Posts
Three weeks ago:
The disappeared article outlines a useful and important framework from within which the events of 11th September 2001 can be seen not just as the made for TV terrorist spectacular that they were, but instead as a made for TV terrorist spectacular with deliberate political aims, intents and purposes, albeit ones completely contrary to those offered in the official narrative. Raso makes the case that history is beset with such politically charged spectaculars for which alternative narratives have been, and still are, dismissed by some as "malicious lies" and "outrageous conspiracy theories". Many of these "conspiracy theories" have since been proven to be, albeit some time after the events to which they refer, "conspiracy fact" but this has never prevented purveyors of official doctrine from the endlessly fast and loose use of the throwaway terms "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" as they attempt to call a halt to critical thinking and critical thinkers. The irony of the anti-intellectualism practiced by those who would hold themselves to be intellectuals is lost on no-one, yet the anti-thinking endeavour to defend their staunchly held positions of weakness with a renewed sense of desperation and transparency.
Others are somewhat wiser and more honest with their analysis. The research of Professor David MacGregor includes studies in the Hegelian-Marxist political economy of concrete evil, inaugurated in an article The Deep Politics of 911: Political Economy of Concrete Evil. MacGregor has also written an article for J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign, July 7th as Machiavellian State Terror? in which he posits the notion that the events of July 7th may fall into the category of what he terms "Machiavellian state terror, spectacular violence perpetrated against the state by elements of the state itself". The theory was born in another of MacGregor's articles on the subject of 9/11, September 11 as Machiavellian State Terror, in which he highlights the importance of 'oppositional theorizing: questioning government and looking for connections between events', activities which he suggests 'are critical features of what it means to be vitally active in the political universe'.
At around 9:17 on 7th July 2005 rolling TV news began to break stories of explosions on the London Underground. It wasn't long before the media were reporting that the explosions on underground trains were the result of "power surges".
To date, where opposition to the actions of the State have materialised from outside the establishment, it has largely confined itself to relatively small, single-issue groupings, too limited in time, resources and publicity to embark on wider political and social campaigns. There are some exceptions, for example the Stop The War Coalition, who have time, reach, resources and the potential to affect change through their broad-based membership instead of merely organising the occasional feel-good march. Yet this hasn't happened and there may be other reasons for this lack of progress such as a lack of decent leadership, an absence of the desire to affect real political change, or other less obvious and slightly more nefarious attributes that prevent them from advancing a more all encompassing political agenda.
This paradigm is changing though, particularly with regard to the nebulous but ever growing 9/11 Truth movement whose reach seems to include most of the world. As general levels of political awareness and distrust of the establishment grow in tandem with each other, new "anti-terror" legislation in both the U.S. and the U.K. is specifically designed to ensure the loudly stated objectives of new laws mask the way in which just about any activity at all, particularly any activity that is in any way political or has political objectives, can now be prosecuted as the common offense of "terrorism", in advance of there being any actual terrorism and irrespective of the "terrorists" possessing the means, methods and motives to carry out acts of terror, much less the sustained campaigns of terror only achievable by States. Charity workers are now "terrorist fundraisers", solidarity workers are now "terrorist sympathisers" and so too is anyone campaigning for any sort of meaningful justice for those deemed by word alone to be "terrorists".
In the days of The Troubles it was just the same. By some sheer coincidence of unimaginable proportions, many of the very same old boys who happened to play key roles in running the show in Northern Ireland on behalf of the British government just happen to be in the positions of power to run a similar show on mainland Britain.
With that as an introduction, and because it's a concise article that deserves to be read and espouses something worth thinking about, here's a copy Joseph Raso's Understanding the September 11, 2001 Attacks as a Coup D'Etat.
Three posts of a kind, all about the popularly propagated myth that cannabis consumption is responsible for increased levels of psychosis, all published right here on Reason.... just weeks before the 2005The phrase coup d'etat, complete with its deliberate conflation with the term "power surge", carried a link to an article by Joseph Raso on his Resources for Political Change web site, Understanding the September 11, 2001 Attacks as a Coup D'Etat. Since then, Raso's article, which has been online since 2006, appears to have been removed along with the rest of his web site. At the time of writing the site is is still offline.coup d'etat"power surge" changed everything.....
The disappeared article outlines a useful and important framework from within which the events of 11th September 2001 can be seen not just as the made for TV terrorist spectacular that they were, but instead as a made for TV terrorist spectacular with deliberate political aims, intents and purposes, albeit ones completely contrary to those offered in the official narrative. Raso makes the case that history is beset with such politically charged spectaculars for which alternative narratives have been, and still are, dismissed by some as "malicious lies" and "outrageous conspiracy theories". Many of these "conspiracy theories" have since been proven to be, albeit some time after the events to which they refer, "conspiracy fact" but this has never prevented purveyors of official doctrine from the endlessly fast and loose use of the throwaway terms "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" as they attempt to call a halt to critical thinking and critical thinkers. The irony of the anti-intellectualism practiced by those who would hold themselves to be intellectuals is lost on no-one, yet the anti-thinking endeavour to defend their staunchly held positions of weakness with a renewed sense of desperation and transparency.
Others are somewhat wiser and more honest with their analysis. The research of Professor David MacGregor includes studies in the Hegelian-Marxist political economy of concrete evil, inaugurated in an article The Deep Politics of 911: Political Economy of Concrete Evil. MacGregor has also written an article for J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign, July 7th as Machiavellian State Terror? in which he posits the notion that the events of July 7th may fall into the category of what he terms "Machiavellian state terror, spectacular violence perpetrated against the state by elements of the state itself". The theory was born in another of MacGregor's articles on the subject of 9/11, September 11 as Machiavellian State Terror, in which he highlights the importance of 'oppositional theorizing: questioning government and looking for connections between events', activities which he suggests 'are critical features of what it means to be vitally active in the political universe'.
At around 9:17 on 7th July 2005 rolling TV news began to break stories of explosions on the London Underground. It wasn't long before the media were reporting that the explosions on underground trains were the result of "power surges".
In most cases the coup is undertaken to displace one set of rulers, typically the civilian leadership, and establish the power of an alternative group, which is often, but not necessarily, the military. What distinguishes a coup from revolutions is that they are typically carried by relatively small groups and do not involve mass political action. The second key difference is that while those who carry out the coup are seeking to change the government or ruling group, they are not usually trying to change the regime or bring about broader social change. [answers.com]Removing the initially reported cause of the underground explosions on 7/7 from its implied electrical context, the term "power surge" well describes a method by which an attempt could be made to "establish the power of an alternative group". An examination of key socio-political events since 7/7 in the U.K, and since 9/11 in the U.S., easily reveals many crucial changes in political and social life where new and more intrusive, paternalistic, fascistic methods of operation have been adopted. Worse, these policies and practices have been seamlessly integrated into the operation of State machinery with barely a challenge from within the machine. On the odd occasion where challenges have been made from inside the establishment, the State has elected to ride roughshod over them and continue unchecked in the business of establishing all the politics and technologies of political control that anyone with dictatorial designs might need, complete with a Weimar Republic economy and modern day Reichstag Fire.
To date, where opposition to the actions of the State have materialised from outside the establishment, it has largely confined itself to relatively small, single-issue groupings, too limited in time, resources and publicity to embark on wider political and social campaigns. There are some exceptions, for example the Stop The War Coalition, who have time, reach, resources and the potential to affect change through their broad-based membership instead of merely organising the occasional feel-good march. Yet this hasn't happened and there may be other reasons for this lack of progress such as a lack of decent leadership, an absence of the desire to affect real political change, or other less obvious and slightly more nefarious attributes that prevent them from advancing a more all encompassing political agenda.
This paradigm is changing though, particularly with regard to the nebulous but ever growing 9/11 Truth movement whose reach seems to include most of the world. As general levels of political awareness and distrust of the establishment grow in tandem with each other, new "anti-terror" legislation in both the U.S. and the U.K. is specifically designed to ensure the loudly stated objectives of new laws mask the way in which just about any activity at all, particularly any activity that is in any way political or has political objectives, can now be prosecuted as the common offense of "terrorism", in advance of there being any actual terrorism and irrespective of the "terrorists" possessing the means, methods and motives to carry out acts of terror, much less the sustained campaigns of terror only achievable by States. Charity workers are now "terrorist fundraisers", solidarity workers are now "terrorist sympathisers" and so too is anyone campaigning for any sort of meaningful justice for those deemed by word alone to be "terrorists".
In the days of The Troubles it was just the same. By some sheer coincidence of unimaginable proportions, many of the very same old boys who happened to play key roles in running the show in Northern Ireland on behalf of the British government just happen to be in the positions of power to run a similar show on mainland Britain.
With that as an introduction, and because it's a concise article that deserves to be read and espouses something worth thinking about, here's a copy Joseph Raso's Understanding the September 11, 2001 Attacks as a Coup D'Etat.
April 2006
Understanding the September 11, 2001 Attacks as a Coup D'Etat
by Joseph Raso
"The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defence against real, pretended, or imaginary dangers from abroad."-- James Madison
On the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001, the world witnessed a coup d'etat unfold in the United States of America. Although the U.S. government and compliant media have presented 9/11 as a surprise assault perpetrated by Islamic militants acting in a conspiracy under the direction of Osama bin Laden, the terrorist attacks in New York and at the Pentagon should be viewed very differently given the results of the investigations conducted by many researchers which indicate U.S. government complicity. Analyzing 9/11 as a coup is appropriate whether government officials possessed foreknowledge and allowed these atrocities to occur, or if, as the available evidence suggests, 9/11 was a covert operation akin to Operation Northwoods, a false-flag attack orchestrated by elements within and associated with the U.S. state.(1) In terms of loss of life, deception, and global implications, it would be accurate to characterize it as the most audacious coup in history.
Coups: North and South
A coup is best defined as a sudden extraconstitutional seizure of power, often violent in nature, by individuals within the state apparatus. It is commonly identified with the classic military intervention, but coups may assume other forms. They are associated with politics in the 'Third World'/global South, where these events have typically occurred without pretense. One of the most infamous cases in the South was the coup in Chile, supported by the Nixon administration and facilitated by a CIA campaign, on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 1973.(2) It resulted in seventeen years of military rule, the murder of more than 3,000 Chileans and some foreigners by the Pinochet regime, and countless victims of torture in a country previously respected for its history of constitutional democracy.(3)
In the West/global North, dramatic extraconstitutional seizures of power also occur, albeit less frequently. Certainly the most significant coup in the North during the Cold War era was perpetrated by the U.S. 'national security state' on November 22, 1963. It was in the wake of the Dallas coup that 'conspiracy theory' became a term of ridicule, which, although profoundly ahistorical and intellectually bankrupt, managed to achieve the objective of diverting attention from the truth about state responsibility for the murder of President Kennedy.(4) His death, as intended, led to a policy shift favourable to the interests of the 'military-industrial complex' of which President Eisenhower had famously warned the country in his farewell address less than three years earlier. In fact, all coups in the North are policy coups, designed to force a change in foreign and/or domestic policies, which has not always been the case with coups in the South. Evidence in the kidnapping and murder of Italian Prime Minister Aldo Moro in 1978 follows this pattern and strongly suggests the involvement of a clandestine NATO network linked to terrorism.(5)
9/11: Global Coup
9/11 was both a domestic and international coup. When a coup occurs in the world's hegemonic power, it will necessarily have vast implications on a global level. The events of 9/11 can be viewed as a violent takeover by neoconservative fascist elements in the 'national security' apparatus of the state, whose extremist agenda would not have been viable without 9/11. The neocon camp includes individuals who have figured prominently in the Bush regime: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, John Bolton, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, and others. Their worldview is identified with Leo Strauss, the founder of the neoconservative school and a former professor at the University of Chicago who influenced a generation of political leaders. At the core of the neocon ideology is contempt for democracy and an emphasis on the desirability of deception, conflict, and perpetual war. From this perspective, 9/11 was ideal to initiate the 'clash of civilizations' popularized by Samuel Huntington, a Harvard academic whose work has considerable influence in foreign policymaking circles.(6)
The neocon program for global domination was delineated in publications of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), a neocon think tank founded in 1997 and comprised of the key administration officials noted earlier as well as other government advisors. In respect to 9/11, the document entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (September 2000) deserves scrutiny. In this blueprint for U.S. imperialism in the twenty-first century, PNAC members noted that their plan would demand global military force and thus a substantial increase in military spending, but "the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event-like a new Pearl Harbor."(7) A year later, 9/11 conveniently provided this requisite 'new Pearl Harbor' pretext for the neocon architects' imperial project.
However, not all of the beneficiaries of the 9/11 coup are located within the borders of the United States. A thoughtful analysis has recently been offered by General Leonid Ivashov, Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces at the time of 9/11: "We have to look for the reasons of the attacks in the coincidence of interests of the big capital at global and transnational levels, in the circles that were not satisfied with the rhythm of the globalization process or its direction." In this sense, 9/11 served the economic interests of a transnational elite. He contends: "This means that terrorism is not something independent of world politics but simply an instrument, a means to install a unipolar world with a sole world headquarters, a pretext to erase national borders and to establish the rule of a new world elite."(8)
Machiavelli and Democratic Appearances
Undoubtedly, 9/11 was also a coup in a domestic context. The post-9/11 Patriot Act (like similar 'anti-terror' legislation in other countries) has severely undermined civil liberties while the authoritarian approach of the Bush administration, in combination with the astonishing weakness/complicity of Democrats, have allowed for the concentration of virtually unrestricted power in the executive branch, the gradual disappearance of 'checks and balances' and the dismantling of the constitution.
The writings of Florentine political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli provide a useful guide for comprehending the neocon ruling strategy. Machiavelli explained the importance of deceiving the public in undertaking major political change. In Discourses on Livy, he argued that one "must at least retain the semblance of the old forms; so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones."(9) In their Machiavellian rule, the neocons have hollowed out democratic institutions of substance while retaining the structures, thus preserving the appearance of a functioning liberal democracy.
Consequences
The consequences of this grand coup extend far beyond the loss of nearly 3,000 lives that day, health problems in New York for many thousands more, and much greater loss of life in subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.(10) In fact, it is difficult to exaggerate the impact of 9/11 on the world over the past several years: the persecution and dangerous dehumanization of Muslims, widespread use of torture, advanced erosion of civil liberties, brazen violation of international law, establishment of the doctrine of unilateral preventive war, the potential for nuclear conflict, and the construction of a new world order which poses the threat of global fascism.(11) All of these appalling developments are the product of 9/11. One must also consider the deterioration in the political climate and intellectual discourse.
Meanwhile, the fraudulent 'global war on terror' has deprived vital global issues of critical focus and funding. Environmental degradation, the AIDS pandemic, extreme poverty, and the massive debt burden of the South are overshadowed in the post-9/11 world. U.S. domestic concerns in health care, education, social decay, and a host of other issues are also neglected in favour of astronomical military spending. The atrocious war in Iraq, predicated on lies that were transparent prior to the invasion, only increases the country's deep indebtedness and further jeopardizes the long-term prospects of the U.S. economy.
Conclusion
9/11 was a coup against humanity. Exposing it is essential to prevent another 9/11-type event and more wars for oil and empire, which have the potential to culminate in a world war. There exists no alternative to dismantling this coup in order to steer the world away from its disastrous course. The future of everyone on this planet depends on it and we cannot afford to fail in this historic task. Consider the title of a book on public denial over the unpleasant truth of the Kennedy assassination, written by psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz: History Will Not Absolve Us.
NOTES (updated)
(1) a) David Ray Griffin and Peter Dale Scott (eds). 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (Volume I). Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2006.
b) Peter Dale Scott. The Road to 9/11: Wealth, Empire, and the Future of America. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2007.
c) David Ray Griffin. Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2007.
d) David Ray Griffin. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2005.
e) Paul Zarembka (ed). The Hidden History of 9-11-2001 (Research in Political Economy, Volume 23). Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2006.
f) Barrie Zwicker. Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2006.
g) Michel Chossudovsky. America's "War on Terrorism." Pincourt, PQ: Global Research, 2005.
h) Webster G. Tarpley. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA. Joshua Tree, CA: Progressive Press, 2005.
i) Michael C. Ruppert. Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers, 2004.
j) Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed. The War on Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism. Northampton, MA: Interlink Books, 2005.
k) Steven E. Jones. "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" Journal of 9/11 Studies (September 2006/Volume 3). [PDF]
l) Joseph P. Firmage. "Intersecting Facts and Theories on 9/11." Journal of 9/11 Studies (August 2006/Volume 2). [PDF]
m) Global Outlook: The Magazine of 9/11 Truth
n) Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice
(2) National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 8, "Chile and the United States: Declassified Documents Relating to the Military Coup, September 11, 1973"
(3) Report of the Chilean National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation
(4) a) Joan Mellen. A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. Dulles, VA: Potomac Books Inc., 2005.
b) Vincent J. Salandria. False Mystery: Essays on the Assassination of JFK. Louisville, CO: Square Deal Press, 2004.
c) E. Martin Schotz. History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy. Brookline, MA: Kurtz, Ulmer & Delucia, 1996.
d) Peter Dale Scott. Deep Politics and the Death of JFK. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993.
e) Alan J. Weberman and Michael Canfield. Coup D'Etat in America: The CIA and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy. San Francisco: Quick Trading Company, 1992.
(5) a) Philip P. Willan. Puppetmasters: The Political Use of Terrorism in Italy. New York: Authors Choice Press, 2002.
b) Daniele Ganser. NATO's Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe. London: Frank Cass, 2005.
c) Arthur E. Rowse. "Gladio: The Secret U.S. War to Subvert Italian Democracy." Covert Action Quarterly (No. 49: Summer 1994).
(6) Samuel P. Huntington. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.
(7) Project for the New American Century, "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century" (September 2000)
(8) Leonid Ivashov, "International terrorism does not exist"
(9) Niccolo Machiavelli. Discourses on Livy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
(10) Sabrina Tavernise and Donald G. McNeil Jr. "Iraqi dead may total 600,000, study says." International Herald Tribune (11 October 2006).
(11) Richard Falk, "Will the Empire be Fascist?"
N.B. This article does not preclude other perspectives on 9/11 e.g. viewing it as a psychological operation (psyop) against the general population.
24 comments:
In the days of The Troubles it was just the same. By some sheer coincidence of unimaginable proportions, many of the very same old boys who happened to play key roles in running the show in Northern Ireland on behalf of the British government just happen to be in the positions of power to run a similar show on mainland Britain.
As if by magic, chief constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland will learn this month whether he is the new Metropolitan Police Commissioner (after lothario Manchester top cop went a walking in the mountains never to return).
A fine piece. Possibly of interest, I wrote a couple of posts based on Machiavelli a hile back:
Machiavelli and Democracy, and the lengthier follow-up, here
The Raso link, btw, seems to be failing.
Thanks for the comment and links, I will have a read as soon as time allows.
Raso's site is still down, but I believe it's because the site is being revamped, rather than anything more sinister (although I didn't know this at the time of posting the article).
You might also be interested in the latest effort on the J7 blog which addresses some populist mythology touted by those who purport to report from the 'the left' but are merely stuck in their own apolitical, ahistorical, racist and bigoted confirmation bias loop:
J7 Response to Paul Stott's paper: Half Truth Movement: How The 9/11 Cult Falsifies History
"Yet [opposition to the actions of the State] hasn't happened and there may be other reasons for this lack of progress such as a lack of decent leadership, an absence of the desire to affect real political change, or other less obvious and slightly more nefarious attributes that prevent them from advancing a more all encompassing political agenda."
Can I advance the theory that the reason might be very people take the kind of crackpot view of the world that you do Antagonist? Now there's a conspiracy! Do a little research, the truth is out there... [cue X-files music].
I used to believe all this stuff Antagonist (when I was 16), but then I grew up. I think the penny dropped when I realised that the world of the internet is quite different from the real world, and tried to engage with the latter a little more to prevent myself having nightmares about the lizard-men.
By the way, you really do give governments too much credit (if that's the right word). I think the ruling elite of our country can't even conceal their spouses' penchant for pay-per-view porn at the expense of the tax-payer, yet alone be trusted with handling international conspiracies.
Keep up the good work, there's a great market for this rubbish.
James.
(Anything that defies my sense of reason)
James did say....
Can I advance the theory that the reason might be very people take the kind of crackpot view of the world that you do Antagonist?
You can, but like much else you write, it makes no sense.
What? I think I make perfectly good sense thanks. It would appear that you are the one on the loony wing of the political spectrum. Your readership of six will be very disappointed if you don't start to challenge some of my points.
To be fair, Antagonist, I think you're an intelligent guy, but in my view you lost all credibility when you claimed 9/11 and 7/7 were inside jobs. This would be laughable, were it funny. I actually find it quite disgusting, though, that you try and turn around what was a terrible attack on our capital and accuse our government of complicity. When are you going to accept that there is a small number of people in our society who would like to blow us up? These people do exist Antagonist, they are not government inventions. I've spent a lot of time travelling in Pakistan, perhaps you should go there to see for yourself? Or perhaps you'd like to invent a conspiracy theory to explain each and every occasion that a suicide bomber has blown himself up there? If so, I wish you luck.
I presume the reason why you come out with such idiotic views is that you consider our supposedly 'fascist' government to be so evil that they are ultimately behind everything bad that happens. You have become so utterly deluded and brainwashed by this view that I'm afraid you've defied your own sense of reason.
Oh I see, you've spotted a typing error, well done. Now try and make a point.
When are you going to accept that there is a small number of people in our society who would like to blow us up?
That such people exist is beyond question, so I know not from whence you draw that presumption. However, who these people are, their motivations and, ultimately, who gains from their actions are matters worthy of further investigation. Unless, that is, you are happy to accept the evidence-free declarations of States and State actors, with proven track records of telling lies in connection with just about everything, from expenses to mythical weapons of mass destruction, that happen to have killed many hundreds of times more people than any of those against whom they level the charge of 'terrorists'.
The facts of the matter are thus: I don't know who was responsible for 7/7 or 9/11 and, if you would be so gracious as to condescend to being honest about the matter, nor do you.
The difference here being that you are content to believe that you know all the answers.
This is a worryingly common position. Some people are unhappy to exist in a world in which there are unknown parameters and will consequently accept any old nonsense that fulfils the task of providing a 'narrative' -- nothing more than a story -- of events, quite irrespective of whether that narrative has any basis in fact or material reality.
I actually find it quite disgusting, though, that you try and turn around what was a terrible attack on our capital and accuse our government of complicity.
Such statements are all too common from defenders of official conspiracy theory doctrine. Rarely, however, are things quite so clear cut, as indeed even the recent history of terrorism on mainland Britain more than amply demonstrates. You can find my opinions as disgusting as you like, although this doesn't seem to put you off reading them, but an opinion is just that, an opinion, and it is nowhere near as disgusting as -- oh, I don't know, let's say -- the invasions and occupations of sovereign nations and the mass murder of hundreds of thousands of human beings on the basis of carefully fabricated lies.
You go on to say:
I presume the reason why you come out with such idiotic views is that you consider our supposedly 'fascist' government to be so evil that they are ultimately behind everything bad that happens. You have become so utterly deluded and brainwashed by this view that I'm afraid you've defied your own sense of reason.
Your argument is based on a false dichotomy, ascribing as it does responsibility to either part 'A' or party 'Z' with nothing existing in between. The implicit suggestion in your statements being that the debate with regard to 7/7 or 9/11 is either "Muslims did it!" or "The government did it".
Such a position is, of course, a total denial of historical reality and utterly ridiculous in the face of evidence that proves your chosen dichotomy to be entirely false.
Hey Truther!
"However, who these people are, their motivations and, ultimately, who gains from their actions are matters worthy of further investigation."
Indeed, but that's not quite how you've put it in the past Antagonist. I think you should read your own blog, you seem to be backtracking a little here. Does all your paranoia in the aftermath of 7/7 make you look a little silly now?
I'd like to refer you to your article on the Number 30 bus explosion, for example. Never have I read a load of such paranoid drivel in all my life. All this talk of 'players', men with crew-cut hairstyles, 'squaddies and organisers' demolition vans, people not helping each other, blue and yellow rucksacks, people smiling, an explosion not looking like it ought to compared to one on a motorway.... I mean, honestly Antagonist, get a grip. Do you just sit in front of your computer all day, staring at photographs and trying to work out some hitherto unseen narrative of events? If so, I'll reiterate my previous suggestion that you get out more.
All this is quite different from saying the matter needs "further investigation". I think you've made your opinions on who did it quite clear. And if it wasn't the government, I'm not quite sure who else you're accusing (unless it was the lizards, of course).
So when you say "you are content to believe that you know all the answers", I'm sure I don't need to emphasize the hypocrisy of that statement. I think all you do Antagonist is look at a few photos, read a few books by people who make lots of dosh out of peddling conspiracy theories, read some blogs written by people equally as deluded as yourself, join all the dots up, and, hey presto, you think you have all the answers. Well done! Oh, I almost forgot to mention the part your imagination plays in all this as well.
For the record, I did not support the Iraq War. I was also against the Afghanistan War, as it had nothing to do with us. I do, however, understand America's reasons for fighting it, given that bin Laden made an unprovoked attack on American soil. But then I am arguing with someone who believes 9/11 was a coup against the American people, so I don't expect to get far with that one. Bla bla bla. And so it goes on. Tiresome, dreary and predictable, the modern phenomenon of the internet conspiracy lunatic.
Lastly, I'm not quite sure what you're on about with false dichotimies and 'party A' and 'party Z', but I'll make it nice and simple for you. A group of people who despise our country commited an atrocity. Yes, they happened to be Muslims, and no, our government didn't do it. Understood? I know you've learnt some exciting words at university, but leave them to the academics.
Just to clarify, the reason I read your blog is because I find it an incredibly stimulating and revealing exercise in understanding what makes the mind of a conspiracy freak tick. There is so much more material here than on the Youtube comments pages, so I'm definitely a subsriber now.
All the best,
James.
P.S. www.counterknowledge.com
They have the cure.
And if it wasn't the government, I'm not quite sure who else you're accusing (unless it was the lizards, of course).
Well done. Only two groups of anything exist in the world, governments and lizards. Or is it governments and Muslims? Or is it lizards and Muslims? Or maybe it's three groups depending on the point you wish to repeatedly fail to make and maybe the three groups are limited to governments and Muslims and lizards.
Try drawing a Venn diagram of the world as you describe it and include its 6 billion or so human inhabitants (oh dear, that leaves out your precious lizards) in the two (or is it three?) groups of people you seem to believe exist.
The dishonest, weak and intellectually bankrupt position from which you argue will perhaps then be clear even to you.
For the record, I did not support the Iraq War. I was also against the Afghanistan War, as it had nothing to do with us.
So what? The personal isn't always the political. If it makes you feel better, have a [Gordon] BrNWOie point for each illegal war instigated on the basis of lies that you opposed inside your own head.
As for false dichotomies, you seem very sure what I was referring to. Immediately after claiming you didn't understand the point I was making, you then expounded the same false dichotomy that arises from the strange world you inhabit in which there are only two (or is it three?) groups of people in existence.
In other words, using your phraseology of choice:
Tiresome, dreary and predictable, the modern phenomenon of the internet *official* conspiracy lunatic.
Dear Antagonista,
It is a shame you declined the opportunity to further enlighten us with your theories regarding the Number 30 bus bombing. Your vast expertise in various areas, such as explosive devices, has been sorely missed by your readers. Is this a sign that you are, perhaps, a little unsure of yourself on the subject? I understand we all make mistakes, but if you'll permit me to be direct with you, you better make damn f*cking sure you know what you're talking about when you write stupid rubbish like that.
I'm not sure about ven diagrams (mathematics was never my forte), but if you'd care to draw a good old-fashioned graph with 'job' on the horizontal axis and 'money' on the vertical one, you can then add a perfect diagonal line going north-east. This you can label 'self respect', or 'life', depending on your preference.
I still don't know what you're talking about with all these groups and dichotimies. Perhaps you'd like me to repeat my simple point once again? Here it is: "A group of people who despise our country commited an atrocity. Yes, they happened to be Muslims, and no, our government didn't do it. Understood?". No groups there, Antagonist, just a bunch of people who got very angry with us.
I'm hardly going to fall for your bait of blaming everything on Muslims! I have no problem with Muslims at all, I just don't like people who blow up innocent people. Incidentally, nor do Muslims. Lets get away from labels and groups Antagonist, and start talking about individuals, hey?
You make a lot of valid points in your blog, I'll concede on that one. The trouble is that you go and ruin it all with the whole excessive anti-capitalist-we're-ruled-by-fascists-9/11-was-an-inside-job thing. This is why nobody will ever take your points of view seriously. Most people are happy with their lives. Yes, really! We don't think we're ruled by fascists (although I do think the current government is desparately incompetent), we are happy with capitalism! That's why everyone wants to come and live here!!!!
James: We don't think we're ruled by fascists (although I do think the current government is desparately incompetent), we are happy with capitalism!
Who are the 'we' and since when did the 'we' appoint you to speak for them?
Hi Ant,
The 'we' is the vast majority of people who do not buy into nonsense conspiracy theories, do not think we are governed by 'fascists', and are happy with the capitalist system.
If people wanted communism, they can always go and vote for it! But they don't.
Dear old Antagonist wants to think we live in a fascist system, it appeals to his revolutionary heart. He spends a lot of time coming up with lame exmaples to try and prove it. I doubt he knows what it's really like to live in a fascist state. I doubt either that he fully understands how similar the ideology of the extreme left is with that of the extreme right.
Capitalism, despite its many faults, has given the people a greater degree of liberty than any other system. If people felt so oppressed and exploited by it, they could always vote against it. They don't even need a revolution!
James: Capitalism, despite its many faults, has given the people a greater degree of liberty than any other system. If people felt so oppressed and exploited by it, they could always vote against it. They don't even need a revolution!
You might have noticed that the Capitalist system is broken and is unlikely to be fixed to any degree without resorting to further Imperialist wars, and certainly not before many in the 'Free' 'Democratic' 'West' suffer unemployment, home repossessions and poverty. How 'free' would that be?
The 'liberty' to sell one's labour power will not appear a 'liberty' at all when no Capitalist will be prepared to pay a living wage for it.
Then we'll see what really lies behind the veil of so-called Democratic States - bodies of armed men!
Frankly Bridget, it's hardly worth debating with you because you're clearly another paranoid nutjob. But I'll just say that no, there are not 'bodies of armed men' waiting to machine-gun us or whatever it is you think they're going to do to us.
I know your desperate to see the whole capitalist system come crashing down and that this would give you a reason to live, but I'm afraid it's not going to happen. Try organizing a revolution, if you can find anyone other than that pathetic group of losers at the G20 'riots' to support you. By the way, did you know the next one is going to be sponsored by Coca-Cola?!
Capitalism is not 'broken', I don't know where you got that from. I certainly don't see that around me in London. We are currently in a recession that we will soon be out of (tip: buy bank shares now, loads of cash to be made). You will have to wait another 20-30 years or so for the next chance, so the masses better rise up soon.
It's unfortunate that you've used home repossessions as an example of our 'broken' capialist system. Don't you think people ought to think a bit more before taking out mortgages fifteen times their salaries? Probably not, because for people such as yourself it's always the system that's to blame. Individuals just can't think for themselves, can they?
I would agree that the sector should have been better regulated though. That would be the sort of moderate, reasoned view that would give cause for intelligent debate.
Anyway, good luck with the revolution. I for one would rather be ruled by 'capitalists' than live in the kind of hell-hole people such as you and Antagonist would create if you had the chance. Just remember, extreme left = totalitarianism. Fact.
And you haven't answered my point, if the masses are so oppressed and exploited by capitalism, WHY DON'T PEOPLE VOTE FOR ANOTHER SYSTEM? After all, there are plenty of alternative parties out there. This is such a huge flaw in the anti-capitalist argument that it's hardly surprising you and Antagonista and all the other fruitcakes out there refuse to address it.
James:And you haven't answered my point, if the masses are so oppressed and exploited by capitalism, WHY DON'T PEOPLE VOTE FOR ANOTHER SYSTEM? After all, there are plenty of alternative parties out there. This is such a huge flaw in the anti-capitalist argument that it's hardly surprising you and Antagonista and all the other fruitcakes out there refuse to address it.
Did we 'elect' Capitalism? When did that happen? You might be able to elect a government but you don't get to change the system that way.
Hi Bridget,
You have every opportunity to change the system. Do I need to list the plethora of political parties in this country dedicated to doing exactly that? You should know, I presume you vote for one of them.
You will have to accept that the reason the system has not changed is because the overwhelming majority of people do not want it to.
In any case, I don't see what right you have to prevent me or anyone else from wanting to do better for myself. The only way to achieve that would be through totalitarian rule, as history has shown. This results in the deaths of tens of millions of people, as history has also shown.
James: You will have to accept that the reason the system has not changed is because the overwhelming majority of people do not want it to.
The 'system' will change, Capitalism is finished, and just like previous systems, slavery & feudalism for example, will eventually be consigned to history. Of that you can be sure.
In any case, I don't see what right you have to prevent me or anyone else from wanting to do better for myself.
James I wouldn't dream of trying to prevent you from bettering yourself, on the contrary, in your case, it sounds like a very good idea!
Exceptional wit, Bridget, but again you've failed to address any of my points. All you can say is "capitalism is finished", which it clearly isn't, and nor is likely to be anytime soon. But good luck to you!
The 7/7 power surge continues, with the controlled demolition of parliament set in motion by an ex-SAS man and Conservative, John Wick, who brokered the expense details between an "anonymous source" and the Torygraph.
Of course, no 7/7 power surge story would be complete without (surprise surprise) a heavy dependence on the careful deployment of PR people and cross media marketing types whose spin-work on the controlled demolition of parliament is nearly done.
Make way for the military junta.
And it looks like they're going to get away with it:
MPS will not investigate MPs expenses leakThe MPS has released the following statement regarding complaints surrounding MP's expenses:
Officers from the Met’s Economic and Specialist Crime Command met yesterday with senior CPS lawyers on the first panel to assess the allegations of misuse of parliamentary expenses.
They discussed the range of complaints, established what the assessment process will be and the nature of information that would be considered by the panel.
There will be further regular meetings of the panel to take these matters forward. At this time no decision has been made to start any investigation.
On the connected matter of the alleged leak of information relating to members' allowances the MPS can today announce its decision not to investigate.
We have considered a range of offences and although the leak of documents is not something that the MPS would condone, we have looked at the likelihood of a successful prosecution and whether a prosecution is appropriate given other potential sanctions that might be available, such as through employment related proceedings. Other considerations were the prospect of obtaining evidence and the best use of resources.
The assessment was informed by a recent published decision from the Director of Public Prosecutions that was, in part, applicable to this case. From this the MPS believes the public interest defence would be likely to prove a significant hurdle, in particular the "high threshold" for criminal proceedings in misconduct in public office cases.
Whilst the unauthorised disclosure of information would appear to breach public duty, the leaked documents do not relate to national security and much of the information was in the process of being prepared and suitably redacted for release under the Freedom of Information Act.
Bulletin 0000001287 19 May 2009
Metropolitan Police Service
See also:
J7: Alternative Hypotheses 9. The original story of a 'power surge' was correct, if one understands the term 'power surge' outside of its implied electrical context.
Will throw a link to the J7 page into the main body of this post at some point.
Towards a Theory of Conspiracy:
Analyzing Hidden Power in Globalization Processes
Brent Cooper, University of British Columbia [PDF]
Post a Comment