[Marxism] Truth and the 9/11 Truth Movement

Debordagoria phantasmagorias at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 3 07:46:52 MDT 2006


This, posted to the SPSM list, seemed apropos to the
recent discussion here of conspiracy. (I hope it's not
too long)
Michael D. 

Truth and the 9/11 Truth Movement
 
By Richard Curtis, PhD
A speech to the Seattle branch of the “ 9/11
Visibility Movement”
July 1, 2006 – Bellevue Public Library
 
“My fellow Americans:  Three days from now, after half
a century in the service of our country, I shall lay
down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional
and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency
is vested in my successor.  This evening I come to you
with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to
share a few final thoughts with you, my
countrymen.”[i]
 
President Eisenhower went on share this thought:
 
“Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United
States had no armaments industry. American makers of
plowshares could, with time and as required, make
swords as well. But now we can no longer risk
emergency improvisation of national defense; we have
been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and
a half million men and women are directly engaged in
the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all
United States corporations.
            This conjunction of an immense military
establishment and a large arms industry is new in the
American experience. The total influence – economic,
political, even spiritual – is felt in every city,
every state house, every office of the Federal
government. We recognize the imperative need for this
development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its
grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood
are all involved; so is the very structure of our
society.
            In the councils of government, we must
guard against the acquisition of unwarranted
influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the
disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will
persist.
            We must never let the weight of this
combination endanger our liberties or democratic
processes. We should take nothing for granted, only an
alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the
proper meshing of huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and
goals, so that security and liberty may prosper
together.”
 
You all have heard this speech, or at least this part
of it before.  Yet, we as a people seem not to have
taken President Eisenhower seriously.  Did we not
believe him then?  Do we not believe him now?
 
He was a politician, of course, and we have grown
deeply skeptical of politicians.  But that speech was
given January 17, 1961 – before Nixon taught us to
expect Presidents to lie.  Yet, we did not believe
Ike.
 
He was also not completely honest, we know that now
too.  All of the available evidence indicates that the
Soviet Union never attempted to build an offensive
military capacity[ii], so when Ike said, “
we have
been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions
” he was not telling us
the whole truth.  Indeed, America was not compelled by
the Soviet Union to develop a “permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.”  America built this
industry of its own accord.  But America is not
Americans.  We Americans, the American people did not
decide that we needed a permanent armaments industry
of vast proportions.  Someone decided, or more
properly a group of people decided and they worked
very hard to then convince the American people –
through an unfounded fear – to support this
military-industrial complex.
 
Fear is an old and often used political tool:
 
"Of course the people don't want war.  But, after all,
it is the leaders of the country who determine the
policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the
people along whether it's a democracy, or a fascist
dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist
dictatorship.  Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.  That
is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of
patriotism and exposing the country to danger.  It
works the same way in any country."[iii] 
 
Herman Goering said that.
 
Now it is quite possible that there was a shred of
truth to Eisenhower’s claim that “we” were compelled. 
Perhaps he was not so willing a participant in that
decision.  Perhaps we were compelled, but it was not
the Soviet military that provided that compulsion. 
Perhaps, there is a deeper truth in the rest of the
quote that explains who compelled us to do this to
ourselves.
 
Eisenhower said, “The potential for the disastrous
rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.”  And
added, “We should take nothing for granted
.” We
should take nothing for granted when confronting this
misplaced power.  Eisenhower called it “The
Military-Industrial Complex,” another national leader
invented his own term for it – Fascism.[iv]
 
But fear requires an object, and with the absence of
the Soviet Union to at least appear as a plausible
threat something had to take its place.  As I, and
others, have argued before, that something is
terrorism.  And there really are terrorists and
terrorist acts, of which we ought to be afraid.  But
just who are the terrorists?
 
On September 23, 2001, National Security Advisor, Dr.
Condoleezza Rice said, 
”the U.S. has evidence of bin
Laden’s role in terrorist acts that it will present in
due time.”  The implication of that phrase was that
the act in question was 9/11, but the U.S. has no such
evidence.  At least according to the FBI, which has
recently admitted that it has no hard evidence linking
bin Laden to the events of 9/11.[v]
 
In fact, as you have seen from the details presented
earlier today, there is no evidence to support the
commonly held belief that 19 Arab religious fanatics
were responsible for the attack of 9/11.  And further,
the evidence we do have strongly supports the
alternative theory that the attacks were actually an
inside job.  So when Dr. Rice failed to provide that
evidence, she was so insistent that the U.S.
government had, it is now obvious why.  She was lying.
 Of course, since Dr. Kissinger’s work for the
aforementioned pathological liar Nixon we have learned
not to trust what National Security Advisors say
either.
 
This is an odd state of affairs.  Our public culture
assumes that Dr. Rice was telling the truth and we
seem to behave as if that claim was valid and has real
impact on our lives.  And there has been a real impact
on our lives, but not because the claim was true, but
because we are expected to believe that it was true
and all of our public media and public officials at
least pretend to behave as if it were true.
 
But do we, do we behave as if that claim were true? 
Certainly that obviously false claim and other more
obviously false claims have been used to justify
illegal wars, and have cost the lives of hundreds of
thousands of people.  So in some ways we do behave as
if the lies were true.  But in other ways it is clear
that we do not take them seriously.  My own favorite
example of this blatant hypocrisy is that we are
subjected to multiple time wasting searches when we
try to fly, this is allegedly to prevent other
would-be hijackers from smuggling weapons onto
airplanes.  But it is easy to smuggle weapons onto
airplanes.  In fact if you want a lethal weapon on an
airplane you do not even have to smuggle it aboard
yourself, the airlines provide them – in the form of
glass wine and beer bottles, which when broken become
incredibly lethal weapons.
 
More ominously, the government now spies on us much
more extensively than we previously realized, and this
is done on the basis of those false claims.  However,
the spying cannot really be intended to catch would-be
terrorists, according to experts in these sorts of
things.  As Paul Craig Roberts has put it:
 
“Floyd Rudmin, a professor at a Norwegian university,
writing at CounterPunch.org applies the mathematics of
conditional probability, known as Bayes' Theorem, to
demonstrate that the NSA's surveillance cannot
successfully detect terrorists unless both the
percentage of terrorists in the population and the
accuracy rate of their identification are far higher
than they are. He correctly concludes that ‘NSA's
surveillance system is useless for finding
terrorists’.  The surveillance is, however, useful for
monitoring political opposition and stymieing the
activities of those who do not believe the
government's propaganda."[vi]
 
There are obvious implications to be drawn from all of
this, but most Americans rarely express or act upon
these obvious implications.
 
There is a standard rejoinder to systematic critiques
of government behavior such as I have been offering,
and it runs along these lines.  “Well, these are huge
bureaucracies that are staffed with people who are not
always good at their jobs or lack the proper
resources.  Sometimes things just go wrong; there are
accidents.”  Those holding to this theory would say,
“The NSA really is intending to catch terrorists, they
are just imperfect or incompetent.”  Really, they are
incompetent?  They don’t know that this system of
spying won’t catch terrorists?
 
Well, Sigmund Freud and his reasons for denying that
there are accidents not withstanding, there are better
reasons for dismissing this pathetic defense of the
status quo.  Some years back I developed what I call
“The Accidental Theory of History.”  The Accidental
Theory of History occurred to me after the start of
the first Gulf War.   Many people have forgotten, or
never heard, that that war was actually started by the
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq at the time, one April
Glaspie.  It seems the Ambassador had some crucial
facts “wrong.”  We are led to believe she was just
incompetent when she told Saddam Hussein that the U.S.
government did not have a position on his dispute with
Kuwait, which at the time was stealing Iraqi oil
through a practice called “slant drilling.”  Saddam,
being a one time useful idiot, actually believed this
and went on to invade Kuwait, and then after some
particularly compelling but deceitful testimony before
Congress, we invaded Iraq for the first time.
 
Those who knew about all this in the media claimed
that it was all just a misunderstanding, an accident. 
But only a fool would still believe that the
beginnings of the U.S. drive to control the Iraqi oil
fields was an accident, although it has been justified
by an astounding series of lies.  Big lies.
 
A different fascist leader wrote this:
 
“All this was inspired by the principle —  which is
quite true in itself — that in the big lie there is
always a certain force of credibility; because the
broad masses of a nation are always more easily
corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional
nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in
the primitive simplicity of their minds they more
readily fall victims to the big lie than the small
lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in
little matters but would be ashamed to resort to
large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their
heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would
not believe that others could have the impudence to
distort the truth so infamously.”[vii]
 
A shorter, although falsely attributed version of this
runs:
“The great masses of people will more easily fall
victims to a big lie than to a small one.  Especially
if it is repeated again and again.”[viii]
 
This, of course, is the situation in which we now find
ourselves.  The government and our media have
endlessly repeated a Big Lie about 9/11.  The official
version of this lie was published in a book called The
9/11 Commission Report.  This is a book that David Ray
Griffin refers to as a 571 page lie.[ix]
 
We live in a time of lies and yet we seem to behave as
if this is not the case.  We refuse to “believe that
others could have the impudence to distort the truth
so infamously.”  So it is true, the masses of people
accept the big lie, and then worry about small ones. 
The War on Terrorism is a Big Lie; the justifications
for the war and occupation of Iraq are small lies.  So
people talk about the small lies that led to war, even
the media, but they cannot seem to find the wisdom or
courage to confront the big lies, the lies of 9/11.
 
Those of you who watch the TV show “Boston Legal”
might remember the way this state of affairs was
captured by one of the main characters: “There are no
facts anymore, only good and bad fiction.”[x]
 
I am afraid that the public culture, even though polls
indicate a deep seated suspicion, regards the Big Lie
of 9/11 as good fiction – it is a compelling if
utterly false story.  The truth, of at least the only
logical conclusion based on the available evidence,
that 9/11 was an inside job strikes many as bad
fiction.  It is a bad story that would show up in some
low budget movie plot, but hardly the stuff of real
life.  Real government leaders would not have the
“impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”  Would
they?  Of course they do and we have example after
example of this from history.  It was the approach
advocated by Niccolò Machiavelli in his famous little
book, The Prince.  It is the guiding philosophy of the
Neo-Conservative movement and, as I will argue in a
moment, of Neo-Liberals as well.[xi]  When the lies
involve attacks on a people that are falsely
attributed to some enemy we even have a special term,
they are called “False Flag Operations.”
 
What is the proper response to all this?  What is the
effective response?  I want to suggest that even
though one might cynically see these as two questions,
that they are in fact the same question.  The
response, both proper and effective, is the truth.
 
Well, that is too simple – the truth is out there for
people to find, even journalists should you find one
who actually investigates anything anymore.  On the
one hand we need to communicate the facts, as far as
these facts can be determined.  On the other hand we
need “good fiction” to help with this presentation. 
But of course, it is not good “fiction” that we need,
but a good narrative.  We have enough of the truth to
make the point, but what makes a good narrative?
 
I would suggest that a good narrative for our purposes
is a consistent one.  The Big Lie achieves its status
of good narrative through the twin features of being a
Big Lie and through being endlessly repeated, or more
commonly by simply being assumed, in the mainstream
media culture.  What ought our – the 9/11 Truth
Movement’s – approach be to be consistent?
 
I believe this narrative must have two elements, first
a strong emphasis on facts and the confrontation of
lies.  Dr. Griffin suggests focusing on the official
Big Lie, and unmasking the lies and distortions that
are the 9/11 Commission Report.  Second, I believe we
need to develop and articulate a political analysis
that honestly responds to the logical implications
inherent in this Big Lie being bi-partisan in nature. 
That is this Big Lie is told by both Democrats and
Republicans, and we must come to terms with the
implications of this.
 
This may seem a strange thing to suggest, but the best
way to start this political analysis is to understand
the influence of a German-born Political Philosopher
named Leo Strauss, who died more than two decades ago.
 This is strange because we seem to have an
administration that is both apparently “intellectually
challenged” and chock full of PhD’s.
 
Those people, both in and out of government, who
follow the teachings of Strauss are called
Straussians, and they are the intellectual elite among
the so-called Neo-Conservatives.[xii]
 
Strauss was an interpreter of Plato and other
ancients.  Most scholars believe that Strauss’s
interpretations of Plato were wildly off the mark. 
Yet, Strauss has followers who, regardless of the
falsity of his interpretations, accept and use the
“wisdom” Strauss taught them.
 
Strauss believed that most people are not capable of
living up to the demands of participating in a
democracy, and are hardly prepared to manage their own
lives in the face of the meaninglessness inherent in
the modern world.  Strauss believed that it is a sort
of modern nihilism that most threatens societies when
they try to be democratic – which was his
interpretation of what happened in Germany in the
1930’s.
 
Strauss suggested two strategies for dealing with this
problem.  First, religion – Strauss said that most
people need the structure of religion to guide their
lives, even when their beliefs are unjustifiable and
likely false.  Following what Plato called a “noble
lie,” Strauss said that societies need the “pious
fraud” of fundamentalist religion.  Notice that both
parties are vying to appeal to fundamentalists these
days.[xiii]  And they both have what I am sure they
regard as a Pius Fraud in the Big Lie of 9/11.
 
Second, Strauss said that states need war.  War gives
people a sense of meaning and purpose that is
otherwise absent from the modern world.  This means
the state must have an enemy.  For a long time, this
worked well.  We called it the Cold War.  But then the
Cold War ended and America was adrift, unwilling to
forge a truly egalitarian society American elites
looked for new enemies.
 
Importantly, Strauss said that if an enemy is not at
hand, then create one.  Thus, as mentioned before,
astute observers of the American scene have noticed
that terrorism came to occupy the attention of our
media and culture in a new way just about the time the
Cold War ended.  Today, 9/11 and the so-called War on
Terrorism, which we are told will never end, have
conveniently provided the government with the endless
war it wants.
 
This increase in terrorism seems to be very
convenient.  Some, myself included, believe that this
is not coincidental.  There exists a substantial body
of evidence that indicates that what we call
“Al-Qaeda” is simply the CIA organized “Mujahadeen”
gone global, keeping in place their supply and
financial operations.  The financial side includes
money from arms and drug sales especially, but also
nefarious financial ties to Western intelligence
services.[xiv]
 
What we in the 9/11 Truth Movement need to explain to
people is that Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals (the
ideology of the Democratic Leadership Council and its
major names like Clinton and Kerry) share essentially
the same ideology and the same history of tangled
financial ties to known branches of Al-Qaeda.
 
The “neo” in Neo-Conservative refers to a change in
right-wing ideology from believing that tradition and
religion can best inform the present, to simply using
religion and tradition as a way of controlling people.
 The old conservatives actually believed the things
they said.  Just as the old liberals believed the
things they said, where the Neo-Liberals simply use
that older liberal ideology of equality and rights as
a way of organizing their base.  For them it just as
much a “pious fraud” as religion is for the
Neo-Conservatives.
 
Today both the Democratic Party and the Republican
Party are run by Straussians, at least implicitly.[xv]
 Let me be perfectly clear here: Straussian means
fascist, so my analysis is that both major parties are
variations on the Straussian version of fascism.  Both
parties use lies to manipulate their respective bases,
but in the final analysis it is the same empire they
are building and this is seen most obviously in the
degree to which both major parties cooperate on
extending the empire through war and the cultivation
of fear among the population by first developing and
then endlessly repeating the Big Lie of 9/11.
 
We, in the Truth Movement, have to offer a compelling
narrative that explains this general feature of
cooperative deception at the highest levels of
government.  We also have to break through the media’s
self-imposed gag rule on asking critical questions
about 9/11.  We must speak truth to power!
 
Revisiting President Eisenhower’s words:
 
“We must never let the weight of this combination
endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We
should take nothing for granted, only an alert and
knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing
of huge industrial and military machinery of defense
with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security
and liberty may prosper together.”
 
The noted Political Scientist, Dr. Michael Parenti has
a related observation that is worth noting here:
 
“The ruling class throughout history has only wanted
one thing: Everything.  If you know that but nothing
else, you know more than if you know everything else
but that.”
 
Democracy demands truth and its most formidable enemy
is this pathological acceptance of a culture of lies. 
We are a Truth Movement, because the truth matters, it
matters to our freedom and most importantly to
democracy.  There is no higher calling for a patriot
and advocate of the radical idea that is democracy
than truth telling.
 
Venceremos!
 
 
 


________________________________________
[i] http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/farewell.htm
[ii] See Fred Kaplan’s Dubious Specter: A Skeptical
Look at the Soviet Nuclear Threat (Institute for
Policy Studies, 1980).
[iii] Herman Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall and
Luftwaffe-Chief, at the Nuremberg trials, April 18,
1946
[iv] Benito Mussolini
[v] quebec.indymedia.org/en/node/24741
[vi] http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=9216
[vii] From Hitler’s Mein Kampf, details at
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
[viii] ibid.
[ix] See Griffin’s 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions
and Distortions for details.
[x] “Boston Legal” air date June 27, 2006.
[xi] See the work of Shadia Drury on Leo Strauss and
his influence on prominent Neo-Conservatives.
[xii] For example: Abram Shulsky, Paul Wolfowitz,
William Kristol, William Bennett and John Podhoretz
[xiii] Most recently on the Democratic side in a
speech by Sen. Barack Obama.
[xiv] See the work of Nafez M. Ahmed
[xv] Compare the nearly identical “vision” of the
Project for a New American Century, the major Neo-Con
think tank with the “vision” put forth by a big name
Democrat like Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book The
Grand Chessboard.  Both advocate military control of
energy resources and both recognized that a 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 




More information about the Marxism mailing list