9.11 'Conspiracy'

If your interest doesn't fit anywhere else, leave it here.
CurlyGirl
Moderator
Posts: 341
https://cutt.ly/meble-kuchenne-wroclaw
Joined: Thu 29 Dec 2005 01:01
Location: South Africa (soon to be USA)
Contact:

Post by CurlyGirl »

Dadasarah, I can see what you mean about 'senseless' anarchy. Though I would argue that that form of destructive anarchy is very different from, say, anarchism as a 'theory of organisation' (as proposed by Colin Ward and other eminent 'anarchist' scholars). See this link:
http://www.panarchy.org/ward/organization.1966.html

In the above-mentioned article, Ward argues that it is, in fact, not paradoxical to describe anarchism as a form of organisation. It is about finding a new way to fulfil the functions that the State performs through needless bureaucracy. Here is an interesting quotation from the article:

'George and Louise Crowley, for example, in their comments on the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Triple Revolution, (Monthly Review, Nov. 1964) remark that, "We find it no less reasonable to postulate a functioning society without authority than to postulate an orderly universe without a god. Therefore the word anarchy is not for us freighted with connotations of disorder, chaos, or confusion. For humane men [and women!], living in non-competitive conditions of freedom from toil and of universal affluence, anarchy is simply the appropriate state of society".'

Perhaps it would be wise not to forget that the raison d'être of the modern nation state, since its inception 500 years ago, is WAR. According to that original formulation, the state became a highly sophisticated, complex yet efficient machine of war-making. Its organisational capacity was, up to that point, unsurpassed by any other form of human organisation. That capacity made it possible to send millions of troops to the frontline of battle, i.e. to construct the systems of transport required to move so many humans, to establish and maintain the agricultural systems needed to feed them all, and to construct the national identity that was crucial in determining (like a human immune system) 'self' from 'other' and thus providing a justification for what was often just a process of turning the dangerous energy of internal ethnic- or class-based disputes outward onto 'foreign' peoples in order to maintain 'equilibrium' within any particular nation state. From one point of view, this raison d'être ceased to be, when the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. At that moment in history, for the first time it became impossible to wage wars on other nation states in the way that humans had waged war in the past. The concept of 'mutually assured destruction' (MAD) emerged, and thus we entered a period of Cold War because 'hot' (i.e. active) war would be detrimental to too many people - we simply possessed too great a destructive power as a species armed with nuclear technology. So, since then the nation state has no longer been an entity of war-making exclusively, and instead it has been subsumed by the more powerful influence of the corporation, located within the global consumer market. The Iraq war was, of course, not about 'America' versus 'Iraq' - although it was phrased that way by some people in the media, and by the goverment rhetoric of a superpower needing to rush to help the innocent people of an undemocratised, 'savage' land. It was a corporate war, waged to ensure the perpetuation of the global oil-choked 'free' market. Thus, you could argue that the modern nation state is obsolete, replaced by the unharnessed power of the global corporation that does everything in its power to curtail the capacities of the state to regulate corporate activities. So the corporation can do whatever it wishes, which is to make its shareholders rich at any (human or ecological) cost, and meanwhile the nation state is shrivelling like a brain cell starved of oxygen.
rischott wrote:Our government does not supply the young with an oppurtunity for knowledge, for equal existense, for a common dream. We are taught useless facts, and our motivation and spirit is drained from us year after year, until we succumb to the system. In 5 years, we'll believe there are only 2 parties, 1 god, and our allegiance to the flag. But it was government that put those ideas in my face. It was government that consolidated into itself, forgetting about you and me
You are partly right, I think. Indeed, the energetic (anarchist?) force is being drained from young people by a twisted system of education that only requires obedience. But the government is not the primary architect of this scheme - people like Bush and Cheney are so intimately connected with corporate (i.e. oil) power that the lines between politics and free-market economics are entirely blurred. The government is not in control (or at least, it is not supposed to be, in 'democratic' countries) of the corporate media, and it is this same corporate media that is increasingly shaping the education of young people in the rich world (and the poor world too). The government is too pathetically weak to do anything to regulate, for example, the extreme infringement on public (school) space by advertisers of soft-drinks and candy bars. It cannot regulate corporate activities because that runs profoundly against the maxims of the 'free' (i.e. unregulated) global market. There is no room to manoeuvre here, in the land of 'one dollar, one vote' - not least for individual citizens.

The nexus of power between the WTO, the G8 and the U.S. government is what rules the planet today - this is the de facto global government. We did not ask for it, we did not vote these people into power, they are there because of their enormous wealth that could only have been earned by impoverishing millions. Yet they collectively take decisions every day that affect the lives of every one of us. Are you worried? I sure am.
dadasarah
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2006 05:10
Location: LA, CA, USA

Post by dadasarah »

rischott wrote:Speaking in terms of the internal United States. How can we even possibly understand the meaning of complete freedom from government while you live in a country, a nation, a state, in which everything around you compliments the governement.
I didn't mean to say I was the best (or even slightly good) person to speak of anarchy (even though I used to think it might be a good idea). We shouldn't cut ourselves out of a conversation because of where we live. I agree the US government is not very close to perfect, even though I like certain things about it.
We find it no less reasonable to postulate a functioning society without authority than to postulate an orderly universe without a god.
This makes sense! However, even atheists' minds must create a sense of the world and how it works, based upon a decision that there is no higher power. This often leaves them feeling like they have no purpose in life (happened to me).

From the website: "Can there be social organisation without authority, without government? The anarchists claim that there can be, and they also claim that it is desirable that there should be. They claim that, at the basis of our social problems is the principle of government. It is, after all, governments which prepare for war and wage war, even though you are obliged to fight in them and pay for them;"

This really makes sense. But I would argue that the basis of our social problems is the execution of government, which is subject to human imperfection. (Something like how each religion seems really neat when you study the core values, but you look at how it has been executed and all the human rights violations, killing, etc. Should religion be banned?) I would also argue that individuals go to war all the time (smaller scale). This is murder. Without authority, and a decision that murder is not allowed, then it is condoned. (Of course if there are people who agree with this freedom, they should have the right to their own society, I suppose. I think there already are such places and situations in the world.)

I completely understand the negative possibilities inherent in authority and power (and everything and everybody), but I don't agree that they are inevitable. I am also an idealist. When everyone realizes their own responsibility to the happiness of every living thing on the planet, war will cease. Perhaps you will be right and government as we know it will cease to be necessary as well. This is going to take a LONG TIME, because most people want to live out their lives peacefully within their own frame of reference. These people are not stupid followers, they are beautiful and scared and confused. We're all confused. We can only see things relative to other things we've seen. It took me three years to commit to Wai's diet even though I knew it was correct the moment I read about it. We must constantly be improving and inspiring others to improve. If we are not perfect, how can we expect a perfect society?
"Dada is the sun. Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police." - Richard Huelsenbeck
dadasarah
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2006 05:10
Location: LA, CA, USA

Post by dadasarah »

I meant about two years since I learned about the Wai diet. I really can't remember exactly. :?
"Dada is the sun. Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police." - Richard Huelsenbeck
dadasarah
Posts: 103
Joined: Wed 22 Feb 2006 05:10
Location: LA, CA, USA

Post by dadasarah »

"Dada is the sun. Dada is the egg. Dada is the Police of the Police." - Richard Huelsenbeck
tjfillion
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed 01 Mar 2006 02:30
Location: Michigan

Post by tjfillion »

!!!

http://www.judicialwatch.org/

The actual video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon has been released to the public.
Bambi726
Posts: 120
Joined: Tue 30 Aug 2005 00:01
Location: California

Post by Bambi726 »

Wow, it took them 5 years to manufacture those tapes! Is that supposed to be a 757? Look at this picture of a Boeing 757-200 and compare it's size to the video... http://aphoto.jog.buttobi.net/Boeing/75 ... 7US_01.JPG

Then check out this script of CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre, who inspected the "crash" site, and found absolutely no evidence of a plane crash:

CNN Reported No Plane Hit Pentagon

"Here is a video clip from CNN coverage on the morning of 9/11. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there.

JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.

Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happenm immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed."

I got this from http://web.archive.org/web/200502270417 ... oplane.htm There's supposed to be a video of his report, but I couldn't get it to work.

Here is a kind of fun "hunt the Boeing" game! With some good questions that we should be asking:

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/ ... urs_en.htm

These tapes were created to deceive the American people - something this regime, ahem...administration..has gotten VERY used to doing.

Here's to the truth,
Amber
bwebbe1234
Posts: 1
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006 15:54

Post by bwebbe1234 »

http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/index.html

Here is the CNN video you are referring to.
spring
Posts: 128
Joined: Sat 13 Aug 2005 00:01

Post by spring »

The towers were not brought down by planes. That was physically impossible.

The towers were brought down by mininukes.

Read about it here:

http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/military.htm
Post Reply