucker viewer going to believe everything he says uncritically because he's told enough truth to earn their trust? Or will they reject what he says about China and Taiwan because they're consistent when it comes to proxy wars?
Tucker is excellent, night after night. I know that point is unpopular with the left wing populists, but the right wing populists appreciate his desire to avoid war, and to not sell our lives and bodies to corporations. He is our friend.
That "Support the CIA/NED badge" sure is shinny. How much does it costs?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QHoW8Vf8wg
"Does make me wonder about some of those other "conspiracy theories" you've told us to ignore, though." - finally!
Reminder that every American war since 2001 is the same.
1. Get Americans angry at one individual, who gets demonized as “another Hitler.”
2. Divert $ to corrupt arms industry and foreign crooks.
3. Insist that negotiations are impossible.
4. Kill 100,000 to 1,200,000 people.
5. Lose.
6. Withdrawal in shame.
7. Repeat.
Trump disrupted all this. That’s another reason they hated him. Sometimes, they embarrassed him into some stupid conflict, but he also signed five Middle East peace treaties. He certainly wasn't perfect, but he started zero new wars. And he's better than the people running our current senile, puppet.
If you think Trump disrupted anything, wait, are you related? He argued and whined, and then had to apply sanctions on Russia, because he was pressured by the State that he was “disrupting.” He did nothing about the genocide in Yemen. He upped the transactional affection for a Saudi regime that is stuck in the 16th century, and let’s talk about how he kissed the asses of the pro-Israel lobby while slandering the Palestinians. It is a crock of excrement to argue that the flim-flam man did ANYthing to disrupt the crooked State!
He also tried to coup Venezuela.
Not to mention a successful coup in Bolivia.
Yes, and like most of his time in office, he obediently promoted the agenda of the National Security State. Ukraine could have provided him a great stage to challenge the hollow rhetoric from the imperialists, but he showed no inclination to make a principled stand. Perhaps his lack of principles was why.
Well, I probably shouldn't have mentioned Trump. Because even when he did things like sign 5 peace treaties, and start no new wars (unlike Bush & Obama), opinions on Trump are too carved in stone for anyone to think otherwise.
You don't like Orange Man. I don't like senile puppet. But I think we both can agree that this current nuclear conflict needs detente and de-escalation.
They’re two posers who don’t represent voters, but have different schticks. Trump sees himself as “the only one” who can fix the broken system…what a laugh. And Biden thinks he’s a unifier, another joke. Both of them will prey on the good intentions of naive voters, both of them are deeply invested in spilling blood, and both serve at the pleasure of the handful of multi-billionaires who own everything. Trump is an overt, pathological liar who will tell you up is down, and morons will follow the moron. Biden is a more nuanced liar, and represents a fraudulent tradition, but he’s mimicking Trump when he insists that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “unprovoked.” That is clearly a bald-faced lie.
As Pompeo confessed “ we lie, we cheat, we steal”.
“ . . . Secretary of State Antony Blinken explicitly said that the sabotage of pipelines delivering Russian gas to Germany offers a "tremendous opportunity" to end Europe’s dependency on Russian energy.” How did he say this without gleefully snickering?
I thought he was.
Thank you for all of the links to articles. Anyone doubting or questioning the US official narrative is thrown into the uneducated, disillusioned, nonsensical category by design. We “nonbelievers“ are meant to feel like lepers or marginalized so that we don’t speak up or raise our voices. Thank you for being our loud and proud voice! Critical thinking and questioning all leaders’ narratives need to be considered as an important exercise NOT as a conspiracy theory.
I'm not keeping a precise score, but casual observation over the last couple of years would indicate that in the "Narrative vs ConspiracyTheory" head-to-head... ConspiracyTheory is up about 20-nil.
I detest the phrase. I detest this use of it almost as much as I detest the use of it by authority.
"QAnoners who think pedophile Satan worshippers rule the world."
Of course they do! The basement in Comet Pizza was filled in with concrete the night before the invasion!
OK, enough sarcasm. The USA did it. I have no doubt they did it. The only question that remains is whether or not anyone will effectively stand up to the American Oligarchy. I'm reminded of the Matrix scene when Neo said "guns, lots of guns".
Maybe Qanon isn't totally nuts?
How does the destruction of Nordstream relate to the WTC?
Just throwing it out here for people to imagine.
People never seem to consider that governments aren't the only actors in this drama. There are plenty of corporations and even a couple of mercenary companies who could have built underwater drones capable of mining the pipelines from an island nearby, and they would love to ensure that Europe is stuck purchasing expensive gas from overseas. The same with the WTC, the new owner was looking at a mandatory multibillion dollar asbestos remediation project that would have made the site a money loser for two decades, but bought it anyway. Instead he got it removed at taxpayer expense and got taxpayer subsidized funding to put up the new and more profitable building.
Yes, whether it was the US military or a private military contractor or a combination, in the end it was because some member of the American Oligarchy sees a way of gaining wealth.