Bcc: contributors ============================================================================ From: •••@••.••• Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:29:53 EDT Subject: Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September To: •••@••.••• Richard, If Chomsky & Solomon are "typical liberal reformers", as you say, I have to wonder what ideological category you'd place the likes of Senators Kennedy and Feingold. If you can't make a distinction between the former two and the latter two, I'm going to have to start worrying about you.(:>) And Chomsky being "close to the mainstream" and wanting to seem "reasonable"? Ha! His views on US foreign policy are consistently total condemnation. Cheers, Bill Blum ========== Dear Bill, Kennedy, Feingold, et al, are what I would call demagogues. 'Liberal' Kennedy was pushing Senate Bill 1 for years, an early version of our current police state regime. They are opportunists, image-maintainers. Chomsky & Solomon are sincere, which puts them in a quite different category. I overstated my case considerably in the case of Chomsky, and other contributors (below) were quite irate. My apologies. Nonetheless, I stand by the view that Chomsky wears certain mainstream fetters, though not the full cloak I claimed in exaggeration. In particular, I find his view on conspiracy theories in general to be quite illogical. The feeling I get is "Hey, look at me, I don't believe the JFK stuff - I must be reasonable." keep up the good work, rkm . http://cyberjournal.org ============================================================================ Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2002 20:46:58 -0700 To: •••@••.••• From: CyberBrook <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September rkm> Chomsky & Solomon are typical liberal reformers. They believe our liberal democracies are sound, in concept, and that all will be right if people are better informed and vote accordingly. They don't understand how deep the rot goes, and they don't understand that democracy, as we know it, doesn't work and can never work. I'm not sure about Solomon, but this doesn't at all represent Chomsky's many speeches, books, articles, interviews, or beliefs over the past few decades <www.zmag.org/chomsky>. Chomsky is neither typical, liberal, nor merely a reformer. He doesn't support liberal democracy as an ideal, to say the least, and suggests much more than voting, rarely if ever mentioning that tactic. It seems to me, he knows quite well how rotten to the core the system is, constantly railing against it, constantly showing its inconsistencies, duplicity, brutality, and horror, constantly condemning it, constantly advocating anti-authoritarianism, community organizing, personal and popular education, real democratization, full equality, positive peace, and social justice. As an anarcho-syndicalist, Chomsky opposes all abuses of power and supports local control and workers' control at the points of production. I think you have your reading cut out for you.---Dan ========== Dear Dan, So nice to hear you speak out. On social-movements it seems you only forward things. I'll take that as a compliment to our community. And I'll take your word for the range of Chomsky's writings. I've shifted my view, as I told Bill, but I still don't see Chomsky as being on the front lines of what needs to be said. I get a sense of a nationalist real-politik perspective, not updated to the realities of globalization. I see an imperative to be academically acceptable, which is in many ways limiting. I just don't get a sense of revolutionary energy, less for example than from Parenti. Just my opinion. And who am I to talk? Chomsky's surely done more good than I ever will. But if I have a contribution at all, it's to tell the truth as I see it. So be it. best regards, rkm ============================================================================ From: P To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 00:18:34 -0500 Subject: Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September Hello Richard, What of the notion that the response to capitalism reaching its limits is bumping people out of the "economy". You can maintain the same size piece of pie either by making the pie bigger or by reducing the number of people wanting pieces. Does the rising tide of homelessness, the excessive police activity, McJobs, the stripping of public assets, etc. in the "advanced" societies indicate that people are being forced to the economic margins and then booted out entirely? Does the galloping rate of incarceration in the U.S. represent a commodification of people by a desperate economic system? Could we be seeing capitalism's last stand? If enough people are marginalized or forced out the technological infrastructure that defines the "advanced" societies will collapse. I suspect that technology requires people and institutional structures in proportion to its level of complexity. If such is the case, the "Western" world's obviously thinning social fabric is a direct threat to its technological capacity. That most revered of all commodities "progress" is slipping into reverse. It is visible here in Ontario with the, all to evident, decline of the health and educational, not to mention physical, infrastructures. On a rather different topic, I noticed that one of your respondents called for the articulation of a credible path to a sustainable future. He did not seem to question the existence of such a path. One can easily ask why, if such paths do exist, they have not been articulated already. Can the earth's pie be divided into 6 billion pieces? If so how big would each piece be? What kind of technological regime could be supported by such a division? Speculations about answers to these questions would at least frame debate among those of us who are not at all comfortable with our self-proclaimed "successes". Regards, P =========== Dear P, Well yes, people are being marginalized, imprisoned, and otherwise declared redundant to the capitalist machine. This is nothing new, as you know yourself. That's what happened to natives in North America and Australia. To capitalism, people have value only in their contribution to the machine, either as workers or consumers. That's an axiom of capitalism - ~all~ things are commodified. What is new, since neoliberalism, is a dramatic rise in marginalization within the capitalist core. But I've seen no evidence that this puts capitalism in jeopardy. Nearly every disaster in the world is a consequence of capitalism, and yet propaganda is able to spread the perception that the West is the good guys. There's no feedback loop that links capitalism to its consequences, at least as far as public opinion goes. No matter how bad things get, that doesn't seem to create sufficient energy for capitalism to collapse due to public uprising. For chrissake, we've got a police state and a declared perpetual war, and people are rallying behind the Fuhrer. You suggest that capitalism is in jeopardy due to a declining infrastructure - insufficient complexity. I don't think so. Whatever infrastructure capitalism need, it pays for. That which is being marginalized is that which isn't needed. Automation, computers, off-shore production, all those little bits add up. The complexity is now in the chips, so to speak - the real world tip-of-the-iceberg can be smaller without harm to the capitalist parasite. As for progress slipping into reverse, I suggest you're confusing capitalist interests with popular interests. From a capitalist perspective, the definition of progress is 'greater profits through new-product introductions'. To a consumer, the definition is 'better living through new products'. You are noticing that progress is declining from a consumer perspective - life isn't getting better anymore. But from a capitalist perspective, profits are higher than ever. It was the alleged collapse of capitalism that we were discussing, not the collapse of middle-class comforts. You say: > I noticed that one of your respondents called for the articulation of a credible path to a sustainable future. He did not seem to question the existence of such a path. One can easily ask why, if such paths do exist, they have not been articulated already. They do exist, and they have been articulated. You probably have a more extensive bibliography than I on that topic, so I'm not sure the sense of your question. Shelves of books have been written about sustainable economics, transport, energy, and agriculture. Not only that, but most of it would be rapidly invented anyway if society ever set its priorities in that direction. Our problem, as I've said before, is primarily one of politics, not one of finding solutions to technical problems. On the other hand, there is a critical need for an inspiring vision of the future. A vision that can gain a broad consensus. That is one of the necessary requirements to bring about social transformation. From that perspective, I definitely support the kind of work you're doing. My own investigations suggest that the ~politics~ of the new world is what most needs our attention and thinking. If we, in a mad revolutionary rush, were to achieve a sustainable world - how could we be sure it would stay in effect? Think of all the work that went into the U.S. Constitution - all those checks and balances to ensure that it wouldn't be undermined. And now, only 225 year later, it's dust. Nothing is sustainable unless the societal regime is sustainable politically. As I investigated this line further, I found evidence from many directions that the key to sustainable politics is an emphasis on localism / community autonomy. I wouldn't embrace the label 'anarchist', but I do think non-hierarchy is necessary to avoid elite usurpation of power ~in the long term~ (which is what sustainability is all about.) If one does accept localism as a political necessity, then that shifts ones thinking about prescribing specific solutions, such as 'how to divide the world into 6 billion pieces'. The people of Chiapas, for example, might have a quite different answer to that question than the people of Montana. It is neither necessary nor advisable to work out a universal answer in advance for questions that communities will want to answer for themselves. I'm well aware that many problems will require large-scale planning. There are methods of dealing with such problems that do not require the introduction of hierarchical authority structures. Those methods do not start with a global plan. warm regards, rkm ============================================================================ From: "jefbuder" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Chomsky: not conspiracy but capitalism Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 07:25:48 -0700 Richard I have such mixed feelings about your work but I respect you process of thinking about these things and I do believe that it is possible that what you say is happening. ---<snip>--- To speak of the idea that George Bush actually plotted to destroy WTC and pentagon is pretty outlandish and it will invite ridicule even among the left. But to say that it is a probable scenario that powerful people in the neoliberal establishment knew about the attack but allowed it to proceed could actually be seen as a very shrewd strategic move that makes a lot of sense. Many claim this was the case when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. The idea is that you lose the battle to gain a public relations advantage over your adversary that will help you win the war. It is a well known fact that it is not only assets that win a war but public perceptions. During the tet offensive in Vietnam, some say that Tet was a stunning defeat for the communists but that they made a strategic decision that the perception of such a penetration of American defenses would weaken public support for the war in America. When we refer to conspiracy theory we have to understand that we suddenly discredit ourselves within the academic community. The fact that one cannot even speak of conspiracy without risking one status as a intellectual within the academic community speaks volumes about how the bounds of the expressible is defined. This is because research about possible situations where the public will and public good was undermined by a conspiracy of the powerful threatens the very legitimacy of the modern nation state by uncovering the necessary illusions that sustain its legitimacy in the public mind. The level of actual intentional conscious conspiracy is debatable but what is more interesting is the idea that systemic dynamics transcend individual awareness and autonomy within these complex systems. In other words the ability of a group of people to consciously determine society is limited, rather it is they work in a way that is complementary with the overall dynamic of the system. ---<snip>--- Jeff Buderer ============ Dear Jeff, You say... > To speak of the idea that George Bush actually plotted to destroy WTC and pentagon is pretty outlandish and it will invite ridicule even among the left. But to say that it is a probable scenario that powerful people in the neoliberal establishment knew about the attack but allowed it to proceed could actually be seen as a very shrewd strategic move that makes a lot of sense. I don't think George Bush plots anything, except possibly how to avoid official functions and get time off for beer and pizza with his buddy Homer Simpson. He was selected by your 'powerful people in the neoliberal establishment' because he was just smart enough to read cue cards, but not smart enough to plot. Also because his personal elitist mentality was 'in character' for the role they wanted him to play - they knew he wasn't smart enough to act. To pretend that Bush is a decision-making executive pushes one so deeply into the mire of matrix illusion that useful discussion becomes impossible. That's the kind of trap you fall into when you try to weave benign propaganda rather than pursue truth - you end up confusing yourself. --- A crime was committed. Thousands of innocent people were incinerated in the WTC, and as a consequence the world is now in a state of perpetual war. I personally think it would be good idea to figure out who did it and why. Otherwise the perp is still at large and we don't know who 'he' is. To investigate a crime, you identify the likely scenarios, and then explore them. For the WTC we have two suggested scenarios. Scenario 1 is that a terrorist organization carried out the attack, catching everyone by surprise. Scenario 2 is that official complicity was somehow involved. In my opinion, Scenario 1 has been thoroughly discredited. The behavior of Bush on the day, the behavior of top officials in Washington while the events were unfolding, the failure of standard air-defense procedures to be followed, the total lack of evidence pointing to Bin Laden or Al Qeada - Scenario 1 just doesn't hold up. It really has nothing to be said for it other than the fact that the media keeps repeating that it's true. Argument by repetition of conclusion is not argument at all. There is simply no case for Scenario 1. So we look at Scenario 2, which has all sorts of evidence pointing toward it. Once you accept that those at the top could knowingly allow the attack to happen, then you look at things differently. You then start looking for evidence about when they got involved, and how active their role must have been. Certain things become relevant, such as the fact that energy companies had been lobbying for a war in Afghanistan, to secure a pipeline. And the fact that FBI investigations into domestic terrorist networks were snuffed out by the CIA. And the fact that numerous opportunities existed to arrest Bin Laden and were passed over. While those kind of observations might be weak as evidence for a conspiracy, they are informative if you are already considering the complicity scenario based on other evidence. That is to say, if you are willing to admit that complicity is a real possibility, then the thread of evidence indicates that the complicity started quite a while ago, measured in months and years, not in weeks and days. That indicates that the whole affair was basically a CIA operation, with some naive terrorist group being set up to take the fall. If anyone has a rebuttal to this argument, I'd like to see it. I cannot escape the conclusion that 'CIA operation' is the most likely scenario, with a probability of about 99%. I can see no value in watering the story down for anyone. --- > When we refer to conspiracy theory we have to understand that we suddenly discredit ourselves within the academic community. The fact that one cannot even speak of conspiracy without risking one status as a intellectual within the academic community speaks volumes about how the bounds of the expressible is defined. OK, so the academic community has an orthodoxy, and that orthodoxy says conspiracies cannot even be mentioned. That's a rather immense blind spot they've been shackled with. This is the age of rampant elite agency, and no official ever tells the truth about anything. What is there besides conspiracies? Your academicians are missing the main event. They are weaving complex Ptolemaic orbits because their orthodoxy can't allow them to entertain the obvious truth. They are like the Pope who refused to look through the telescope and see the moons of Jupiter for himself. [approx] I don't put down, nor find fault, with anyone, who lives in a vault. But it's all right Ma, if I can't please them. -B. Dylan --- > In other words the ability of a group of people to consciously determine society is limited, rather it is they work in a way that is complementary with the overall dynamic of the system. That's a tautology. Even the Emperor cannot order the tide to recede. By definition we all live under constraints. No one questions that the designs of elites have limits. What needs to be determined is precisely where those limits are in our current globalist world. It's an empirical question, not a theoretical one. From a theoretical perspective, what we have is one of those wave-partical dualities. For years scientists debated whether matter was really particles or really waves. Finally they realized that both were only models, and that each model had predictive advantages - depending on what aspects of physics you happened to be investigating at the time. Similarly, we can model society as a system, and we can model society by looking at what powerful people do. To use only one of the models is like tying one hand behind your back. Each model sheds light from a different direction, and each has major blind spots. best regards, rkm ============================================================================ From: "Brit Eckhart" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 21:54:58 -0400 Dear Richard, Normally I feel that you're way ahead of me, but I must object to your characterization of Chomsky. This is not hero-worship either. He may not be "prescriptive" but he surely is not pandering to the Establishment -- and I find his acerbic depth a source of strength - have you read "POWERS & PROSPECTS: Reflections on human nature and the social order?" Regards, Brit Eckhart =============== Dear Brit, As you saw above, others share your objection. I didn't even know about POWERS & PROSPECTS. I stand corrected. The fellow has a broader canvas than I was aware of. By the way... in your opinion, is he as perceptive and knowledgeable about those other topics as he is about U.S. foreign policy? rkm ============================================================================ From: mango <•••@••.•••> To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> Cc: <mango list recipients> •••@••.•••, •••@••.••• Subject: Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 11:20:48 +0100 You're all nuts! Meyssan's research is atrocious compared to Ruppert's. All this talk but what are you doing about it? Have any of you kept up a dialogue with Solomon, Corn, Ruppert - Vreeland, even? They're all still talking from my experiences with them - so get writing! Have any of you invited (insisted!) Fair or Alternet or The Nation to take up Vreeland's brave offer of interviews? And what about supporting McKinney? Are any of you rebutting the character assassinations in such rags as Orlando Sentinel (who even go so far as to mention treason), Atlanta Journal etc etc? Are any of you donating to her campaign? IF NOT, WHY NOT? The time for abstruse pontificating is over - Hubbards Peak indeed! I am sure it must be quite clear by now that we are dealing with gangsters*, impure but not so simple. Deal with them as such. Use what law is left before we all go under their darkness. As Starhawk has rather accurately said:- 'Either we continue to fight them together now when we can mount large-scale, effective actions, or we fight them later in small, isolated groups, or alone when they break down the doors of our homes in the middle of the night.' Do you want to be another Niemoller? mango http://www.environment.org.uk/activist/ ========================================== Dear Mango, It seems you favor the 'gangster model' of society. Sounds right on the money to me. In the dialog above, I was arguing that the conscious actions of elites matter, even though there are real system constraints as well. When we then look at the actions of those elites, mafia gangs is what they most resemble. After all, the CIA does runs the global drug trade, and the big New York banks handle most of the world's money laundering. In a real sense, our top leaders are ~literally~ the top of the mafia food chain. And then there's U.S. interventionism. A bully pushing people around, just like a Mafioso tough guy. And many thanks for the Starhawk quote. I couldn't agree more. We definitely need to ' Use what law is left before we all go under their darkness.' No question about it. Like many others, you are ready to call "Charge!", to sound the bugle. Your bugle sings: "Write letters to Corn! Support McKinney!" Those are new ones to me. I have, however, received hundreds of strident bugle calls from people, some even more articulate than yourself. And each saying "Charge!"... but in all different directions. We need no 'abstruse pontificating', but neither are we ready to deploy an effective offensive. Such an endeavor must be a collective one, and we seem a long ways from knowing how to act collectively. admiring your righteous anger, rkm ============================================================================
