I don't know whether this was an inside job or not,

only because I haven't followed it because it's not central to what I'm doing right now.

The mainstream media has embraced suggestions of an “inside job”, as evidence continues to mount that Tuesday’s attack on the Sri Lankan cricket team was a carefully staged event, rather than a hit and run strike.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pakistan-cricket-attack-inside-job-theory-goes-viral.html

My conceptual model of politics is built from a number of assumptions, a few of which are these:

• The human organism will seek to maximize its extraction of energy from its environment so that, one, it may sustain itself and, two, so that it may provide for as many offspring as possible.
• In a state of nature, an organism has a claim to whatever resources it may be able to secure/defend. (It is only with a social union that private property rights are recognized, defendable by the actions of the group as a whole.)
• Therefore, I might expect that the taking of resources --labeled as "theft" within a system of human law-- is a natural inclination. Theft is natural.
  
• If theft is natural, then the operations of men tend toward theft. They tend to the taking of resources which may be secured. Theft abounds.

So if theft abounds, I will examine the actions of men in the knowledge that humans are hardwired to steal. It is a natural inclination. And for the purposes of this discussion, I regard theft as amoral. I infuse the word with no moral meaning.

• Theft involves taking from another.
• One always seeks to minimize cost of action and to maximize return on action.
• Therefore, all else being equal, one will always seek to trick another into giving what one seeks to steal. Trickery can often be the most cost-effective means of achieving theft.
• Therefore, I might expect trickery to abound.

So if trickery abounds, I will examine the actions of men in the knowledge that, all else being equal, they are inclined to trick. (For the purposes of this discussion, I have zeroed-out any influence of human law, codified in various religions. All law derives from religion. Some religions prohibit theft, some reserve it. Since I cannot know the religion of a particular actor, I cannot make any assumptions about its influence on that actor.)

So when I regard any event, I ask myself, "Where's the theft, where's the trickery?"

• Theft abounds.
• Slavery is the ultimate form of theft. No need to repeatedly sneak up on another and steal his wallet when you can put a chain around his neck and force him to toil for you.
• Therefore, slavery abounds.

Indeed, slavery is the natural state of mankind. All else being equal, outside the consideration of any moral or legal code, one is hardwired to enslave another. Attempts at enslavement are as natural as sunshine. Someone on this train, if he could get away with it, would like to enslave me.

So since theft abounds, and since attempts at enslavement abound, and since trickery is often the most cost-effective means of securing what one wants, I may rest assured that someone would likely employ trickery in enslaving me, in capturing me physically so that I cannot get away. When Ted Bundy captured those women he enslaved and/or murdered, he did it by employing a ruse. He wore a fake cast on his arm and then asked some passing, pretty girl for help bundling a package into the trunk of his car or whatever. Then he hit her over the head with his cast.

I saw that Mel Gibson movie, Apocalypto. I highly recommend it. In it, the Aztecs or whoever they were captured the members of other tribes and tied them all to a long pole in such a manner that they could all walk under their own power, yet still remain captured. They were marched through the rainforest, off to be sacrificed or to be sold as slaves.

Methods change. Human nature does not. So when I regard any event, I ask myself, "Where's the long pole?"

In modern societies, we don't use long poles and vines to tie people to them. We use political systems. Men with powdered wigs and guys with guns and liens and lawsuits and all the rest. Most of the operations of modern political systems are geared to tying populations to a long pole.

• Rights are property.
• Liberty is a right.
• Theft abounds.
• Therefore, theft of rights abounds.

Put another way, liberty is the opposite of slavery. Since someone is always looking to enslave me, this means that someone is always looking to steal my liberty.

So when I regard any event, I always ask myself, "Where is the theft of liberty here? Where is the pole that steals my ability to get away?"

How does one trick another? The trickster will exploit natural human needs in achieving his end. I would suggest that the human trickster would naturally employ a guide, such as that explicated by Maslow in his Hierarchy of Needs:


What this means is that, at his most fundamental, a human desires food and shelter. Five minutes after he has secured his basic needs, he will seek to secure his physical safety. And then after that he will seek to secure the "nice to have" stuff, such as a sense of self-worth, purpose, love, etc.

The point is, if you can exploit one's desire for basic needs and physical security, you can exploit that person. You can enslave him. If I threaten your supply of food, I control you. If I threaten your physical security, I control you.

It is as natural as sunshine that one would seek to steal from me by threatening my physical security.

Therefore, whenever I regard a threat to my security --bombs going off, people getting shot, planes flying into buildings-- I ask myself, "Who here is threatening my physical security in an effort to enslave me through trickery?"

And we can see the result of the Patriot Act. It does absolutely nothing to defend me from Mossad and the CIA. What it does achieve is a stealing of my rights. It steals my property. The piece of legislation is nothing but a long pole.

Everyone in my audience knows that 9-11 was an inside job. I don't mean to say that the DMV lady was in on it. When I say "inside job," I mean that someone from inside the tribe threw a bomb to make it look like the tribe was being attacked from outside. He threatened the physical security of the tribe for the purpose of tricking me into delivering to him what he seeks to steal: my property, my energy.

Inside jobs are as natural as sunshine. You will find them everywhere. They go back to the beginnings of human societies. They are the oldest trick in the book. They are a means of manipulating populations for the purpose of extracting energy from them. They are a means of theft.

The following events were inside jobs:

• The Shoah
• The Oklahoma City Bombing
  
• 9-11
• The anthrax attacks
• The London bombings
• The Madrid bombings
• The Mumbai massacre

You may examine the evidence if you wish. A detailing of that evidence is beyond the scope of this piece.

Inside jobs are the rule, rather than the exception.

So in the absence of any information, my immediate inclination is to treat an event as an inside job. Knowing nothing about this Sri Lankan cricket team thing, I would operate from that assumption.

And I will add that the term "conspiracy theory" is a linguistic warfare term. It is a word that has no meaning until infused with emotional meaning which is then applied to a target. If you were to ask your local District Attorney how many of his pending cases are conpiracies, I'd guess he'd say somewhere in the vicinity of twenty five percent. Conspiracies abound. They are as natural as sunshine. And as I've said, some people don't like conspiracy theories --namely, those involved in conspiracies.