A Dialogue about the 'Mafia Principle'

Spookyweather is a blog about 9-11, the financial disaster we're in, and other official shenanigans. You find evidence of the bombs in the Towers, and arguments that our democracy has been driven into the ground. We've been lead by criminals. I've been arguing with "spook," as I call the host, about the appropriate strategy for bringing about social betterment. The following is a long series of letters, both mine and spook's in response, that involved the questions around strategy.

I like this paragraph,

"...It is time the wishful-thinkers grew up politically and debated the world of great power as it is, not as they hope it will be. Like all serious presidential candidates, past and present, Obama is a hawk and an expansionist. He comes from an unbroken Democratic tradition, as the war-making of presidents Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton demonstrates. Obama's difference may be that he feels an even greater need to show how tough he is. However much the colour of his skin draws out both racists and supporters, it is otherwise irrelevant to the great power game. The "truly exciting and historic moment in US history" will only occur when the game itself is challenged..."

 

The writer supposes the "wishful thinkers" were deluded. They thought one thing. I suspect they think that there's one game going on involving nations and fair play and God's rules, and so on, when underlying all that is another game. That game, supposedly, is the real game. That's the "power game." I take it that game follows different rules. Those rules involve survival in any way one can. The having and acquiring of power seems to be the most reasonable means to that end.

It's an interesting statement because of the last part about challenging the game. What does that mean?

I ask this question because that's not the question that most people who confront the "power game" ask themselves. They wonder, what can be done to stop the wars? What can we do to get a peace candidate elected? What can be done to further a humane agenda enacted? It seems people are interested in what'ds thought to be practical concerns.

If McCain is the war party's candidate, how do we keep him from being elected?  I imagine that when one challenges the game, one is thinking that the game itself can be stopped. How is that going to happen?  I ask it because it is a topic close to my own agenda.

27 December 2008 13:36

SpookyPunkos said...

It has been said that there is only one party in the US and it is the elitist/corporate war party. The Republicans and the Democrats are different marketing divisions of the same corrupt institution.
I hope that in drawing attention to the recent and very the blatant criminal acts of the Bush administration the corruption will be exposed revealing the game for what it is.

In this regard the attacks of 911 really go to the heart of the matter. 911 is a massive boon in terms of providing hard evidence pointing to a mind boggling conspiracy. Cracking people's preconditioned aversion to accepting that anything like this can actually happen is key. Thankfully, the evidence is so strong there is little choice in the matter.

27 December 2008 17:35

steven andresen said...

Exposing particular criminals and their acts of criminality has never exposed the "power game" for what it is.

One of the reasons that it is so difficult for many people to consider your efforts at exposing the 9-11 murders as an inside job is their unwillingness to first consider the evidence for this "power game."
That is, since they are unwilling to consider the possibility that the world is run like the mafia, they are in no position to consider that Bush would do what a Don would do. They cannot allow that one of the "good guys" would kill thousands of his own people for any reason.

Hence, the majority who are duped in this way are left with having to believe whatever story Bush tells them. They are left with no real alternative.

You want them to look at the evidence of explosives within the Towers. You think this evidence will prove there had to be pre-planning, and hence, a conspiracy.

I'm sure that that evidence exists and does show what you say it does. But why have people not been curious about this and shown the same kind of mob aggressiveness to get at the truth that they show when O.J. is involved in some crime. Or, when Britney has no underwear? Or when some other starlet might have a bump?

It isn't just that the Media play up the trivial and play down the significant because they are told to do so by their handlers. The Media along with most people would wonder why they were directed in one direction instead of another.

Well, they are being directed, and a few do wonder. But, ..most are not very curious at all.  I think a better explanation is their unwillingness to consider the possibility that the world really is run like the mafia, despite all the evidence that it is.

I suspect I am wanting to disagree with your strategy. As I see it, you think that exposing the small stuff, i.e., the 9-11 crimes, for example, as inside jobs, and examples of rampant criminality, you will be able to challenge the "power game." You think this can be done without exposing and challenging the fact there's a "power game" to begin with.

I think that you will never get anywhere with this effort because the existence and truth that there is this "game" has not been exposed first. No one will believe that Bush or any American would assassinate a President, or kill thousands at the Towers, because "Americans just don't do that," or "the terrorists radical Islamists did that."

The presumption of American innocence works against you. That is, the presumption that Americans aren't thugs by nature, works against you being able to show that they are guilty of any individual act of thuggery.

It's only Italians who make up mafias. It's only Germans in fashion designer military uniforms who goose step around city squares that could be Nazis or fascists. It's only Muslims who could kill thousands of innocents in a single act.

You have to be able to challenge the "exceptionalism" first. You have to be able to show their world view involving Americans as the good guys, or the bumbling good guys, or the seriously ignorant bumblers with hearts of gold good guys, is false first.

Then, they would be willing to consider that the President or some of his agents could do sucha thing as 9-11 and cover up their crimes.

28 December 2008 04:21

SpookyPunkos said...

Steven,
I respectfully disagree.
I think your implied strategy is backward, or at least unworkable and that you overrate the "presumption of American innocence".
The question is how will you break through to people. I believe that hard physical evidence, like what so many people have seen in CSI-type TV shows, presented as such, will strike a cord.
Using the forensic evidence as a spear we can address all the issues that go with it. As I said previously, the 911 evidence is a "gift" in the fact that the material is so blatant and relatively easy for people to understand. Although most folks can be easily lead around, I have some faith in them. People are not totally stupid, I'll give them credit.

http://www.bcrevolution.ca/bombs.htm 
And explaining the evidence about 911 is not an overly complex matter if you are using the same strategies one might use in a marketing campaign-- except this one will not be aired through the mainstream media.

 
911 is not a "small crime" whose exposure as an inside job will be limited only to "Bush". Its very complexity and the players who are involved make the implications of its exposure far reaching. It's like opening a Pandora's box.

In the past small scale events like assassinations could be seen in a limited way, but now with the bias of the corporate media being recognized, and the power of online information sources rising, we can see the questioning about 911 going to a deeper level very fast (and I fail to see how 911 could be construed only as a plot by White House and Airforce insiders (et al)- the whole establishment is under threat here on many levels).

One point I wish to highlight, although I favor the scientific 911 evidence, to provide an evidentiary base with which to get people onto the first step, I am not unaware, nor completely neglecting other facets of the world situation.

I think that if I push an argument that begins with "drop your assumptions and let's look at the world as a mafia run enterprise etc etc", most people would reject such a big notion. Even if I showed them documents pertaining to the bigger game not many would come on board. That's just my view of things.

However if I go step by step, starting with a question like "did you know that there is concrete evidence about 911 being an inside job and literally hundreds of scientists and engineers agree with it ..." then I might make some progress.

This is the choice I have made in the campaign, and I'm sticking to it. You're free to choose whatever strategy you like.

28 December 2008 20:24

steven andresen said...

spook,
My thought here is that our understanding of the evidence is about the same, though your grasp of it is deeper and broader. I mean I am impressed with all the details that you have been showing, and on a lot of different angles.

I also suspect that our conclusions about what the evidence shows are about the same. That is, I was impressed with the idea of the "power game." Although, I believe Chomsky's formulation of it as the "mafia principle" is closer to how I would characterize it.
The difference is in what can be done to overturn the game, in your words.

As I understand your strategy, you would place the evidence that you have, or can develop, before the masses of people, and expect that they will come to see the existence of the "game" and then work, along with you, to overturn it.

With respect to the 9-11 murders, you think the conspiracy and the power game behind it can be unraveled like a sweater. You first show them the evidence of explosives in the Towers, then argue that there must have been inside planning, then on to the conspiracy in as much of its scope as you can, and then work your way into how the world works as a "power game." Once it starts unraveling, as I understand your strategy, the weight of the evidence will undo the whole corrupt system.

My strategy is different. You tell me that my recommendation to "expose the mafia principle" is backward, or unworkable, and it presumes the attitude that America can do no wrong, as a hindrance to your strategy, is overrated by me.

Fair criticism.

However, I want to add a few arguments to my criticisms or your strategy. Frankly, I think this issue is crucial.

Suppose a prosecutor is bound and determined to bring a case of murder to court. The guy's developed his argument, he has a ton of evidence, there are witnesses. But, unknown to the prosecutor, or at least, unknown to the general public outside the criminal justice system social circle, the judge has been bought and the juries are always laced with mobsters and other dupes. The prosecutor brings his case, but the system is set up to acquit the real crooks, and comes down on the small time hoods, just to let everyone know that the system still works.

What is the prosecutor going to do? If he brings a case to court with this level of inside corruption still going on, he's never going to undermine the real "power game" going on in his city. The corrupted judges and jury system will let the real mobsters off, while crushing the small time hoods whose convictions look good, but don't really mean much in the big picture.

This predicament for the prosecutor is your predicament. So long as you do not address the fact that there is a power game, and that people are unaware of it's influence on the administration of justice in individual cases, you as a prosecutor will never get anywhere no matter how good your evidence or arguments are.

I think a few examples will support my case here. I think it's apparent that there were a few pieces of evidence that were available that showed that one lone nut didn't kill JFK. For example, Did the one bullet do all the damage? Then there is evidence of a cover-up. But, given the problems with that case, was there any effort to change the way government works or deals with high profile murders of inconvenient political leaders? No.

When Robert Kennedy was killed, did the cover-up of what happened there spur people to think something was rotten in Denmark?

Then there was MLK.

Then John Kennedy Jr's plane goes down. Then Wellstone's plane goes down. Then anthrax was sent to Dems after 9-11. Was it a warning? Were all these warnings?

These cases support my claim that the judges and juries are rigged and no prosecutor can bring a case against the players of the "power game." The prosecutors who are any good tend to fly in small planes. Or, they inconveniently stand in open spaces. The evidence gets carted off to China or deep sixed before any curious prosecutor would have a chance to see it. And the investigative process, the special prosecutors, or the congressional commissions, like the criminal justice system, is corruptible.

You said that you believe the American people are not stupid. I don't believe they are either. It's not their naivete that makes the corruption work, it's the fact that people are committed to so many myths about what they are doing and how things work.

So, for example, there is a lot of conflict over the left and the right battling it out over the direction the country should go on a table full of issues. But, is there really any point to a lot of those kinds of debates if the real decisions about where the money will go are decided by mobsters where the world is run by crime families, or, as with your words, players of the game?

I'm questioning whether you overrate the ability of prosecutors and their evidence.

29 December 2008 07:12

SpookyPunkos said...

Ah, yes - I agree completely with you in terms of the problems we are facing. Yes, the whole system is corrupt !

I guess I have not overtly stated my position in terms of a complete strategy with regard to how things might unfold. I believe I have implied it, but I have not been at all clear.

For example, I use the term Forensic Evidence a great deal but I mean for this information to be directed to the public at large, including various "good" individuals in the corrupt system, so that there can be a public debate when a case is brought forward. I did not mean for this language to be seen as reflective of evidence to be presented first up in a court of Law. I mean for the evidence to used in a public education campaign.

I see the 911 truth fight as primarily a propaganda war. This is why I used the term "marketing campaign" in the previous reply. Yes, I do want to see people in authority take action, but not just to launch a legal case, but to wake up people in general to the issues. Any half decent research will reveal the Pandora's box of corruption. Advertising the facts of 911 to the public will come from developments such as these, especially high level arrests, or criminal probing.

There will be investigations of some sort, and there will be people trying to pull the strings, but it is my hope that the information the public is given will derail attempts to enforce the coverup.
As people move from the physical evidence onwards they will learn about the corrupt system, and not trust it. Most cops and soldiers are not inherently bad and would be very angry, along with the general population, if any criminal case was sunk.

We have some experience from the the 911 Commission and NIST investigation frauds, so that repeat acts would find themselves in trouble. The fact that the forensic evidence has proven an inside job places the public, not in a case to establish whether a crime was committed, but in a position to discover WHO was responsible. That's the key. No investigation is needed to confirm what we already know. The trick is to follow up on suspects and this is where the ties to a corrupt system will become very apparent.

Yes, I have neglected to emphasize the primary public education aspect of the 911 postings here. I have also neglected to air some of my assumptions about the course of proceedings after the public education has been successful. I made assumptions on my project here without spelling it out. I tended to skip to the part about figures in authority acting. In my defense, under my blog heading I do write "educating the public" but that does not do justice to the situation... my apologies.

You might like to know I am actually looking to set up a pamphleteering campaign, directed to EVERYONE, so that a court action (or military investigation after a coup) will be so stuck with awareness of the evidence that any effort to downplay the proceedings would fail (I hope)! Unfortunately this project is stalled ...
Thanks for your comments !

29 December 2008 18:05

spook,
I want to thank you for the work you have been doing on your blog to raise awareness on the issues of 9-11, the financial crisis, and so forth. It makes for an informed read.

When I have here raised the question about strategy, I do this because it is my issue. I have wanted to put out the details and arguments of my own strategy. This way I have an impetus to clarify my own thoughts.

I have been torn about the project of exposing and vanquishing the "power game." On the one hand, I have thought that someone could argue that there have been great crimes, including the assassinations of our leaders, the 9-11 murders in order to justify military expansion of the empire, and the financial meltdown as the natural result of the looting of the wealth of the citizenry. But, whatever crimes have been done there has been a relatively small number of people responsible. We could find them and they would be different from the rest of us. They could be seen to be evil. They might wear black hats. They would sneer. And the rest of us would be able to separate them out from us and we would then be safe from them.

But, there is another view which says the evil is a lot deeper. This view says that the problem with these people isn't that they are different from us, and evil. but ...they are just like us and we would think to do the same thing as they have done if we were in their position. What they do is in accordance to their values, and their values are our values.

It's all about survival by any means necessary.

I think if the first account of the problem were true your strategy might work. There might be some way to convince people to support a criminal investigation of what Bush and his mob have done.
But, I think people look at what it would take to protect the American people, or to run one's own business, or to think about people who would take away the world's resources for themselves, instead of allowing us to take the stuff for ourselves, come to the conclusion that there may not be anything wrong with what Bush has done, except he did it thoughtlessly, or too aggressively, or maybe with poor speech.

I think the second account of the problem is more likely. The problem is that people think that the goal in life is to survive by any means necessary and that if that is so, then they would do the same as Bush, or Nixon, or Hitler, or the German General staff, or whichever "evil" crime lords in history. There is a certain acceptance of "cultural relativity" in this.

And so, I think my own strategy is a better one. One has to have an argument that is directed to the people who we think are evil, addressed to them, to the effect that they have to change their minds about what needs to be done.

I have no confidence in any argument that says we can build a movement against the system without first being able to persuade those within the system to give it up.

My own argument has to do with what seems to be religious and philosophical themes. I think, historically, that's where the argument to do this has always been.

30 December 2008 06:16

SpookyPunkos said...

Take no offense, but it sounds like you have been watching the Zeitgeist films.

In those films they deflect blame and any hope for making an immediate difference by saying the perps are also victims and we should look to make the system irrelevant by building a new society and convincing people we can manage the earth without having to resort to using conflict.

I strongly disagree with this strategy. I think that this method is too difficult to achieve and that people won't go for it over an approach that aims for a criminal trial or revolutionary "witch hunt". The people who did 911, and other crimes, don't give a damn about having a nicer world and I don't see that they are merely trying to survive - as far as I can tell.

You can appeal to system, try to undermine it - I'm all for that- but I'd go for an outcome that sees them end up in jail. A lot of people, if exposed to 911 and the corrupt world system, would not want to accommodate the small very wicked group at the top. People like justice.

Fundamentally I also think that the Zeitgeist approach lets people get away with murder (and other crimes). I cannot excuse murdering people for being victims of a corrupt system when they deliberately plan to murder thousands and kill millions through illegal wars.
I do think that the system can be taken on, and that some real measure of justice, via education and action, can come about.
We can still move to make a better society, I respect that, but I'll be working hard to make sure those that have committed crimes will be targeted and face exposure and eventual prosecution.

Have you seen the movie Black Robe, particularly the closing information ? In a war-like North American native population the ones converted to Christianity and told to be peace loving were wiped out. Whether this is accurate I do not know, but it's food for thought. I think you would agree that we all want peace, justice and a transparent society, but to have peace we must also be strong and ready to defend it for it is in human nature (at present) for some among us to be greedy and take advantage. Most people are reasonably moral, but there are many that would seek to manipulate any society to serve their own "ends." Jefferson was right when he said we must be vigilant.

30 December 2008 15:55

steven andresen said...

Spook,
I'm sorry, but I have not been watching any zeitgeist films and from what you have here told me, I probably would reject their premise about responsibility and having a world without conflict.
I am persuaded that the problem is that people are committed to trying to shirk their responsibilities. I think the effort to resolve conflict should be our central goal.

You said,

"...The people who did 911, and other crimes, don't give a damn about having a nicer world and I don't see that they are merely trying to survive - as far as I can tell..."

I don't understand what you mean. I think their main concern is survival at the expense of other priorities and it's that sense of what is important that makes them unable to make a nicer world. They'd like nice things, peace, prosperity. But, when all they can think about is survival and what they have to do to achieve it, a nice world is impossible.

You said this,

"...I do think that the system can be taken on, and that some real measure of justice, via education and action, can come about."

I understand this is your position. This is the position that I criticized before when I said that I thought you overrated the ability of prosecutors and their evidentiary arguments.

A friend of mine, in hearing about our dispute, put in his two cents worth. He thinks the system cannot be rectified from within. He thinks the only thing you can do is fight fire with fire. He would try to create his own mafia in order to fight the mafias that you think have caused the current problems with 9-11, the financial meltdown, etc.
His analysis, by the way, is that there are several mafias involved, each one in conflict. The important ones for his explanation have been the Israeli mafia and Bush's mafia. There are others involving the establishment corporations, but, the important ones for 9-11 and the oil and the middle east are these first two.

Where you think institutions can be reformed by first prosecuting rule breakers of crimes and then persuading people that their laws and rules need to be tightened up so that such murders and thievery can not be done so easily. He thinks such a process cannot be done.
In my way of thinking, you pretty much have adopted Chomsky's theory of social betterment. You just think that it is important to go after the Don's law breaking, whereas Chomsky thinks that's a waste of time and effort.

I believe you are both wrong and neither strategy will get very far.
My position is that you have to address the argument that is about the ends and means of life. It's that argument that gets them to adopt thuggery in the first place. By going there, you have to be able to persuade the mafia members themselves that there is a better way than survival by means of thuggery.

As I see it, all you will do is try to persuade people who are convinced they need to use force to survive to become defenseless in the face of their enemies. They will not do that.

My friend thinks that, as you can't beat the mafias, become like them. This of course is to agree that the terrorists have won.

I understand that there is a great deal of work to do any of our strategies. The question is whether we think one will be more successful than the others.

30 December 2008 18:08

SpookyPunkos said...

Steve,
I have a problem with the terminology that the mafia people at the top are trying to "survive".

I don't accept that as a valid line of thinking. The word "survive" implies much, and I don't agree with it. Yes, they are trying to advance their goals and strengthen their positions of power, but I don't see it as a matter of survival. I do not give any weight to their plight here.

 
Also I don't think it's a matter of convincing them of their "responsibilities", if that is part of your goal. As I said before, I don't think these people give a damn and I don't think there is anything legitimate about them trying to survive- that they just have to realize there is a better way. They've acted criminally and the rest of us should expose them and put them in prison.

I sympathize with your friend who wants a good mafia to take on the existing mafia. I have little sympathy for these people. I would be all for a military coup, a mass round up of suspects, or an Elliot Ness style attack on the current mafia (except larger scale, with more support from independent/trustworthy people in authority etc -- all done in the open, and under protection).

Also, a lot of these mafia people, as far as I can tell, consider ordinary people as worthless, overabundant slaves. I don't think they'd really listen if given an "alternative" view of living. If exposed I don't want to see them given any free ticket - few would. I expect them to fight back, but such is the way of things here. It's hardcore.

Remember, they don't really care about you or other people being killed left right and centre. They don't care.

I usually fall back on the position that the US Constitution is a good thing and that our goal should be to restore the rule of Law here. I think this can be done and that the people can save their Constitution. This is an idea that can catch on, and there is a basis for making it happen.

A strategy to follow the Constitution is an easy sell for the American people. We just have to educate them about the corruption and fire them up with the 911 evidence (or anything else that may be effective. ie the deliberate nature of the Iraq War lies).

Do me a favor and listen to the Alex Jones Radio Show. You might not agree with everything he says, and I don't necessarily, but I do agree with his strategy (and premises), his view on the people at the top and his views on the Constitution.

31 December 2008 01:59

steven andresen said...

spook,

Good question about those in power. Are they different in major ways from the rest of us?

You want to say that they are. You indicated a few specifics. You think my suggestion that they share the same goals as the rest of us is wrong. They want to pursue their own goals, like we do, but their goal is to strengthen their own positions of power and position. To you, this can no longer be considered a matter of survival.

For you, they do not care for the welfare of the rest of us, and this is what sets them apart from us. You recognize that just as we have an opinion about them, that they don't care, they can have an opinion about us, that we don't matter.

You sympathize with my friend who goes toward the alternative mafia solution, that is, fight fire with fire.

But, instead of just beating out a solution in the streets, you tell me the Constitution and the rule of law is your real solution.
I think you express many of the views that have been in the heads of social reformers since the 1700's...a long history.

You think that the rulers are just criminals and there's been no excuse for them. Round them up and treat them like the murderers and thieves they are. Down that road, I believe, is the French and Russian Revolutions and the beheading of Kings and shooting of Czars. The revolutionaries thought there was nothing similar between them and their terrible leaders. Killing the top guys and their supporters was almost too good for them. In fact, the more different they made the King and the owners, the easier it was to eventually kill them.

I also think that it was therefore easier for them to be blind to how similar they were, and so be unable to prevent the problems with the Napoleonic era or the Soviet. I don't think one can make the leaders so different in their goals and the way they therefore feel about others as to cover over the evidence that they are just like us.

You think that the rule of law and the Constitution are a great base for us, so that we can make common cause with the masses of Americans who would support it. Then, you think, the evidence of the criminal acts in the bombs and whatnot, will spur people to take back their country.

I think this presumption that people will be better off ruled by laws than by men, and evil men at that, is the traditional view. So long as there are wise people at the helm, one has some kind of tolerable situation.

However, by going for this option, you are in no way challenging the "power game" or the "mafia principle" in Chomsky's terms. So long as the mafias follow the rules, rules that they make because they control the institutions, then people who are committed to follow the rules will not try to challenge them.

The point of the Constitution and the stress on the rule of law is just to prevent challenging the powers that be by means of violence and the kind of strategy that my friend sometimes advocates. The Framers wanted to avoid a violent revolution in their own nest, even though they allowed one to separate from the English.

The rule of law and Constitution strategy for social stability makes the goals and feelings of its leaders pretty much irrelevant. The only thing that it stresses is that whatever your goals, one should follow the rules so as to keep your place.

I think you want to say that the powers that be have different goals and say they do not care for us as part of an argument that they deserve to be removed. They are evil, so the rest of us have to expose that fact and take their power away.

I think that they have the goal of survival in another sense. I agree that survival might not be the right word for people living a plush life. But, it's survival for themselves as opposed to trying to solve problems, or to resolve conflicts. I'm saying most of us are committed to survival instead of resolving conflicts, and that's what makes us similar.

I'm not sure how to get ahold of the alex jones show...internet radio?

31 December 2008 05:09

SpookyPunkos said...

I think you are trying hard to emphasize the similarities between us and our corrupt leaders rather than looking to hold them accountable.

Yes, I believe the rule of Law and the Constitution is the way to go. It's the best approach and the easiest to pitch to the public at large.
I think you are overly "pessimistic" about how things might play out, that things will resort to another corrupt system (that absolute power corrupts absolutely).

Previous comments by yourself show a tone that follows closely to how things have been, but not to how things may turn out and the factors that will play a hand in changing the future.

The difference today is awareness. We are much more aware of ourselves than ever before. A New government, following the Constitution, with the lessons of 911 in mind, should establish a highly transparent system in which secrecy cannot be allowed, since it provides cover for the corrupt.

Post "revolution" those running for public office, and those in government will be seen strongly as servants of the people and will be expected to be transparent.  Similarly there will also be controls against corporate corruption and privilege.

I am much more positive about the course things will take once 911 truth is widely accepted in society and post the criminal trials.
Transparency will help to stop the mafia re-establishing a hold. There have been good lessons from the past that have not been properly applied. We need to try this Rule of Law thing one more time.
You can listen to the Alex Jones Show at the link I have at the top right hand column.

31 December 2008 14:44

steven andresen said...

spook,
I like the work of Greenwald. His arguments on the media and the Bush administration show the kind of mentalities in the players that we have to give an account of, i.e., explain, and then try to correct. Greenwald does this , as is his strategy, by showing their hypocrisies and lies, and so forth, much as a lawyer in a court, or a journalist might attempt. His stuff is here,

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

His recent post is about the contrast between how the media treats others and international crimes as opposed to how they defend the Bush people from the same crimes. see here,

"...Acts which, when ordered by Liberians, are "criminal torture" meriting life imprisonment magically become, when ordered by Americans, mere "aggressive interrogation techniques."

And while not all of the "techniques" used by the Liberians were authorized by Bush officials ("hot clothes irons" and "biting ants shoveled onto people's bodies"), many of the authorized American techniques are classic torture tactics and resulted in the deaths of many detainees and the total insanity of many more.

Worse, AP -- with canine-like subservience -- mindlessly recites the Bush administration's excuses (Abu Ghraib was due to low-level rogue bad apples and "there has been no systematic mistreatment of detainees") without even mentioning the ample evidence proving how false those government claims are. That's standard American "journalism" for you: "Our Government says X, and even if it's false and even if it's intensely disputed, we'll just leave it at that." Doing anything more -- as NBC News' David Gregory pointed out -- is "not their role."

There's something beautifully illustrative about this torture prosecution. Apparently, it's not just appropriate, but necessary and urgent, for American courts to be used to prosecute the leaders of small African nations who order torture exclusively in their own land. Doing that is necessary to uphold what the Bush DOJ calls "respect for and trust in authority, government and a rule of law."
But -- say Bush loyalists and our pliant political class in unison -- the one thing that we cannot tolerate is for American courts to be used to impose accountability on American leaders who authorized illegal torture. And, of course, the only thing worse than doing that would be to subject them to prosecution by another country or, creepier still, an international tribunal. That would be an intolerable infringement of our sovereignty, we say as we prosecute the son of Liberia's President for acts he undertook exclusively inside Liberia.
In Liberia, the Taylor regime, for many years, was genuinely threatened by numerous rebels and revolutionary factions -- ones supported by other countries -- seeking to overthrow the Liberian government. The torture which Taylor, Jr. was accused of ordering occurred during a brutal civil war.

Liberia undoubtedly has its own Jack Goldsmiths and Stuart Taylors who insist that the torture which the Taylors ordered -- though perhaps "crossing a line or two" -- was done for the Good and Safety of the Liberian People and to defend the Government against these foreign and domestic threats. The Taylors undoubtedly have their loyalists who echo our own Cass Sunsteins and Ruth Marcuses, urging that it would be so much better for the country if everyone just let bygones be bygones and looked to the pretty future and the challenges Liberians face and not get distracted by litigating the unpleasant and partisan fights of the past.

But, like most of the alleged principles to which our political elite professes allegiance, America and its leaders are entitled to a different set of standards and better treatment. Thus, Charles Taylor belongs at the Hague, being prosecuted as a war criminal. His son belongs in an American criminal court being prosecuted by the Bush DOJ for torture. And George Bush and Dick Cheney belong on their "ranches," enjoying full-scale immunity for the crimes they committed and a rich and comfortable retirement, treated as the esteemed and well-intentioned (even if sometimes misguided) dignitaries that they are."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/31/torture/index.html

You are right. I may be pessimistic about the way things could play out. I am impressed that Greenwald's arguments might actually make a difference and make people realize that the Bush people, and others like them, should be punished and not just be let go into a pleasant retirement.

I will say, your strategy is probably much like Greenwald's who does not argue that the miscreants should be let go because it would take too much time and effort to convict them. He does not say that criminal prosecutions are a waste because the miscreants replacements in the institutions are just going to do the same.
However, I still think, though Greenwald and you could make society pay attention to the rule of law, and the constitution, that does not get at the "power game." or the "mafia principle.

I am wanting here to question my own argument. Is there more to it than just a large number of people who think they are too important to obey the law?

1 January 2009 04:36

  steven andresen said...

spook,
After having thought about this some more, I have to tell you I am still wanting to say that just because we could get people to obey the law does not mean we would be challenging the "power game" or the "mafia principle" as we began speaking about.

The article that this discussion began with claimed that Obama is a hawk. Pilger could easily be speaking of any number of issues. Obama's position on Israel, his not being clear about negotiating with Iran first before pushing hostilities, and his being silent about Gaza, are all evidence that Pilger is correct.

Chomsky claims that our belligerence toward Iran has to be understood in light of the fact, according to him, that the world is run like the mafia. When a storekeeper refuses to pay his protection money, the Don has to rough him up a bit, break his daughter's legs, or run over his cousin, in order to make sure the guy falls in line. The Don has to do that in order to teach a lesson.

Being a hawk with respect to Iran is just making sure the storekeepers don't get any ideas they can go out and be independent at all.
Just because Greenwald or you might be able to get everyone to obey the rule of law does not mean that the people in power would have to treat Iran or the American people any differently. We would still be under their thumb, but in a legal way. American foreign policy has been aggressive and thuggish, much as Chomsky has described, over decades, when they were obeying the law much better than Bush. But, then again, Nixon, for example, didn't obey the laws that much. Though then, the mobsters in government thought he had to be reigned in a little for appearances sake.

I want to appeal to a distinction that Marx made between "political rights" and "human rights." He thought that political rights were a good thing to have because in the system the way it was, where owners trashed workers whenever they could, the system was in a position to protect "political rights." If this was something that the owners would agree to, then the workers and other innocent bystanders, would have some kind of protection. The owners could not just kill the workers whenever they wanted to.

Marx thought that there was something better than "political rights" where once one was able to eliminate the oppression caused by the owners, people would not need "political rights."

So, in a way, the system and the false sense of security that "political rights" gave workers, worked against their ever getting "human rights."

I'm saying Greenwald and you are working to assure our "political rights" in this Marxian sense. I'm wanting to say that the maintenance of our "political rights" also maintains the system and the "power game" that we started out wanting to challenge.

Marx thought that "political rights" were O.K. in that people had some protection from the treacheries of the mafias.

I'm wanting to expose that and argue we should go for "human rights."

1 January 2009 07:42

SpookyPunkos said...

I think the exposure of 911, and the subsequent changes made to society will go beyond establishing "political rights" and go further in strengthening "human rights" with more responsibilities put onto people in "power."

The application of the US Constitution will move closer to its ideal.
People in situations of "control" or "oversight" will be subject to a very high level of accountability. Measures will be taken to make this happen.

I could be wrong, but I see an improved version of our current society with the rule of Law applied more thoroughly and a huge level of transparency. People will be aware of the dangers of secret and corrupt groups and how their actions have led to 911 and other events that were previously dismissed as unproven conspiracy.
I also see measures taken in our education systems to help prevent a return to the past. Learning "history" will involve psychological elements, about how people used to not believe in various conspiracies because of the deliberate campaign to -ridicule- these things. History students (everyone) will be taught about how their views can be molded by their peers and to watch out and look towards details. They will understand that beliefs are mostly formed, not from facts but general consensus.(Note that the founding fathers mentioned the importance of a highly educated population)

The outcome of all this will be our level of self awareness being greatly expanded and a more egalitarian society.

If we can crack through the 911 cover up, using the rule of law, I think you might find a massive change in our society as the world that spawned 911 is unraveled during the very public inquiry.

2 January 2009 00:38

steven andresen said...

spook,

Its New Years and we are supposed to look forward to a New Year with the possibility of things being better and better.

I've noticed some good work to publicize some worthwhile investigations. But, to think that any of this will actually make a difference is optimism.

I see Obama as a house slave, in the sense that he's been elected to argue for better shoes for the field hands so that the plantations will be more profitable. He's not going to challenge the slave system. He does not have an abolitionist bone in his body.

Going along with that fact, he will not challenge the general understanding that the world is run like the mafia. If you want something done, you have to knock heads.

In order for the powers that be to continue their profit-making in these times, he's gotta smash down on our expectations. He's gotta diminish our expectations that we have rights. He has to make us work more productively while living like slaves.

So, I think your expectation there will be any investigations or prosecutions about 9-11 or any other of their crimes is unrealistic given the dominant agenda.

I'm sorry to be this way,...pessimistic. I'd like there to be an effort to make things right. But, I just don't see it.

Obama will say that in these tough economic times we need all our leaders to work together, we can't be fracturing government by trying to seek who's to blame.

He will not say that the Dems and the Repubs are in on the cover up. He'll just say that the future of the government as we know it requires we move forward.

2 January 2009 08:08

 steven andresen said...

 

spook,

Do you think that the Pentagon fights with lies?

I do not. I think they fight with truths. There are more strategies than lying about things in order to get people to do what you want them to do.

For example, you can tell people truths that lead them further and further into the woods. By the time they find their way back, there is no time or resources left to do anything.

Or, ...and this is what I think is Chomsky's situation,...you can tell all kinds of truths about government nastiness, or Israeli nastiness, or the corruption of corporations, and so on. You write books and books telling these stories in exhaustive detail. And all of it's true.
Yet, his recommendation is to work within the system that we are given, a system that he has already described as controlled by the crime families, in order to bring about social happiness...or betterment limited to happiness.

What he's saying is to fight the crime families on battlefields that they already control. This is a losing strategy by my understanding.
But, the brilliant thing here is he is also telling the crime families,...Listen, if you work within the rules produced by the system, no one can make you otherwise accountable for what you do. That is, you can murder and steal, such as he describes, but, so long as you make it legal, no one can touch you.

I think this argument is based on the Utilitarian arguments in moral philosophy. So long as you make the important people happy, you can do whatever you want for your own benefit...robbing and killing and making small children suffer,...and so on.

It's really a clever corruption of what's supposed to explain how to make people's lives better.

The best response to this argument, given by Ivan Karamazov, started off considering the General and the small boy he had torn apart by dogs. Ivan asks his brother Alyosha, If you could make everybody happy and resolve all the troubles in the world by just torturing one small little kid, would you do it? This is the question that crushes this line of thinking in moral philosophy, I believe. Alyosha says that he could not. He's a good guy. I think most people would not. But, Chomsky is committed to the torturing. His view is, if he could have significant social betterment by just letting the crime families have their way with us, he would do it. His position is that we can live with the losses, with the hope that we can reform them.
This is like, we can live with the torturing, and work to kill the kid quickly so we can stop his misery.

 
I believe you have to tell me how your groundswell of aroused citizens are going to change the system, controlled by the crime families, if even the crime families tell people that the laws must be obeyed?

How, for instance, are you going to stop the waste and abuse in the military, ...billions for star wars technologies, for example, or a war with Iran in the coming months, if it's all done by the book?

8 January 2009 18:01

SpookyPunkos said...

Steven,

You think very one dimensionally.

In response to the last part of your comment I have a question or two for you:  Do you seriously think that, when everyone knows about the 911 issue, that we'll all just sit by and focus only on the immediate murder and neglect the corrupt web in which the attacks took place ?
That we will stand by as the inquiry or trial stops short of dealing with the larger issues ?

We will see the role of CIA money, and banks, the hand of the intelligence agencies, Carlyle Group members, the corruption & politics of the corporate media that kept a lid on the whole thing etc etc. It's too late, the evidence is already in about the mafia, so all that we need is a little publicity/marketing and they'll be no stopping the dissemination. People who are awakened to this level of criminality will not easily go back to sleep.

And all this talk of the Pentagon telling various truths to lead people on. I think sometimes you are being too clever by half.

The people from the Pentagon will do and say anything they can get away with. I concede they will favor one level of truth and that most of the media has been led on a superficial goose chase with the Al Queda tales, and admissions of "everyday levels of corruption" which is covered to a large extent in the media.
But in terms of 911 we know they lied about the air defenses, in terms of the Gulf War we know they lied about the WMD's and the threat posed by Saddam- at least to the public, they have lied about Iran Contra, the role played in numerous coups in the past, the rescue of Private Lynch, the death of Pat Tillman, about Guantanamo bay, secret prisons, the threat of Iran, Syria, North Korea, the Gulf of Tonkin Incident etc.

It's a game, with lies, half truths, omissions, distortions what-have-you. By using the term "lies" I am emphasizing the dishonest nature of the game. Don't nit pick.

One more thing, you're not being very constructive here. If you think it's all no good then fine, just keep it to yourself.

8 January 2009 18:59

SpookyPunkos said...

And we are not necessary working only within the rules of the present system- a way that will continue to permit torture of the innocent to reach a hoped for (but not promised) better outcome.

You seem to operate from a presumption that everything in the system is intrinsically bad, and that changes in and to the system will largely be ineffective.

On the contrary, the very laws that the crime families tell us we must obey will be used against them -two dimensional thinking. There is a third dimension here, about informed people seeing corrupt system for what it is and working to prevent its operation. I leave how this process might work up to your imagination.

You appear to be linking everything you see/read/hear to specific philosophical models/problems that may or may not fit what is actually happening.

You know that models are not reality, so beware.

I think a better way to think about the situation is to look at the players and people and think within a psychological frame work about how we can use what we have to completely destroy the status quo (a transformation of sorts that starts from a more "mechanical" understanding of the direct processes and players to be dealt with).
You seem to revel in seeing how the data fits a philosophical model (as if this might validate or invalidate what I have to say) without keeping focused on the immediate significance of the information and what you can do with it directly.

Also I think you need to go beyond what you have read at Counterpunch- in terms of explanations for the 911 controlled demolition evidence. It's been two years and I sincerely hope you did some more research to see whether scientific facts and principles backed any of what was posted there. If you have not done so then you should start now. All the linked material immediately to the right of this page will help.

I know you have links to 911 truth, 911research and WhatReallyHappened.com. I guess from your comments that you may have been stumped by the disinformation.

8 January 2009 22:46

steven andresen said...

spook,
You said this,

"...One more thing, you're not being very constructive here. If you think it's all no good then fine, just keep it to yourself."

I spend some good part of my day reading your stuff and find that you do a good job of hunting down and reporting on the 9-11, financial crash, and so on. I am not saying that the reporting isn't any good.

I am not saying, furthermore, that your argument, that we should rely on the system and an aroused citizenry to bring the criminals to justice is a bad thing. I'd like very much for you to persuade me that your strategy was adequate and thorough.

However, I have my doubts about your optimism and the way you think social betterment will occur. I think like Marx, that political rights and the mafias at bay are a better situation than if they had no limitations and they were set loose on the weak and the poor like zombies out for brains.

I think I have not been abusive or dissembling about the questions I have raised about your strategy. Maybe I've not been clear...and maybe I'm going off in the wrong direction...but I don't see that at the moment. It seems to me that if you are going in the right direction then you should be able to explain that to me.

If you can't answer questions like the ones that I have raised, then I have to wonder things too. I have to wonder if I'm in the wrong, or you, and whether we are too stubborn to acknowledge that.
All I'm saying is, after reading your posts and thinking about the issues on my own, I have doubts about whether things will aright themselves if you just keep pointing at evidence.

You asked me these questions,

"...Do you seriously think that, when everyone knows about the 911 issue, that we'll all just sit by and focus only on the immediate murder and neglect the corrupt web in which the attacks took place ?
That we will stand by as the inquiry or trial stops short of dealing with the larger issues ?"

When you ask me these questions I have to say that we usually do just focus on the immediate and ignore the bigger picture. When Pres. Kennedy was murdered, the focus was placed on Oswald. The facts surrounding Oswald's background, the background of Jack Ruby, the possible parties responsible were made to disappear in the public's understanding. When Nixon was hounded about Watergate or when Iran-Contra hearings were held, the focus there was on the immediate crime, but not on the bigger picture. It was the petty break-in that mattered, not the facts having to do with arms dealings and drug deals or bombing foreign countries without any declaration of war.
The business with 9-11 is in the same pattern. And too, because our attention is so manipulated, we are easily made to think it was an act of war, to be addressed by the invasion of countless countries, rather than a crime to be addressed by an investigation and prosecution.
No, we always are asked to look at the immediate and forget about the bigger pictures. And it works.

You said this,

"...People who are awakened to this level of criminality will not easily go back to sleep."

I think your picture here helps make it seem like a doable business. Just wake people up.

Maybe you are frustrated with me because I think the problem is more like Sisyphus where I suspect people will get tired always finding the rock rolls to the bottom just as they think they've gotten somewhere.

I have been looking on Greenwald's blog. He's talking about how the Democrats in the Senate, Feinstein, et al, are now arguing that they have to have someone in CIA who's a professional. The idea there is that Paneta may be someone who will argue against torture and Feinstein is on record being OK with torture. ...So, you think you've gotten somewhere getting Bush out of office, but then the Democrats who've turned knock the boulder right back to the bottom for you.
I imagine, you will argue that Feinstein and the rest like her can be corrected or censured and gotten rid of just like the Bush gang. Maybe you are correct, and the rule of law can be reasserted. That would be an honorable accomplishment. It would make a lot of suffering go away. However, the criminals are still there, you just make them behave somewhat.

You said,

"...It's a game, with lies, half truths, omissions, distortions what-have-you. By using the term "lies" I am emphasing the dishonest nature of the game. Don't nit pick."

No, I agree with you that truths told to cover up greater lies are lies nonetheless. But, they are also truths told.

Here's an example. We are told that Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack. The Japanese sneaked up on us and tried to destroy our Pacific fleet. In a way this was true. The military officers on Pearl Harbor had no idea that the Japanese were going to attack. However, in truth, it wasn't a sneak attack. The commanders on Pearl during the attack were court marshaled. They were accused of being derelict. In their defense, after a lot of investigative work, they argued that Roosevelt had done everything he could to make the Japanese do just what they did. He did not tell the commanders that the Japanese were on their way because he was afraid they would effectively prevent an attack or some great loss of life. Roosevelt apparently needed some event to force Congress into a war with Germany and Japan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_Harbor_advance-knowledge_debate
The truth was that the Japanese sneaked up on the military in Pearl Harbor, but the wider truth that made the narrow truth a lie was that the President left the Japanese no choice but what they did and he prevented the commanders at Pearl from being warned.

You said this,

"...There is a third dimension here, about informed people seeing corrupt system for what it is and working to prevent its operation. I leave how this process might work up to your imagination..."

This is exactly where we disagree. Where you imagine we can leave the system as it is and dig out its unusual and corrupt miscreants, I believe that such a strategy fails to challenge the power game.

Chomsky's argument is relevant here. He says if you go after the head of some company because the company has been ruining the land, or causing the death of its workers, you can spend a lot of time and effort doing that. But, if you haven't changed the way the company runs, the next guy who comes along to replace the miscreant, will make the same decisions and do the same crimes. He says its the culture, or the way the corporations work. They need short term gains.

You want to say that people will be able to change the way these institutions work so that they don't cover up crimes. They won't do 9-11's anymore.

I'm saying that you could try that. Maybe you can do a little good like the Church committee. But, so long as the mafias follow the rules, they will be able to steal and kill for their own benefit, and you won't be able to touch them.

This is the point that seems to make you frustrated. I suspect you think that the aroused citizenry will be able to reform the system right down to the basement.

I think not, and my questions of you are based on my idea that your argument gives the mafias an out.

I appreciate your cautions about Counterpunch. Cockburn has a Chomskyan view of any kind of political crime by the mafias. It does no good to waste one's time and effort, say the Chomskyans, to go after individuals who may or may not have been responsible for this nonsense with the Towers. And Cockburn may argue that complaints about the Bush story don't make any sense. But, his main point is that the only sensible thing to do to better society is institutional change.
I don't think that's a reasonable view to take when we are confronting people who will do anything to survive and prosper.

Finally, you said,

"...You seem to revel in seeing how the data fits a philosophical model (as if this might validate or invalidate what I have to say) without keeping focused on the immediate significance of the information and what you can do with it directly..."

I have a different understanding of philosophy. I believe it is our philosophical commitments that drive the thievery and the murdering. It's the commitments to a certain philosophical way of thinking that will make your focus on the immediate significance of the information and what can be done with it directly go nowhere.
People refuse to believe the world is run like the mafia and so they cannot believe that their leaders would blow up their own buildings killing their own people.

You think people who would do that would roll over when being investigated by a Congressional committee.

I'm saying, unless you expose and debunk the philosophical argument at the bottom of these things, you won't be able to accomplish what we both want accomplished.

Yes I do think philosophy is important in trying to understand what's going on and what we should be doing. However, I do not agree that philosophy is like science, or the way people think science should be. I'm not trying to take an idea and see if it matches up with the way people talk or think about things.

One of the things I'm doing is seeing that people have committed themselves to certain ideas, rather than others, and with that in mind, try to figure out how to explain everything else that goes on.
So, my idea is that unless you get people to reject their commitment to survival at all costs, you won't be able to adequately challenge the "mafia principle," or the power game, which is an outgrowth of it.

too much, maybe...

9 January 2009 04:16

SpookyPunkos said...

Steven, I believe I have found the crux of our disconnect ...
You wrote: "The business with 9-11 is in the same pattern. And too, because our attention is so manipulated, we are easily made to think it was an act of war, to be addressed by the invasion of countless countries, rather than a crime to be addressed by an investigation and prosecution."

Immediately I was thinking "no no no" ... very sorry, but the 911 stuff we are dealing with here is not the same as we have experienced before.

The evidence here directly points to a deeper conspiracy- and to problems with the world order. From your own observations, you can surely see this. AND, it is using the material presented here and the expert testimonials from Scientists and Engineers, and all those other qualified individuals that we will direct people to the issues.
The material here is not disconnected to the audience who will not just glimpse only bits and pieces. The audience (public) will be exposed to a heck of a lot of evidence/material, starting with the physical impossibilities and evidence that prove Controlled Demolition of the towers ( a scientifically proven base to get the ball rolling).

I am trying to address your question about what we should be doing and I believe I have. The problem, from my point of view, is the disconnect we have in appraising the situation, and the outcome. From my point of view, I believe your summation of the significance of the evidence we can use, the use of the evidence, and the reaction of the public and overall response in society is too limited/inaccurate.

I maintain that although it's difficult, if pushed by dedicated individuals, everyone can gain an education similar to what we have had here online.

Although you are telling me that our attentions are always manipulated you yourself are setting an example of how you are not so manipulated- you are at least aware of the manipulations you dance to and the consequences. I think you are unrightly placing people in a position of ignorance and helplessness while I believe that most can be taught to "think outside" the complex hole you believe we are all stuck in at present.

Even after job is "done" (which will culminate with a change in the staus quo), be vigilant. Keep turning over rocks. Make the highest people in the land the most highly accountable- no excuses, no exceptions.

Again you write: "But, so long as the mafias follow the rules, they will be able to steal and kill for their own benefit, and you won't be able to touch them."

You assume the rules will not be altered enough to stop them. "Maybe you can do a little good like the Church committee." I massively assume otherwise.

I see a landscape and possibilities vastly broader than imagined by yourself. I still think you are unduly pessimistic. I may be mistaken, but I can't see it otherwise.

I say look at the safeguards in the original US Constitution. Try applying them more robustly and with a few amendments. The very example of 911 will wake people up to the dangers of straying from this template. A level of self awareness and knowledge is a valuable thing.

I see people's views of their government, themselves and their responsibilities being radically changed/altered.

We appear to disagree here on the outcome of immediate actions taken with exposing 911 and the extent of societal reform that will follow.

Steve, I'll try every "trick" in the book to educate folks and to let justice run its course (and I see huge repercussions running their own courses).

If you think it an unlikely venture, I can do nothing more here. I have stated my case and identified the differences we have in interpreting the situation.

Also you wrote:

"People refuse to believe the world is run like the mafia and so they cannot believe that their leaders would blow up their own buildings killing their own people.
You think people who would do that would roll over when being investigated by a Congressional committee."

Arrgh !! It's not going to be as simple as that. I know this.
The situation will be like a can of worms opening up on many fronts, that will encompass public debate simultaneous to any "Congressional Investigation".

People are not going to trust anyone in the government. They'll want to be having multiple Grand Jury investigations that are totally transparent.

We know about NIST. We know about the 911 Commission. The public exposed to the 911 material we be calling for blood, and not ready to trust anybody that operates behind closed doors. Those mafia folks will find themselves in the spotlight (plus anyone aspiring to be a new mafia don).

Steven, the situation might end up unfolding as a popular uprising or coup. We will work hard to educate everyone so that the kingpins end up isolated- and this is very likely because of the blatant nature of the evidence. Once the Censorship wall is breached on 911 truth then it'll be like a tsunami with the perps and head mafia figures ending up isolated.

Try not to assume that the rules of conduct will be followed to the letter. This is what I mean about a third dimension.

At the end of the day people in general will have no choice but to believe that the world is run like the mafia (-the existing philosophical paradigm will be challenged-).

We need to get onto a psychological angle. People commit themselves to ideas, but they can change their minds. Education can "re-program" one's mind. You have been programmed to have a certain appreciation of events. Why can't others? We have marketing campaigns to do just this, so too we can engage in social engineering for a higher purpose ie. educate people vs the Mafia.

I think a multifaceted evidence based approach will work. That knowledgeable people will overcome. You still seem to me, to be stuck in modeling everything in a particular and rather rigid philosophical context that does not adequately appreciate the dynamics of reality.

The purpose of the blog here is to begin with getting the hard facts to people, such as yourself, so as to leave them no doubt, that 911 was an Inside Job. Once we can agree on this hugely significant point we can make massive headway about who did this and how the world actually works.

Like I said public investigations and general acceptance of 911 truth will be like opening a can of worms. When all sorts of high profile people, from every quarter, start calling for justice, then folks will follow this lead. There is a lot of potential here, the situation just needs a bit of a kick start.

9 January 2009 20:34

steven andresen said...

spook,

I really have been thinking about your strategy and your criticisms of my method.

You said this,

"...You appear to be linking everything you see/read/hear to specific philosophical models/problems that may or may not fit what is actually happening.
You know that models are not reality, so beware..."

This observation is true. I am not in a position to add any data to the mix here in the sense I know new things about the events on the ground in the middle east, in D.C., or much outside my apartment. I'm truly one of those armchair guys.

My original interest was in the philosophy stuff. So, you are correct that I connect up most everything I'm thinking about with my original and deepest interest.

But, my understanding of the events and issues is that these things are the way they are because of various commitments people have made to philosophical ideas. I don't think people bring philosophical theories to examples and see if the theories describe the examples. I think instead examples are already the home to many philosophical ideas because of what people are already committed to.
Well, that's my conjecture.

After having thought about your observation I've thought I really need to go back and think about this.

One thing I wonder is whether your way of approaching the 9-11 crime and the other issue you've dealt with here can be summarized in the way I thought was appropriate awhile ago, when I said you had a prosecutorial view. You have an idea what has gone on and you are going about looking for evidence to support your claim. You think, I believe, that exposing 9-11 and bringing justice is a matter of following the same procedure as a prosecutor or a scientist.

Philosophy is thought to follow this procedure. Does this theory work? make a claim about it and look for evidence. If it is true, then you will find more and better evidence for it than philosophers who are pushing for other alternative theories.

One of the reasons I am having a hard time showing you my concerns about your procedure, the "pointing to the evidence" prosecutorial procedure, is that I think I'm opposed to this understanding of philosophy, and the philosophical theory of method that underlies your strategy.

I'm not being clear so that's why I'm making things murky here.
This is what I think at the moment. Marx wrote about the limitations of "political rights." He thought they were O.K. for a temporary halfway kind of truce with the powers that be. But, he thought, ultimately these "political rights" provided only a false sense of security. What he wanted to do was show what a better solution would be achieved if one decided to give up on these "political rights" and worked for "human rights." He thought the difference had to do with getting rid of the owners.

I think another way of saying the same thing is to talk about bringing the miscreants to justice as you have. Marx would allow that pointing out where the powers have broken the law or even been immoral could be accomplished and, in a typically prosecutorial way, one could gather evidence of their crimes and bring them to justice.

I think, for Marx, he would allow that your strategy would be just fine, as a stop-gap way of keeping the powers at bay.

However, as I've said, there's more to challenging the power game than just bringing miscreants to justice.

You have suggested that I am somewhat dismissive of your efforts by saying that whatever you do, it won't be enough.
I'm sorry about giving you the impression that justice and supporting the rule of law were inconsequential. They are not. I think Marx would say they are good ideals.

We started out trying to bring up the idea that it would be a great thing to challenge the power game. I think bringing miscreants to justice and supporting the rule of law is one thing, but challenging the power game and the evil that the existence of that game involves is something else again.

This is something which I have to work at being clearer about also.
All I can say at the moment is that the pushing and the harassment of Iran, the pushing of Gazans, and the big bucks stolen sort of invisibly, are related to the power game. They are actions of the mafias. I do not believe the mafias can be gotten at easily because, though their actions are evil, they murder and steal, for example, they do it under the cover of the laws and the rules of institutions. They can do this because they have their hands on the levers of these institutions.
Furthermore, I think the problem isn't so much as there are evil people deep down in the bowels of government, but that there are ideas down there that make the people there think that doing evil things is actually doing good.

So, when you and others who try to expose the crimes of 9-11, and other such thefts and murders, the people with their hands on the levers will have reasons to think that you and your allies are yourselves evil and threats to the country.

So, I am not against seeking justice, but my understanding of what you are up against makes me say be cautious.

10 January 2009 09:57

SpookyPunkos said...

Whether the elite think they are justified in their actions or not, they are acting in defiance of the laws -acting in a way in which most people, upon reflection, will see as highly criminal. My sympathy for their position here is very low.

Also they should see all of us activists out here as a threat. If they think us "evil" then too bad. We will see through trial and inquiry who has done what and then pass judgement. We have, nevertheless, already made a lot of assessments of the situation thus far.

I firmly believe that most in the "bowls of government" and corrupt corpocracy know they are acting unacceptably. Some may have given over to a "strategic" view of things in which people are sacrificed to serve various aims. The ends justifying the means. In this case we must look at the ends- which include corporate profit, global military positioning, oil, Israel etc etc) These interests tie into the existing elite $$ power game, taking away from the ordinary person in a severe way, and don't serve the interests of the people at large.

I believe the people in charge are obsessed with power and simply want to maintain this immediate position for their own well being. To hell with the rest of us ... !

I personally think many of these people are narrow minded psychopaths. For them a course of action that will benefit the majority of people is not on their radar.

Going back to the Criminal Prosecutions: From my point of view, a prosecution is central but it is not the totality of the fight against "the oppressors".

I hope that you can see that I am expecting a huge reaction ON MANY FRONTS as public awareness of what has happened increases (I've explained the more complex dynamics of what may happen - I was not clear initially as I assumed the reader would be more positive and assume some or many of the changes I could see).

Importantly, just as the powers that be "make history" and manipulate people, we too have agency, and can act. We are not all Zombies- and those of us that are can be unmade. It's difficult, but there's mechanisms for change we can take advantage of. The controls only go so far.

The system will change and there should be prosecutions regardless of the thinking from people at the top, who I think are morally suspect given their records.

I believe you might be overly fixated on a limited model which may have narrowed your thoughts on what may happen- in terms of a multi layered sequential unwinding of the status quo.

I have a joke for you that might help:
A philosopher went into a closet for ten years to contemplate the question, What is life? When he came out, he went into the street and met an old colleague, who asked him where in heaven's name he had been all those years.

"In a closet," he replied. "I wanted to know what life really is."
"And have you found an answer?"
"Yes," he replied. "I think it can best be expressed by saying that life is like a bridge."
"That's all well and good," replied the colleague, "but can you be a little more explicit? Can you tell me how life is like a bridge?"
"Oh," replied the philosopher after some thought, "maybe you're right; perhaps life is not like a bridge."

Well, I don't know if that helped, but it did give me plenty to think about.

All I can say is that I can see how the system can be drastically changed and manipulated for the better. I expect a lot from individuals (key figures who will speak up) as awareness spreads and folks at large get a good understanding of the threats to themselves. People will become aware of the dangers such as you have explained to me here.

 
Some elite will do their best to fight back, but it's an information war and they will lose it. Knowledgeable people will take measures to derail the tyrants using tools of transparency, accountability etc. We know of the mafia, and 911 will be the mechanism by which they are undone.

10 January 2009 21:59

steven andresen said...

spook,

I sympathize with the desire to bring the country justice about 9-11 and other things. I support your effort to get people aware of the miscreants and what they've done against the law.

However, I'm just saying that some of the things that these mafias do is against the law. These might be crimes that you can get them for related to 9-11. It was an inside job so you can maybe get some or many of those responsible.

Though Bush people broke some laws, a lot of their effort was legal, and a lot of their effort was devoted to making their work to steal and murder legal, and they have been successful at a lot of that.
One sign they work to make killings and stealings legal so they can profit from it is the bipartisan support given to Bush for his torture laws, and the resistance of these Democrats in Congress to even the hint that Obama might want to roll back these laws or prosecute the torturers.

Another support for what I'm saying is the stuff Schiff has been saying on your current interview with him. Schiff thinks the gov. ignored him and went through with the housing bubble because they were short sighted. I think you could find evidence that they knew exactly what they were doing. They knew a housing bubble would collapse. But, they knew if they played their cards right, they would make a lot of money on the bubble before it inevitably did. I think Schiff may be covering over this part of it. For example, we know that the feds squelched an effort by state att. gens. to make banks do better to prevent such a bubble. I don't remember the exact story. But, what they did to facilitate the housing bubble is the same kind of nonsense they did to facilitate the 9-11 murders.

I don't want to rain on your parade. But, the mafias are in a strong position because they think they are right.

Are they psychopaths?

Well if they are psychopaths for commanding us to eat brains, then there is something equally as wrong for us to refuse to take responsibility and go out and do what we are told.

11 January 2009 06:12

SpookyPunkos said...

Excellent !

There certainly is something very very wrong with us for refusing to be brain eating zombies. I like that.

I think a lot of the changes we will be making will require a certain level of idealism and positivism. It's a tough war, and we need to think of motivating ourselves as we "march toward victory".

At the same time it's a complex war- a war of knowledge and of an awareness of consequences. People must know that not to act will lead to more horrors. I remember how I felt watching 911 unfold, and I didn't like it. The mafia can only get away murder, racketeering and what not because no one knows, or thinks anything can be done about it.

During and after the 911 trials, which addresses an issue people do care about, we'll see a lot more investigation into quasi legal activities and an interest in the abolishment/ outlawing of various secret elite organizations.

They are stuffed, and it's our (my) job, or aim, to make sure they're toast. That's the only way I can look at the situation.
Although you were put off by the Alex Jones Show, his general strategy, of waging an information war to get the people and system to change, is just the ticket. His war mindset, of having high moral vs "the enemy", is very useful.

Plus the more we can make this venture appealing to the masses the better. I am all for having victory symbolism, campaign patches and the like ...

11 January 2009 22:44

steven andresen said...

spook,

I think you misunderstood my metaphors. You said,

"...There certainly is something very very wrong with us for refusing to be brain eating zombies. I like that."

I think we have chosen to be Zombies. Zombies is a metaphorical way of describing how to understand ourselves. A Zombie is a will-less undead creature who is driven by either their hungers or the commands of their voodoo masters.

When I said there was something wrong with the powers that be when they would command us to go eat brains, the metaphor points out how we are so willing to do such a nasty thing. It is because we are Zombies. Why do we go off to war so easily without much of an excuse? It is because, like Zombies, we are committed to being commanded and to not making decisions on our own.

I think the problem you will have is that no matter how much evidence you have about the stealings and the murders, so long as you are talking to people who think of themselves as Zombies, you won't get very far.

Therefore, the task has to not only be to gather and expose to the public the evidence of these crimes, but to somehow make people see that they should not think of themselves in this way. They have to be thinking for themselves.

12 January 2009 06:21