FlatPlanet.net

Fascism terrifies me. The totalitarian rule that comes with Communism also terrifies me. Here are two ideologies that lie on opposite ends of the spectrum that rule in the exact same way. They’re less polarized than they look. Case in point, the capitalist inclinations of “communist” China.

Communism is not dead. Communism will not die. The basic principles of it are too appealing, too seductive to stay beaten for long. Hugo Chavez’ increasing forays into autocratic rule in Venezuela are a testament to the temptation of power used for a “greater good”. (This post is not about Chavez, and I would like to qualify the last sentence by saying that I don’t think Chavez is nearly as dangerous or despotic as he is made out to be in the mainstream press.) Vladimir Putin’s tightening grasp of power in Russia is equally telling, and much more frightening. “Benign Dictatorship” does not, and cannot exist – there will always be somebody on the wrong side of the boot heel. Whether or not they deserve it is something else, but this post isn’t about that, either.

Fascism is not dead. Fascism will not die. I am obliged to direct the reader to Naomi Wolf’s “The End Of America”. I haven’t read it, but I’ve read enough synopses to get the gist. If it isn’t already obvious, fascist interests are on the rise in The States. Through the ranks in Canada I see similar shades of fascism. They are not as black (or brown, should I say?) as those in the south, but the inklings are there. (If this is how Stephen Harper acts in a minority government, what would he do with a majority? The prospect is horrific.) This post isn’t about fascism on the rise, though. Enough people have written about that.

Totalitarian rule of any kind is anathema to me. Fascism terrifies me. Communism terrifies me. What does this leave? The market? The market is impure, unreliable, amoral, and slow (look at the electric car, or public transportation). The market is subject to manipulation by forces visible and hidden (look at advertising, or lobby groups). The market drove the world to where it is today. And we expect it to drive us out, as well? Someone once said that the first sign of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result each time. But no, this post isn’t about the market.

This post is about the paradox I am trapped in.

The world is in terrible shape. If you don’t believe that, you’re wearing blinders. It is largely agreed that we gained the ability to obliterate life as we know it when that first atomic bomb went off in New Mexico. But we aren’t going to destroy ourselves with atomics. We don’t need to. Not while we have greenhouse gases, rainforest and watershed destruction, desertification, overfishing, soil degradation, toxic materials, petroleum reliance, and much more pushing us along. The end-game of our free-wheeling lifestyle is becoming increasingly clear.

The market drove us here. Not democracy, exactly – democracy has never really been in play. Not really. Nobody really wants the rainforest destroyed (though people do want farmland, people do want beef). Nobody really wants the oceans to be emptied of fish (though people do want sushi). Nobody wants smog to blanket their cities (though people do want to get to work from their quiet suburban home). People want it both ways, and the short-term always wins.

So where does this leave us? How do we solve this problem?

I believe that we are in very big trouble. I am having a hell of a time planning for the future, because I don’t really believe there will be one. Even if people do smarten up (and they are starting to), the institutions around us are too old and creaking to do us much good. Those in power have too many interests to follow (none of which are in the interest of the planet). The market is still moving slower than the Himalayan glaciers are melting.

Herein lies my paradox.

The systems in place throughout the world are not equipped to handle the disasters we are bringing upon ourselves. I can’t help but feel that only a totalitarian rule – a global rule – can really truly save us. A total global “reset,” with a set of leaders to rebuild the institutions from the ground up. Rule that will remake factories the world over. Law that will replace our moribund infrastructure and end our slavish lifestyles. Order that will stop genocides.

Totalitarianism terrifies me.

And here I am considering it as our best option.

Someone please save me from this line of thought.

This post is in response to the series of comments I have received to the post, “CIA-Mossad connection to 9/11 “well known” in intelligence circles, says Italian Ex-President.”

A few new viewers stopped in to drop their two cents into the commentary piggy bank, and I thank them for their contribution.

Gab wrote, “Witnessing all what came after 911 it’s not so difficult to see who have benefited from that event. Obviously not the muslims but more probably zionists. I’ve seen some other very interesting articles about this issue.” He provided a link to a nice long translation to Cossiga’s statment.

Flowerpower wrote, “Exposing the criminals has nothing to do with semitism or anti-semitism. It is called JUSTICE for the 3000 victims.”

Flowerpower then contributed about a dozen links about 9/11, all from a site quixotically titled WhatReallyHappened.com. The links are off topic, delving into WTC demolition including the fact that BCC reported that Building 7 have collapsed due to fire before it actually did. However also included is the dubious story of the Israeli phone company Odigo warning workers not to show up to work at the Twin Towers, and an irrelevant story about 9/11 and an Anthrax suspect the FBI “won’t go near.”

sega wrote, “Very interesting that an ex-President would mention Mossad/CIA as being the masterminds of the 9/11 attack. This is something that I have been aware of for almost 2 years now and I have been trying hard to explain this to many people but unfortunately you usually get called a racist/anti-Semite which is so far from the truth…” Sega then provided some relevant links to HugeQuestions.com, the work of Eric Hufschmid. “Hufs” for short.

I once found value in Hufs’ slideshow presentation titled Painful Questions, most notably: Why were agents in suits collecting airplane debris from the Pentagon lawn instead of leaving that work to the hazardous materials team? If the the Towers were burning at steel-melting temperatures then how were people able to stand at the impact hole? While Painful Questions was worth exposing myself to, overall I found that he tended to go too far, too often, by venturing into speculation in the form of a question. I saw the video Painful Quesitons three years ago and it spurred me to investigate and think for myself about what happened. Investigation took the form of watching every viewable video (in the now-unimaginable days before YouTube and Google video), and reading many articles and having many debates. At the time I considered Hufs to be an weird and super nerdy guy who cared about 9/11.

Yet three years later Hufschmid’s is on the fringe of the fringes, possibly because of the poor production value, but it seems that in the years since Hufschmid released Painful Questions he has become much more pointed, now mincing no words on the top of his website, asking “Do you know what Zionism is?” next to a picture of a Rabbi burning an Isreali flag. Take a look. It’ll make you gag, especially if you’re web designer, but also quite flustering if you’re seeking truth.

As for the Painful Questions themselves, I have decided to reject all speculation about the Pentagon because I am not a historian so it does not matter to me what exactly happened to every last detail. I also am not interested in personally determining “who dun it.” I find that pointing the finger doesn’t help solve the crime. But again the point is I am in no position to solve this crime. I can only consider if the original guilty verdict was valid. Everything else seems to be blustering possibilities in a mysterious world.

I have before read all of the websites they linked. I have been traversing the 9/11 truth “info sphere” for nearly four years. I find that the more things I’m asked to consider in a short period of time the less clear the whole picture is. Almost a case of the more you know the less you know. Certainly there is a threshold for the number of ideas a person can take at a given time. The sheer number of links flowerpower provided did nothing to lend credibility. It was merely many possible entry points, sure, but I found that what flowerpower and sega posted reeked of “meh.” If you are truthers, you must do better.

Flowerpower, those stories on WhatReallyHappened are interesting, but you’d be better off picking only the ones that are strongest. Drop Odigo, that story goes no where except into eye-rolling territory. And the 9/11-Anthrax thing is interesting, but again, it’s just too far off topic to help convince anyone of anything.

If either of you had made one good point, and provided one good link, you might have gained some ground in convincing my friend Chris, an open minded fellow with anti-establishment leanings, about the “truth about 9/11.” Instead your all-out link assault makes it difficult to make any coherant point.

The best links of that bunch, in my opinion, were the WTC7-BBC story and this one, ‘The Dog That did Not Bark‘ which is a Sherlock Holmes allusion, suggesting that the secret service’s inaction on the morning of 9/11 indicates that they knew Bush was not a target.

I must tip my hat to Gab, who made a point with one sentence and provided one link, actually contributing to the topic by providing a link to a fuller translation. Thank you good sir! I hope you come again.

As for you, sega, by promoting Eric Hufschmid you seemed to do nothing but help to hurt the chances of other people finding acceptance of 9/11 truth. Hufs is at the fringe of the fringes, much kookier and far less credible than even Alex Jones. If you want to change people’s minds, the only thing Hufschmid is good for these days is making people turn away from continuing their 9/11 investigation online because they might end up on his website again. Then again, for many the same could be said about Jones.

Here’s an interesting exerpt. Hufschmid writes in an separate article on his own website title, “Why don’t I work with Smith any longer? ”

…. Smith didn’t want me putting links to information about the Apollo moon landing hoax, and he didn’t want me talking about the issue when he interviewed me for his radio shows. Smith trusted people such as Mike Rivero, who defend the Apollo moon landing. Even after I tried to explain that Apollo was a scam, he told me that it would do more harm than good to bring up the issue. I’ve heard this argument from many people in the 9/11 movement. It’s just another Zionist trick to convince people to ignore one of their big crimes.

Another gem, which I find amusing since i’m a listener of Alex Jones, who is on on the conspiracy-friendly GCN radio network.

…The GCN radio network turned out to be a Zionist operation. In February 2006 they decided to stop allowing Smith to produce radio shows.

Hahaha…Wow…I’m not going to spend any more time on that website, obviously. But that’s the point, isn’t it? I’m “travelling down a rabbit hole to see how far it goes,” and you, sega, try to send me and all my readers down a garbage chute.

The historical mother load of false flag terrorism is Operation Gladio, which consisted of clandestine paramilitary groups that “stayed behind” after World War Two. The good guys, NATO, stuck around and blew up innocent civilians to maintain a “Strategy of Tension.” I’m not making this up. Eventually someone spilled the beans for whatever reason, and it was a big Scandal which caused the president, Francesco Cossiga, to step down. WikiPedia:

Only former [President] Francesco Cossiga confirmed Andreotti’s revelations, explaining that he was even “proud and happy” for his part in setting up Gladio as junior Defence Minister of the Christian Democratic Party. This lit up a political storm, requests were made for Cossiga’s (Italian President since 1985) resignation or impeachment for high treason. He refused to testify to the investigating Senate committee. Cossiga narrowly escaped his impeachment by stepping down on April 1992, three months before his term expired.

Paul Joseph Watson at PrisonPlanet.com writes a story headlined, “Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job,”

Cossiga’s tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s

And what does Watson say that Cossiga has been quoted as saying?

Cossiga’s new revelations appeared last week in Italy’s oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.

“[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe … now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part … in Iraq [and] Afghanistan…”

Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley’s book as stating that “The mastermind of the attack must have been a “sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel.”

Wow! That’s a real humdinger. Great scoop from Watson, but since he does not attribute the translation to anyone it wasn’t convincing. I had to see if Cossiga was who Watson says, and he is, according to WikiPedia. But! Did Cossiga really say that it is “well known” that that CIA and Mossad “planed and realized” the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001? I checked Babel Fish, which gave an awkward computerized translation, which I had to modify the grammar of first half just to make readable.

The video is not testified from the fact that Osama Bin Laden in it ‘confessa’ that al Qaeda was the author of the attack of the two towers in New York on September 11, while all the atmospheres democratics of America and Europe, with in front line those of the ‘centrosinistra’ Italian, by now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the American CIA and the Mossad with the aid of the ’sionista ‘ world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part are in Iraq are in Afghanistan. [emphasis portion unmodified from Babel Fish translation.]

My, my. That’s a very straight forward sentance that even Babel Fish couldn’t mix up or get confused. A little research and ‘Sionista’ is indeed “Zionist.” Evidently there was a recent Osama audio tape which mentioned the current Italian president. Cossiga doubted its veracity and referred to the entire thing a CIA-Mossad-Zionist plot. Watson uses Cossiga’s quote to support his view that “9/11 is an inside job.” Watson writes, “[Cossiga] can’t be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.”

So, why would Cossiga say such a thing about 9/11? Is Cossiga the ‘Pen and Teller’ of the European Intelligence apartatus? A practiced magician who reveals how the tricks are done?

Why, in reply to an Osama audio tape, would he wade so deep into his opinion that he would go all-out and mention Zionists? His claim, not a new idea but coming from an interesting source, is the ultimate claim of our day. For me it is the big question because it is rife with taboo. When Cossiga attributes the attacks to Mossad interests with help from the “Zionist world” is this insipid “the Jews did it” theorizing, some sort of post 9/11 antisemitism? Does the truth about 9/11 actually include the phrase “Zionist,” and if so, I how do I proceed talking about it?

There is a blogger who calls himself George Washtington and he wrote a post called Are Those Who Questioion 911 Anti Semites?. He makes the point that Jewish individuals, who aren’t self hating, participate in “9/11 truth,” listing examples.

Blogspot George Washington also suggests that an honest investigation follows the facts and ignores the taboos:

As former Secretary of State Colin Powell once stated, “It is not anti-Semitic to criticize the policies of the state of Israel.” Presumably, criticizing illegal acts by Mossad or other Israeli services would also be acceptable.”
Therefore, there is nothing wrong with having a debate based upon whether or not there are credible facts justifying the hypothesis that portions of the 9/11 attacks were subcontracted out by rogue elements within the U.S. government to people associated with Mossad or other Israeli intelligence services, just as it is reasonable to discuss whether or not there are facts implicating British or other allied intelligence services in aiding and abetting the attacks.

Notably, five Israelis were arrested in New Jersey in on Sept. 11, 2001 for filming the attacks on the twin towers and “dancing,” and “giving each other high fives.” Supposedly they went investigation, the results of which not shared with the media. A TV news report, I don’t know the source, said that government officials said the investigation of the “dancing Israelis” could not be shared because it was “classified.” They were detained and deported on immigration violations. I’d provide a link if I could find a decent one.

The point is there was “from day one” evidence of Israeli (and Saudi Arabian and Pakistani, for that matter) involvement in the attacks, most of which was irrelevant for the official narrative which cast Osama bin Laden as the superhuman terror mastermind. And just because a certain group suffered genocide 60 years ago doesn’t mean they are incapable of being involved in this cultural war against Arabs.

Additionally, “Semitic” is defined as,”of, relating to, or constituting a subgroup of the Afro-Asiatic language group that includes Arabic, Hebrew, Amharic, and Aramaic.” Many definitions do say that it has come to refer to the Jewish people in particular. Yet, given that Arabs are Semites too maybe Israel-America, ironically, is the most antisemitic.

Islamic Research Foundation (IRF), in Mumbai, India, held a conference titled, “Is TERRORISM A Muslim Monopoly? By Dr. Zakir Naik.”It was covered by Islamic Indian satellite TV station “PeaceTV.” The man speaking is Dr. Naik.

YouTube: (transcript mine.)

Just a few days back, there was an article, that 75 professors of US, they say, they believe, that 9/11 was an inside job. In that article, it was mentioned, [inaudible] on 7th september, they say, 75 professors and scientists belonging to different universities from different parts of US, they believe that 9/11 was inside job. They say that there was politicians and White House who have engineered the destruction of the twin towers. And they say the main reason was so they could attack, and they could have control of the oil rich countries.
[applause].

One of the professors by the name of Steve Jones, he says, that “we do not believe that 19 hijackers and a few men in the cave in Afghanistan could have done such a professional job alone. They could not have done it. We don’t believe. And by God we’re going to come to the truth and we’re going to expose. We don’t believe in the theory of the government.”

They don’t believe the theory of the government!

And he further goes on to say, “we as being professors and scientists, we know, that the steel beam of the twin towers, they couldn’t have melted at the temp at which the jet ful was there. And there was systematic bomb explosions which caused it to come down otherwise it cannot come down. there are many tapes there are many books written against it. I happen to watch many of them, I happen to watch the video recording of this professor Steve Jones. … In the news three days later, Steve Jones, sent on paid leave. [audience laughter] Imagine. Paid leave.

There are many tapes if you happen to watch one of the tapes by the name of Loose Change 9/11. It was done by a young American of 21 years old. He makes a one hour documentary. There are many, many out there.

This 9/11 documentary, it has collected clips from the various, off CNN, off Fox Channel, all the news clipping, interviews, etc. and made a one-hour documentary. And then he says that people who saw the airplane, they say, it cannot be a passenger carrier, it looked like a military plane, it didn’t not have any windows. And when it shows the shooting - when it comes close to the tower - there another firing gun from the wing - which hits the twin tower before the plane. Then further he goes on to prove, he says, that he has statements of the management, the construction company, which are constructed the twin towers, they say it’s impossible, the twin towers are made to withstand storm, to withstand tornado. This plane cannot knock it down. And it cannot come down because because the fuel burned at 1000 degrees temperature. This for even 2000 degrees temperature for hour nothing happened to it. Then years later he changed his statement and say, oh it’s possible. Jet fuel can cause damage to the beams. The other professor [Steve Jones] didn’t withdraw his statement, so he was sacked. [audience chuckle].

Continues (9 minutes).

I do recommend you view the video because you need to see for yourself how large the audience is at this conference. I find it disturbing that the Islamic Research Foundation did nothing but reference films in stead of sharing the facts themselves. In the YouTube video called “911 The View from India”, it features a Muslim man who makes not one reference to India. Instead he speaks of claims made by “75 scientists,” particularly Steven E. Jones, and the dubious Internet blockbuster, Loose Change, first edition, referencing the the most dubious points therein (military plane which fires a missile prior to impact). All or most of the claims he recites are dead wrong. He goes on but I turned him off because he was babbling about conspiracy films and using it as proof of an inside job. If he had a case for Inside Job shouldn’t he have presented the evidence itself?

Interestingly, as the speaker describes what Loose Change is, a crane camera pans across the audience, and lifts, to reveal a large auditorium Muslim listeners. It was a visual representation of the number of Muslims being exposed to 9/11 lies. They have no reason not to trust the speaker, or the Americans who make these videos. They swallow misinformation as fast or faster than any truther.

Sounds Like Bill O’Reily has a new Talking Points Memo to write. If not, allow me to fictionalize:

“Tonights Talking Points Memo. How long is this government going to allow 9/11 nutbags to give aid and comfort to the enemy? The Islamofascists want nothing better than to destroy America and bring us to our knees, and they’ve got friends here in America, the 9/11 moonbats, who spread their Internet propaganda films. This has an affect on the morale of our troops and our people, which is a problem, but not the only one. The real concern is how this is picked up in the Muslim world. Take a look at the Islamic Research Foundation (IRF) which hosted a symposium called “Is Terrorism a Muslim monopoly?” Leading to ludicrous and completely debunked claim that 9/11 was an inside job. His proof? Internet 9/11 film Loose Change, and out of work professor Steven Jones, who was abandoned by his own colleagues, now being used by moderate Muslims to wash the blood clean from Islam’s hands. But the facts are the facts and no matter what the Loose Change bozos or the Islamic moderates say, 9/11 was an attack on freedom by Islamic extremists. Case closed. But here’s the problem. If 9/11 lunatics are being heard in the moderate Muslim world then the extremists are having a field day with propaganda films like Loose Change 9/11. I know people out there will get on their blogs and e-mail me saying I’m against free speech, but what I’m talking about is aiding the enemy, and Loose Change and nuts like Steve Jones, do just that. Lets just hope it won’t take another 9/11 to prove that the Islamic threat is the real one. That’s the memo. “

Of course, I don’t agree with Bill O’Reily’s world view but the reason I wrote the fictional talking points memo was to demonstrate how easily it will be for them to tie together Islamic extremism with “9/11 truth” when moderates such as I’ve written about tonight do nothing but rehash the faulty information of a laptop film maker and his bargain basement research team.

If the IRF conference featured the probing thoughtful question that have made 9/11 truth such a relevant topic I would have no problem with Muslims speaking about 9/11 truth. What concerns me, deeply so, is the readiness of this speaker to share his findings without doing any research of his own. It seems he swallowed the premise of the film, digested all of its bad information, and went on to share bad information with his religious brethren, with little regard as to the validity of the claims. The mere fact that an American was saying something against America made it credible, and the fact that Muslims want to be vindicated from 9/11 means they are willing to accept any information, true or not, if it will give them that peace of mind. They went home after that conference thinking they learned something. Their opinions were validated but the facts were wrong, and that presents a huge problem. The inside job premise itself might still be correct but the evidence given to get to that conclusion was entirely faulty, so how can that premise be accepted? It seems that the “9/11 truth” religion is growing but the truth itself is ever elusive.

44 years ago today U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. I don’t know the circumstances and I obviously have no unique insights. But I can say that it is well regarded as an conspiracy. Anyways enough of my words. Let’s hear some of his words from a speech about secret societies and freedom of the press…

Watch on YouTube. Longer version on Google Video.

With transcript below courtesy of PhotoGabble (a blog).

The very word secrecy is repugnant in a free and open society and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.

We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far out weigh the dangers which are sited to justify them. Even today there is little value in opposing the threat of an enclosed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions.

Even today there is little value in ensuring the survival of our nation, if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be ceased upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment.

That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control and no official of my administration, weather his rank is high or low, civilian or military should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle decent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press or the public the facts that they deserve to know.

For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that rely’s primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on gorillas by night instead of army’s by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed not published, its mistakes are buried not headlined, its dissenters are silenced not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.

No president should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding and from that understanding comes support or opposition and both are necessary. I’m not asking your newspapers to support an administration but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people for I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed. I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers I welcome it. This administration intends to be candid about its errors, for as a wise man once said “an error doesn’t become a mistake until you refuse to correct it”.

We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors and we expect you to point them out when we miss them. Without debate, without criticism no administration and no country can succeed and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian law maker Solan decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy and that is why our press was protected by the first amendment. The only business in America specifically protected by the constitution not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply give the public what it wants but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises’ and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion. This means greater coverage and analysis of international news for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission and it means finally that government at all levels must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security.

So it is to the printing press, to the recorder of mans deeds, to the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news that we look for strength and assistance confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

JFK thought there was a conspiracy ? Ironic, or predictable, that he should die in one?

Let’s examine the most revealing paragraph. (pp5)

“For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that rely’s primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence. “

Actually, unless it’s that trademark JFK accent obscuring the word, PhotoGabble misprinted this. If you listen carefully, it’s not ‘covert means’ it’s ‘covet means.’ He’s saying the “monolitic conspiracy” seduces people using money and power. Monolithic means the “conspiracy” is singular, organized and cohesive. They are ruthless, but how do they operate? Kennedy continues, “On infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on gorillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its preparations are concealed not published, its mistakes are buried not headlined, its dissenters are silenced not praised, no expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed.”

If this had even a shade of truth in 1961, how to describe the situation today? How much further has this subversive conspiracy spread its tentacles after 40 more years? How much more “tightly knit” is it now?

Does it really have a scientific establishment? If so, what are these agenda driven scientists saying?

The good news is while “preparations” are still concealed by the mainstream of media, and dissenters are still not praised, these days, rumours are printed, and secrets are revealed. The Internet has changed the equasion. At least a little.

Now a bonus Presidential quote, this time from Dwight D. Eisenhower as he made his farewell address.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

The Matrix could be seen as a suitable film metaphor for how 9/11 truth views the world and itself.

The Military Industrial Complex and the corporations are the endless hoards of self-replicating machines. The Matrix is the illusory prison of irrelevant ideas, unaware of the system that holds us, placed into diversionary jobs, routines, and fed a spectrum of lies in the various media, storylines and illusions which give us meaning and purpose. The agents are the talking heads of media and religion which ensure consistency in the synthetic reality.The masses, aka “sheeple,” are the acquiescent masses, hapless victims being drained of their inherent power, victimized only because they don’t realize they’re prisoners.

The leaders of the truth movement are the crew of the Nebuchadnezzar and everyone else who has “woken up” are the last city of humans, Zion. Oh yeah, and our reluctant but apt hero, Neo, is none other than wouldbe presidential candidate Dr. Ron Paul (aka “The Last Best Hope for America”).

I think I just realized that I might be Cypher, or like him, who turns on the truth in favour of being inserted back into the matrix (only to be killed in the attempt, mind you..)

Edit (from comments): I guess the point is that they view the world as a movie and themselves as the heroes.

Greater thinkers than I have contemplated the ideas I am afflicted with. Most, if not all, have moved past these ideas. I am caught in a no-mans land between history and philosophy in a realm commonly called conspiracy. I want out of the trite conspiracy perspective, but the education I have given myself has created a monster: I believe 9/11 was an inside job.

This gives me great pause. If this is what I believe, then I believe a mere slogan - a slogan I have repeated for my friends, my employers, and strangers, like a devotee to a religion. For you to know the truth accept it into your heart. From there you will be informed by your new opinion since there is no shortage of biases custom-built for leftists, anti-establishment youth, and anarchists. As soon as you buy the premise of 9/11 being an inside job, you’re in, joining the “big umbrella” of an anti-establishment protest community which resembles a grassroots global religion.

Other than their obvious web video presence, “truthers” hit the streets in much the same way a church would reach out to “the lost.” Some of them hold signs. Some of them have pamphlets. Some appeal to your mind. Some appeal to your heart. Handing out DVDs, they want the people of the world to “wake up!” They have many talking points, or statements, which they call questions. They are blind to the way their behaviour looks to the outside world, with antics that are intent on spreading “the truth.” They want to swell their numbers, dethrone the King, and reinstate the republic. They are a youthful and radical political group who talks tough about really serious issues. No wonder I have joined them. But have I been suckered into subscribing to ideas which are better off discarded?

There’s a big industry in the United States, on the left as well. I mean, you should see the e-mails I get. This huge Internet industry, from the left, trying to demonstrate that this was all faked and it was planned by the Bush Administration and so on. If you look at the evidence, anybody who knows anything about the sciences would instantly discount that evidence.”
-Noam Chomsky

Sensible words from someone who has been regarded as one of the 20th century’s greatest thinkers. But certainly this alone is not enough to dissuade me. Instead I find it more appropriate to pick apart his statement than to internalise it as the truth. His arguments, that “this huge industry” attempts to demonstrate “this was all faked and it was planned by the Bush administration,” are easily spotted “straw man arguments.” A straw man is a dubious idea which is set up to be knocked down, bringing the associated argument down with it.

“All faked” is an allusion to the no-plane/digital-plane theory which has been wholly rejected by all earnest researchers as lunacy, or worse, intentional misinformation. “Planned by Bush” is quite far fetched given his apparent idiocy, and (as elaborated at the tail end of a previous post) it could have been planned outside of the oval office while nevertheless suiting the agenda of those in power. Of course that is speculative but let’s keep moving. Neither of Chomsky’s straw men have much traction because they are indeed instantly discounted. Notably he chose to debunk only the claims which are not actually promoted by conspiracists.

I should point out that this still proves nothing about the original “inside job” claim and, infact, my nitpicking is indicitive of truther thinking despite my outward attempt at fence sitting.

I have yet to decide how to make my case or even if I should make a case at all. It would be hard to argue for anything except inside job since that is what I believe. For that, if this were a court case and I was on a jury, I would be asked to leave. I want to be judicial not advocative. How can I objectively take a fresh look when what I already know is what will inform my opinion?

The problem isn’t the information, but the implicit conclusions which came as bias baggage to the information. Someone else’s conclusions have been implanted into my head. I’m not suggesting they are incorrect. I’m suggesting that they were not my own conclusions. They were suggested to me based on information from sources of varying authenticity. I should seriously re-examine the biases at work and the basis of each claim.

The “inside job” thesis may indeed be the factually incorrect propaganda of a new anti-establishment grass roots religion. A multimedia orgy of speculation and exaggerated statistics… a political movement with seemingly shoddy research and a bloviating cheerleader.The Internet is, in and of itself, synthetic, anarchistic, and distracting, and so too are its blockbusters. Internet films, forums and websites that fulfill the prophecy that “the medium is the message.”

9/11 truth is just one brand of the anarchist message of the Internet. Sharing 9/11 truth’s alternative history are extremists from both the right (my land, my gun) and the left (let’s share everything), as well as UFO watchers, New Age spiritualists, and some who claim shape-shifting reptilian aliens are our overlords.

A few steps further down the rabbit hole and you will come across neo-Nazis and their pledges to fight the New World Order. I don’t mean to exaggerate. Unfortunate for 9/11 truth, a great deal of their underlying views (the structure of the secret world) are shared - perhaps were pioneered - by white power anti-semites, in a century old book written as if by the conspiritors themselves called The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Mentioned in the trailer of documentary of the same title (linked below) the book is rife with lies about Jewish customs of global domination. Suggestive that this ideology was formative for Adolf Hitler as he found “evidence” in Protocols that provided justification for doing away with the Jewish people all together. YouTube

I find it disturbing that that the underlying philosophy of 9/11 truth - that secret societies run the world - could be a secularized repackaging of the same antisemitism which was capable of convincing millions in the early 1900s of a verminous scapegoat. For now it is not “the Jews” but the “New World Order,” or, for more mystique, “The Illuminati.”

In the case of the shape shifting reptiles, the Anti-Defamation League accused reptilian-theory conspiracist David Icke of speaking in code. By reptile overlords, they say, he means Jews. I saw a documentary which took a look at this. “DAVID ICKE: The Lizards and the Jews” Google Video

To be clear, even if Icke is a closet anti-semite, and believes 9/11 was an inside job, that doesn’t mean the 9/11 inside job thesis is anti-semetic, nor reptilian. And even if a wide array of fringe groups, neo-nazis included, subscribe to the 9/11 inside job thesis, that doesn’t invalidate the thesis itself (although certainly does cast it in a new light, as if the reptile thing wasn’t enough.) The authenticity of the 9/11 truth thesis will take some examination for me to come to terms with. Ultimately facts will speak for themself and one day soon I will try to write a thoughtful presentation of the case for or against the inside job thesis.

Before I can build a case I want to examine all the biases I have swallowed in accepting it as my belief. I don’t think it is as cut and dry as it has been made out to be. I just don’t want to find myself accidentally reciting The Protocols of the Elders of Zion when I explain what the woes of the world are.

I need a thought from someone with more credibility. How about Aristotle.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle

The whole point of writing for FlatPlanet is to explore ideas and hopefully to discard the dubious ones. I don’t wish to be seen as promoting 9/11 truth. I am writing because it has affected me in a deep and important way and in the end my hope is that it will be either vindicated or evaporated.

A pop-up window interrupted my web browsing. It was from market research firm Angus Reid Forum (ARF) and it posed a question which I think is fundamental and each of us should ask our selves. What was interesting was the 20 options I had too chose from. It seemed there’s a tremendous number of disparate important issues facing the world today.

“What do you think is the most important issue facing the world today?”

TERRORISM
CRIME
GLOBALIZATION
EDUCATIONAL ISSUES
RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM
UNEMPLOYMENT
WARS&CONFLICT
ECONOMIC PROBLEMS
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
POVERTY
HUMAN RIGHTS
CORRUPTION
HIV/AIDS/OTHER DISEASES
DRUGS AND DRUG ABUSE
OTHERS [PLEASE SPECIFY]

This was followed up with a series of questions which asked me to rate my opinion from “highly agree”, through to “highly disagree.” Essentially the questions were composed of a variety of “Left wing” ideas and the purpose of the survey was to see how much I believed in each given idea, giving them a rating of how liberal or conservative I am. Next up they wanted to rate how much I consume media: through what media do I get my news, what kind of gadgets do I have, and what is more important to me, sports or entertainment. Then of course they got personal and asked for my income, if I have kids, if I rent, how much I pay. Essentially they built a full profile but I stopped short of giving them my name and address. It was typical stuff but their offer of $1500 prize in exchange for my name and address didn’t seem worth it. They already had enough pure demographic gold.

Not that I’m their target victim audience. They only discovered in me an obvious consumer outlier. Hardly worth having my head hacked into by marketing demagogues. I’m sure they’re not terribly upset that I didn’t sign up for a user account but they do wish that their carrot $1500 prize could have swayed me to give over my identity.

The reason I filled out the survey is because I wanted to see what they would ask. I wasn’t surprised but I thought it would be interesting because they invite users to “participate in forming Canada’s public policies, shaping consumer products and defining our nation’s values.”

What struck me about the 20 choices which started this survey is how many different outrages there are in the world. My goodness! With all these “separate issues” facing us how ever are we to find the unity to face the root of these issues? Is it not possible that these various outrages have a root cause? Anyway, as suggested in a conversation with my girlfriend, the best answer from the 20 above is probably “Educational Issues” which we agreed would do the most to solve the other important issues. Or if you’re like me you selected “other,” my little pet issue, “9/11 truth,” but it could be argued that said issue is actually educational, specifically political and historical education.

What caught my ire in this survey is the idea of what I’ve termed the Demographics of Outrage: If you can nail people down into their demographics you then can sell it right back back to the angry consumers. Promoted as separate problems with separate solutions, you can sell laws, products and programs to people on their ability to solve crime, fight corruption, end poverty, enhance education, save the environment. etc. You can offer unique options to distinguish yourself. You can get passions involved and get people committed to your cause. As one person fight for one thing, and someone else fights for another, neither fight together.

Why? Because each cause has it’s own final solution which can be alienating to the other causes. These are walls that separate action groups from dropping all their petty issues and working together to, for example, dethrone King George W. Bush or to drag the bankers and CEOs out into the street by their socks with the demand that the workers get their fair shake, that the environment stops getting destroyed, and that honest, clever, sustainable solutions are much more preferable than dirty profits, polluting lifestyles, and injustice…

Injustice. Is that the word which we could latch onto?

The way we treat each other is an injustice. The way we treat the planet is a potentially apocalyptic injustice. The way 9/11 is used as justification for the erosion of civil liberties and the waging of wars is certainly an injustice. That one per cent of the world’s population owns 90 per cent of the world’s wealth is an injustice. All of these things may be solvable, but only through education and patience, and we have large deficits of both.

I have heard the claim that the American government’s (lack of) reaction to Katrina means the American government would be incapable of executing and covering up an “inside job.”

“If the government couldn’t get it together [for Katrina] then they certainly wouldn’t have the wherewithal to plan and execute 9/11,” I’ve seen written in message boards.

This does nothing to prove or disprove the idea of an inside job because they’re not related. It’s a false comparison. It assumes “the government” is a singular, monolithic entity, a problem with many theories in that it is oversimplified. FEMA is not the White House which is not the CIA. Ok, they are related, and you could say any of them have “incompetent leadership,” but they can, and do, operate separate from each other.

The government consists of various smaller governments and many more agencies (federal, state, municipal) with each consisting of a hierarchy of people who obviously could act intentionally or incompently depending on who they are. So how “the government” reacted to Katrina versus how “the government” could have orchestrated 9/11 is apples and oranges. Two different ideas about two different event.

In regards to Katrina, there is the suggestion that lackluster response to the aftermath of the storm could have been “intentional policy,” and what looked like executive-level disregard towards the lives of its citizenry. It appeared they were letting people die with no official reaction. On live television Kanye West revealed, “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

The government’s defense was that various agencies screwed up and it was, of course, unintentional. The bureaucracy failed us. Incompetent leadership. The mayor. Brownie. The bridges between federal, state and municipal levels were broken. These issues are probably higher on the list than “blame Bush first,” however, Katrina revealed Bush administration cronyism. “Heckuva Job” Brownie had been installed as the head of FEMA despite being completely unqualified for emergency management. He was there simply because of political favouritism. A bureaucracy of Bush’s creation.

And Bush is still the the guy who stayed on vacation while New Orleans took a swim.

One problem. Why would they intentionally hurt their political image? In the environment of Post-9/11 and an Iraq Quagmire, Bush already had credibility problems. It seems unlikely that the lack of reaction to Katrina would be intentional per se - this is where the “incompetent leadership” theory resurges - with Bush hurting in the polls why wouldn’t his administration act as if this was a top priority, if for nothing else than to show leadership in time of crises? Ask Kanye. He seemed to have a good enough answer for millions of Americans.

At the time of Katrina I speculated the reason for their negligence. When no one could pick themselves up out of the swamp, all hands were reaching up for “the government,” predictably, to be tasked with the rescue. Outrage in the lack of government response only made people wish a more robust government able to respond faster to the next event. Even if this was not their intention it may have become the result: People demand a better FEMA; FEMA gets more money.

Is that really so cynical?

When Katrina hit, Bush let the bureaucracy handle it. They failed. Bush left it up to FEMA, which left it up to the state, which left it up to the city, and so evacuations didn’t happen, and then in the days after Anderson Cooper cared more than the president, who, again, stayed on vacation a day after the storm wreaked its damage. Bush is responsible for his lack of leadership or reaction, especially once it was clear that there was a problem with the government response.

Obviously, he is a huge dick head, but I would stop short of saying his administration intentionally neglecting the issue in some sort of Stalinist power grab to “make them weak so that they will beg the government to protect them.” Not because I don’t think it’s possible but I don’t have enough information to adequately explain why they would intentionally sink their approval rating.

Unless, of course, approval ratings are meaningless?

As for 9/11, Bush was clearly left out of the loop on the morning of Sept. 11. His administrative competency has nothing to do with what is being examined now as a clandestine military operation. Planned outside of the White House and beyond Bush’s knowledge but nevertheless undertaken by elements working for the same agenda. Bush of course plays along. He did sit there in that Florida classroom like a pet goat. It is somewhat absurd to think 9/11 was the handy work of the junior president and his lapdog administration. So if there is an inside job, it wasn’t inside the oval office.

Sidebar: Of course George Bush doesn’t care about black people. After all, which racial group had their right to vote disproportionately challenged in 2000 and 2004? Black voters were 900 per cent more likely than white voters to have their ballots “rejected, lost, mangled, uncounted, spoiled.”In the video linked bellow, Investigative Reporter Greg Palast spoke in New York City from his book “Armed Mad House 2nd edition” and was followed up by Robert F Kennedy Jr. who says the corporate owned media is a big part of the problem. If memory serves me correctly Palast makes note of the Katrina-affected districts that also had had reams of voters scrubbed, but I’m the blogger and he’s the reporter. Google video

As a Canadian there isn’t much I can actively do about American politics, but that doesn’t take away my desire to keep an eye on the issue.

Apparently, George W. Bush had the 2000 election rigged in his favour

Greg Palast is an investigative reporter from the states who works for BCC. He made a report in 2001 called “Hail to the Theif” in which he provides evidence that the election was rigged in favour of Dubya in his brother’s state of Florida (incidentally Palast’s new work Armed Madhouse talks at length about 2004 “elections” as well and minces no words about the racial line that has been drawn in voter scrubbing.)

Apparently the Neo Conservatives were gunning for hegemony from the start of this “stolen” administration.

In Sept. 2000 Neo Conservatives (some of who would soon-to-be members of the Bush administration) penned an infamous document for The Project for the New American Century titled, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century.” It called for America to seize its unique opportunity in a post-Cold War era and grasp an American unipolar world. Hegemoney at hand.

On land, in the sea, in the air, and in space, the U.S. should have no adversaries. They called this “Full Spectrum Dominance.” But for this idea to be realized they would need to do something about “rogue nations” such as Iraq, Iran, Libya, and North Korea. By do something I mean transform into a military empire, and regime change. But that’s expensive. According to Rebuilding America’s Defenses, “a minimum level of 3.5 to 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, adding $15 billion to $20 billion to total defense spending annually,” It goes on to say “The process of transformation is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event—like a new Pearl Harbor.”

One year later “A new Pearl Harbour” premiered on televisions world wide.

It was just a coincidence that those in power happened to have called for this event having said “A New Pearl Harbour” was necessary, or at least would expediate, the post-Cold War opportunity to transform the military for everlasting American dominance.

While the argument can be made that 9/11 benefited the Neo Conservatives, it is harder for me to make the arguement that the Iraq war itself has benefited the aim of hegemony. I could speculate. But I’ll leave you tonight with Debunkers Wisdom:

“Yeah right… they were cunning enough to plan 9/11 but too incompetent to plan for post-war Iraq.”

“The government couldn’t cover up a blow job.”