Did you already know this story?

I'm European, and I knew about it, but by sheer accident. I happened to stumble onto its Wikipedia entry. I was shocked at the time; it's one of those things you'd expect you would have heard about, but - as you said - it seemed to have been swept under the rug.

Truth by obscurity, eh?

"The basis of optimism is sheer terror" - Oscar Wilde

by NordicStorm (m<-at->sturmbaum.net) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 02:32:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I looked it up at the beginning of Bush the Younger's presidency, when I first heard about his grandfather and connection to the Nazis - but there is a lot more detail here.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 03:18:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The problem is, the poll responders are ETreaders, and have seen it mentioned here...

The results of the poll (and the diary itself) might be more interesting at dKos, maybe?

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 03:53:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Whoa, 9 out of 9 are yawns!

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 04:07:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Could I get you (4.00 / 6)

The yawns are on you :) (after all, you wrote the poll!)

I'm Yurpeen and knew about this. I also knew (something) about big US corporate involvement in Nazi Germany. I haven't read, but have just ordered, Trading With the Enemy by Charles Higham, and Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler by Antony C Sutton. (From Abebooks, both are out of print).

Sutton also wrote a book on Wall St and the Bolsheviks, in which he apparently showed similar investment in the Soviet Union - the thesis being that the corporate future was seen to lie in being comfortably ensconced in totalitarian systems of whatever bent. Yet a strong impression I get from the time is that monied interests (not only in the US) saw the Nazis as a bulwark against the Reds. No doubt a major subject there for a good historian.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 04:08:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Could I get you (4.00 / 6)

I wasn't aware of the coup, but I was aware of Opa Bush's links to Hitler way back in 1999.

But note also we had our very own near-coup(s) in the UK.

While we spend our time pretending that our votes matter, the reality is that this is Democracy In Name Only. The people who can be elected are fixed around the policies, and the key parts of the policies aren't up for debate.

If a democratic result appears to threaten the status quo, it's either subtly sidelined, buried under propaganda, or stopped by force.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 04:46:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Could I get you (4.00 / 9)

was aware of Opa Bush's links to Hitler way back in 1999.

I had heard of that one before, but I was not surprised [after all, a lot of the Anglamerican political class was in love with Hitler in the 1930's - including the King of England!] nor did I think it was too useful to focus on it (paging Godwin).

This, howecer:

While we spend our time pretending that our votes matter, the reality is that this is Democracy In Name Only. The people who can be elected are fixed around the policies, and the key parts of the policies aren't up for debate.
If a democratic result appears to threaten the status quo, it's either subtly sidelined, buried under propaganda, or stopped by force.

should be a diary. Whenever politicians and pundits talk about a "crisis of democracy" they invariably refer to Democracy™ working as advertised and not as intended.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 05:17:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This is worth a diary of its own.

It always seems naive to me to believe that this sort of thing is outside of the realm of possibility in this day and age.

All it takes is a dedicated group of sociopaths to start something that's far larger than themselves.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 11:48:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

This has interesting parallels with Spain's Adolfo Suárez...

For the past 30 years rumours that the security services were plotting against the Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson and that preparations were being made for a coup have been dismissed as a paranoid fantasy. The general tenor of press comment has been that Wilson was already in the grip of the Alzheimer's disease that eventually killed him when he made his allegations of a plot against him. But a recent BBC documentary has confirmed that the security services, top military figures, leading businessmen and members of the royal family were conspiring against Labour governments led by Wilson in the 1960s and 1970s.
The programme was broadcast on March 16 to coincide with the anniversary of Wilson's resignation in 1976. It was based on interviews that BBC journalists Barry Penrose and Roger Courtiour conducted with Wilson and his private secretary Marcia Williams shortly after he resigned. The tapes were made secretly and have never before been broadcast or made public. Despite their considerable historical value, they have remained in Penrose's attic ever since. Only a small portion of more than 70 hours of recording were dramatised in the documentary.
Various rumours were circulated to explain Wilson's sudden resignation--as the result of threats by the security services to reveal evidence that he was a Soviet agent, that he had compromised himself by having an affair with Marcia Williams, or more prosaically that early stages of Alzheimer's disease had convinced him that it was time to go. But the documentary made clear that Wilson wanted to expose those who were seeking to discredit him and wanted the activities of the security services investigated. He invited Penrose and Courtiour to his house with the specific intention of telling them about his suspicions and gave them valuable leads that would enable them to pursue their inquiries. Far from being afraid of exposure, Wilson wanted the case brought out into the open.

Nobody really knows why Adolfo Suárez resigned as PM of Spain. The 23-F 1981 coup took place during the Parliamentary investiture session of his successor, Leopoldo Calvo Sotelo, and therefore succeeded in taking hostage the entire Lower House. Unfortunately, Adolfo Suárez has had Alzheimer's for several years now, and according to his daughter he doesn't remember being Prime Minister. So, unless he recorded his inside view of the Spanish Transition to Democracy before he went senile, we'll probably never know what happened.

The Spanish Wikipedia says:

Fue una etapa de gobierno llena de dificultades políticas, sociales y económicas. En 1980, el PSOE presentó una moción de censura que, aunque derrotada de antemano, deterioró aún más la imagen de un Suárez desprovisto de apoyos en su propio partido. Finalmente la falta de sintonía con el rey Juan Carlos y las tensiones crecientes en su propio partido, le llevaron a presentar su dimisión el 29 de enero de 1981. En su mensaje al país afirmó:	It was a government period fraught with political, social and economic difficulties. In 1980, the PSOE introduced a motion of no confidence which, although sure to be defeated, further eroded the image of Suárez, lacking support within his own party. Finally, the lack of understanding with King Juan Carlos, and the growing tensions within his own party, led him to resign on 29 January 1981. In his message to the country he stated:
Yo no quiero que el sistema democrático de convivencia sea, una vez más, un paréntesis en la Historia de España.	I do not want the democratic system of convivality to be, once again, a parenthesis in the history of Spain.
Esto que dio pie a pensar que renunciaba por la presión de los militares. Esta teoría pareció confirmada por el intento de golpe de estado que tuvo lugar durante la investidura de Calvo Sotelo. Sin embargo, algunos autores, Javier Tusell y Charles Powell entre ellos, insisten en el cansancio y la falta de apoyo de la Corona como principales factores para su dimisión.	This prompted thoughts that he was giving up pressured by the military. This theory seemed confirmed by the attempted coup which took place during the investiture of Calvo Sotelo. However, some authors, among them Javier Tusell and Charles Powell, insist on fatigue and lack of support from the Crown as the main factors for his resignation.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:07:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

This is sheer conjecture, but again I think we are ignorant to believe that we are immune to catastrophic breaks in which extraordinary events facilitate rapid change otherwise unforseeable. September 11th being a prime example.

Now consider the effect that the pasalo demostrations had on tempering any nascent belief that elections following major terrorist attack were secondary to national security on the part of Aznar.

If Calle Genova had not been filled that Saturday night, would Aznar have felt more able to postpone the elections until a later date.

Remember that the municipal elections being held in New York City on September 11th were postponed due to the attacks. So even in a much longer established democracy than Spain, this is not entirely without precedent.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:34:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Could I get you (4.00 / 4)

I can't comment on Spanish history, but for me Wilson's resignation marks the end of the post-war ascent of the Left.

Callaghan's appalling term led directly to Thatcher, and now here we are, some thirty years later.

Carter's hostage-crisis set-up was also a very calculated and deliberate election fixer for Reagan, and even though entirely treasonous it worked perfectly.

I'm not suggesting Callaghan was a plant or that Wilson was a perfect shining example of the British Left.

But Wilson was the last PM who could seriously be considered even slightly on the Left, if only because he had more than a token reluctant interest in running the economy in a way that distributed wealth rather than concentrating it.

Since then power has been shared between the far-right and the centre-right, both of whom have been happy to continue with tax cuts, deregulation, privatisation, and wealth concentration.

As I said above, there has been no democractic choice about this, and no formal or organised democratic opposition to it.

I suppose you could argue that this reflects what the public wants. But I don't think the public is really all that enthusiastic about cuts in health care, affordable housing, or public transport. And the only reason it hasn't given oppressive white collar working practices a firm thumbs down is because there's an endless drumbeat of pro-market 'the economy needs...' which has made alternatives unthinkable.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 01:16:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

History does not operate on the scale of mere mortals men.

What's important is that because society is a living breathing thing greater than its constituent parts, and not like the mechanistic conception put forward by classical liberals, things have a way of working out on their own.

It's Polayni's double movement, the problem is that these things take time. It may take 50-60 years for events to reach a breaking point at which the continuation of the neo-liberal status quo is unsustainable.

We seem to be rushing towards that point, but there hasn't yet be a traumatic break. A Great Depression scale event that creates a period of uncertainty as the old solutions are shown ineffective. So in order to instill certainty, new ideas are needed. And once those ideas provide stability, they become entrenched, because challenging them means introducing uncertainty back into the system.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 01:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The "movement" has to be implemented in actual demands, organisations, politicians, and mere mortals... History doesn't work without the people, you Hegelian !

Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 04:47:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is history determined by structure, or have we the agency to change its course by force of will?

I think we are awash in the currents of history, and the belief that through agenct we may change its course is naive.

As much as we impose the futile forms our philosophy grants us on what we see, we still remain blissfully ignorant as Plato's men in the cave supposing that the forms we derive are in some way truth.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 05:03:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

What is then this structure, but human beings?

I think we have limited tools to think about thousand, million or indeed billion agents. This leeds to simplified stories of either the "world leaders" wrestling it out - Churchill vs. Hitler, Bush vs. bin Laden - or giving agency to groups of people and viewing them as one person - England vs. Germany, US vs. UUSR, Republican party vs. Democrat party, CocaCola vs. Pepsi. Neither gives us tools to understand how we change the world, but we do, all the time. The world change, and it is the actions of people that makes the changes.

I think what is needed is tools to see our own actions in the larger picture. We do not need to be persons of power to affect change, indeed we do it all the time. To choose for ourselves what change we will affect, we need to see and evaluate our own positions and possibilities in the structures. And then act accordingly.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Sun Aug 5th, 2007 at 04:30:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

An online article on US corporate relations with Nazi Germany is Profits über Alles! American Corporations and Hitler by Jacques R. Pauwels. Pauwels (Belgian, has worked in Canadian academia) recently brought out a book called The Myth of the Good War, America in WWII.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 08:38:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I suppose you're in a nest of truly-lefty political junkies... As opposed to DKos which is only considered far-left by the likes of Bill O'Reilly.

More interesting than DKos would be to know about the poll over at progressive historians.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 04:10:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In your poll you might have had something between the Yes, yawn and the other options - e.g. Yes, but thanks for the reminder and making connections - my response.

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 05:35:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Come on, Ted, yawn a bit, will you?

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 08:29:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The coup was mentioned by Millman in a recent comment thread.

I linked to an online version of war is a racket seven times in comments before, including here and here.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 05:13:37 AM EST

But seriously, for decades many mainstream readers dimissed Butler's book as crank literature. They knew that only in dystopian fiction (It Can't Happen Here) do conspiracies of corporate Mafiosi plot a takeover of the Federal government, much less succeed. The most useful belief system that power-seeking conspirators can instil in the public is that conspiracies are nonsense and never really happen :-)

The funny part about that is that Smedley Butler testified before Congress about the Coup plot. So it's all on the record.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 05:39:36 AM EST

Well, if I read correctly, the congressional material was pretty heavily suppressed and only partially published. Even J. Spivak, who had access to the uncensored records, didn't do a very good job at getting the word out in a believable form due to his predispositions.

I hadn't heard this story before, or maybe I've just forgotten if it were glossed over during US history courses. Anyway, I'm not too surprised - just annoyed.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:11:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (4.00 / 8)

This is relevant too:

Who's Behind the Attack on Liberal Professors?
By Dave Johnson 2-10-03
Mr. Johnson is a fellow at the Commonweal Institute.
... In 1971 the National Chamber of Commerce circulated a memo by future Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell among business leaders which claimed that "the American economic system" of business and free markets was "under broad attack" by "Communists, New Leftists and other revolutionaries who would destroy the entire system, both political and economic." Powell argued that those engaged in this attack come from "the college campus, the pulpit, the media, the intellectual and literary journals, the arts and sciences, and from politicians."
According to the Powell memo, the key to solving this problem was to get business people to "confront this problem as a primary responsibility of corporate management" by building organizations that will use "careful long-range planning and implementation, in consistency of action over an indefinite period of years, in the scale of financing only available in joint effort, and in the political power available only through united action and national organizations." It helped immeasurably, Powell noted, that the boards of trustees of universities "overwhelmingly are composed of men and women who are leaders in the system," and that most of the media "are owned and theoretically controlled by corporations which depend upon profits, and the free enterprise system to survive."
Powell wrote that these organizations should employ a "faculty of scholars" to publish in journals, write "books, paperbacks and pamphlets," with speakers and a speaker's bureau, as well as develop organizations to evaluate textbooks, and engage in a "long range effort" to correct the purported imbalances in campus faculties. "The television networks should be monitored in the same way that textbooks should be kept under constant surveillance." Powell said that this effort must also target the judicial system.
http://www.hnn.us/articles/1244.html

Maybe it's because I'm a Londoner - that I moved to Nice.

by Ted Welch (tedwelch-at-mac-dot-com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 05:43:08 AM EST

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (none / 1)

Very relevant. The complete Powell Memo can be found here (pdf).

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 09:59:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (4.00 / 5)

Murdoch just bought the WSJ (who could have imagined their op/ed page getting any worse? but you can bet it will)

Fuuny you would mentioned that in connection with 70-year old coup plots and political dynasties. Just yesterday I had a thread in the Salon involving the WSJ news section obfuscating about Spain, and quoting as authoritative the grandson of one of the 1936 Spanish Coup leaders who is now the rerpesentative of a consortium of 16 large Spanish and international retailers.

Plus ça change...

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 05:46:53 AM EST

well, i voted no. 1 but it's anyhting but 'yawn'....i slept well!

fascism is just another word for efficiency in the mind of a true believer....

i imagine that if the press had done its job and been over this like brown on rice, then dim sun would never had been allowed on the ballot, unless he'd signed an official repudiation of his granpaw's actions.

crickets...

so it's up to bloggers...

thanks for refreshing this ghastly story, de....

my hope is in the thousands of (younger?) americans possibly reading sinclair lewis as we blog, just as we were inoculated reading 'animal farm', (possibly britlit's most cautionary fable) against the mindgames.

should be obligatory, an initiation into full democratic citizenship!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 06:13:06 AM EST

I've seen it mentioned in passing at DKos and other places, but not in any detail. Half a million private mercenaries? Puts the rise of Blackwater et al in a whole new light, doesn't it?

We all bleed the same color.

by budr on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 08:39:03 AM EST

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (none / 1)

Where did you get the figures on mercenaries, and do you know how they were compiled? I would like to do a little research.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:13:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think the idea was to get the Veterans, who held Smedley Butler in great esteem and (like everyone else) were having a hard time during the early 30's but may have had some particular issues with the government at the time. That may be where the 500,000 figure came from.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:16:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (none / 1)

The half-million figure was in the first quote block of the diary. I have no idea if it's accurate, but the very idea gave me pause.

We all bleed the same color.

by budr on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:48:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I've seen that figure quoted all over the place, shouldn't be that hard to track down.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 01:07:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, I think I misinterpreted what you wrote. I thought you were referring to Blackwater and other such firms as being able to field a half million mercenaries. That said, your point is a good one.

I've done some business with Blackwater and worked with and for other similar firms. I think, like the WW I Vets, most of the contracted employees of these firms would have to be seriously hoodwinked into taking up arms against the US Govt. as in an overthrow. From what I saw, most were ex-military types who needed work and their skill sets matched what the companies had contracted to provide. The work is often extremely hazardous, but no more so than what the military was paying them much less to do. A lot of these companies are just shells until a contract comes along, then they start to hire to fill the contract requirements. Much like a construction company. Sometimes the companies have very little to offer in the way of resources and protections for their employees. Several have been criticized for throwing contracted employees into Iraq without proper equipment or support. That, I belive.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 01:45:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (4.00 / 3)

Several have been criticized for throwing contracted employees into Iraq without proper equipment or support.

You mean like Rumsfeld's Pentagon?

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 04:19:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I guess you could say there are definite parallels. Business model, profit motive, etc.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears

by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 09:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (4.00 / 7)

I wish there was an I've known about this for ages and not Yawned option.

A few years ago I went to a Mark Thomas gig where he went on at great length about the links between Coca Cola and their funding of the Nazi Party, and how for some strange reason the Sponsorship details of the 1936 Berlin Olympics have become somewhat murky. Advertising posters from that period are strangely hard to get hold of.

The Homes and Gardens article probably wants to run alongside one of the most infamous Daily Mail headlines, which I'm sure I've mentioned before that was "Hurrah for the Blackshirts"

Twice now further investigation has been put off "For the good of the country" (After Smedley Butler, and after Nixon) and both times its ended up with the same bunch of worms coming back out of the woodwork. Perhaps next time the US electorate should try banging them all up to see if that works.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 08:42:20 AM EST

They will have to get rid of the Democratic Party first, because they are not going to impeach the assholes currently in the White House.

Can the last politician to go out the revolving door please turn the lights off?

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

John Perkins: Confessions of an Economic Hit Man

brings me back to the rhetorical question, if not now, what is the 2nd ammendment for? and to quote a variety of Republican politicians, with rights come responsibilities.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 12:47:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

There's another aspect (4.00 / 8)

of this that troubles me. I recall DL's anger at ET diaries that toyed with the 9/11 conspiracy theories. "I'll not have this trash on my website" OWTTE.

I agree that an uninformed mob can certainly go to places that the intellect should not entertain. And that the iteration of hysteria would be bad for image. BUT. It is important to note that some political conspiracy theories, while unprovable, do not concern outlandish and impossible sequences of events, or mere wishful thinking. This diary demonstrates the constant need for vigilance, and renewed and vigorous scepticism of official stories - especially as the Fourth Estate disappears into the pockets of the kingmakers, and betting game that is capitalism is increasingly played with millions of deaths as collateral damage.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 10:48:20 AM EST

Bleh (none / 1)

I recall DL's anger at ET diaries that toyed with the 9/11 conspiracy theories.

Not anger at conspirasy theories. Skepticism at absurd and unsubstantiated claims. Do you think there is no difference?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 07:12:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (4.00 / 3)

I agree that there is a difference, but how are these 'conspiracies' to be deemed absurd and unsubstantiated if we cannot debate the views of scientists and experts (for example Scholars for 9/11 Truth) who do not agree with the officially published facts?. I believe there are large number of small anomalies in the big picture of 9/11. Whether these anomalies are irrelevant or not is what the discussion should be about.

It is only due to the diligence of large numbers of people that we are now confronting the 'absurd and unsubstantiated' claim that Iraq was not a slam-dunk invasion to destroy terrorism, but another move in the neo-con game plan. Thanks to diligence and debate this view is now being substantiated.

Absurdity is a good description of many of the activities of the so-called military-Industrial complex. Sending your citizens to die to protect the profits of your pals and backers is not the worst example, but a horrific one. And how are facts to be substantiated when the evidence is concealed, destroyed, buried, obfuscated and dismissed?

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 08:45:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (none / 1)

Well said.

Today's "absurd" "conspiracy theory" is tomorrow's accepted truth.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 12:05:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (none / 0)

Really? So any bunch of overheated crap becomes "accepted truth"? There must be something wriong somewhere in that case.

Already this discussion is tipping over into automatic credence for conspiracy theories.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 12:14:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (4.00 / 2)

That's not what Sven's saying, as I read him, and it certainly isn't what I believe either.

We are talking about the same people who gave us the Warren Commission.

And THAT can of worms will wriggle on for ever...

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 03:45:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (4.00 / 2)

I reacted to what you actually wrote...

I'm personally convinced the Kennedies and Martin Luther King were assassinated by a right-wing plot, but, as you say, that's a can of worms that will wriggle on for ever, which is why I haven't much time for it. Either something will pop up out of archives J. Edgar Hoover forgot to clean (dream on), or some aged whistle-blower will finger the culprits, or the worms will wriggle on...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 04:34:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (4.00 / 2)

Perhaps you missed 9-11 and American Empire Part 1: Deconstructing the Official Story ?
It is inaccurate to say we are only "now confronting the 'absurd and unsubstantiated'" lies that were spun by the media on Iraq. They were always confronted, right from the start. There was never any doubt that the facts were being fitted around the policy - and you would have found no one who is today at ET who believed a word of the Bush/Blair version back at that time. There's a very considerable difference between this and the idea that 9/11 was entirely stage-managed.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 12:24:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (none / 1)

You miss my point. Many 'believed' back then, but where was the evidence? There appear to be many facts which still have to emerge. It is diligence, debate and discovery that have turned an 'absurd and unsubstantiated' conspiracy theory into - well, something we still cannot understand.

Of course the two situations cannot be directly compared. And indeed I do not want to pursue the 911 'conspiracy'. What I am asking are matters of principle in open debate: 1) Who decides what is absurd? and 2) Isn't the process of the search for substantiation something that is done here at ET all the time on various subjects?

And I did not say the 911 was stage managed. I said there were anomalies that have yet to be explained. They may be irrelevant, but it cannot be substantiated yet that they are irrelevant.

A week ago, as Techno pointed out, it would have been an absurd thought that a 40 year old 8 lane bridge carrying 100,000 cars every day would collapse - in a state noted for a culture of maintenance. Or that there are 40 or more other bridges in the US with an even worse rating of structural integrity.

Would it be absurd to contemplate that the entire population of the Nordic region could be made homeless in the course of a few days. It has happened in India and Bangladesh.

I am not sure we know any more what absurd is. Neither do we really know who is to blame for anything, ultimately. Except ourselves. My favourite conspiracy theory is that everyone in the world is on drugs - something I have been trying to substantiate here for quite some time. ;-)

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 01:40:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (none / 1)

No time to reply now, I'll get back to it tomorrow.

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 04:25:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (none / 1)

No problem, mon ami/ducks. With you, I am always happy to argue.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 04:45:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So (none / 1)

Who is it that you're not happy to argue with on ET? Inquiring minds want to know.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 7th, 2007 at 06:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (none / 1)

_ My favourite conspiracy theory is that everyone in the world is on drugs - something I have been trying to substantiate here for quite some time. ;-) _

considering how powerfully our choice of food and drink affects brain chemistry, i agree...everyone is either hopped up or tranked down, or both!!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Tue Aug 7th, 2007 at 02:45:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (none / 1)

Your point, bop, my point, bop.

No, back then it was far more than a simple belief that we were being sold a dummy to justify war. It was obvious to all that we were up against spin - there were plain public lies, for example, such as that Saddam had refused to allow the inspectors in, there were rebuttals of Colin Powell's UN file on WMDs, there was open high-level protest (the French, the Germans, Robin Cook), there was Hans Blix and then Joe Wilson to blow the whistle quite early on, and facts came out, Niger-documents-wise, from Italy too. At no time was it an "absurd and unsubstantiated" conspiracy theory that intelligence had been cooked up to justify war, it didn't take years of patient fact-digging to get at the truth, and neither is it "something we still cannot understand".

9/11 is qualitatively and quantitively different. The necessary skill in conception and execution, the control over events and executants, the scale of the deception, would take it out into the mega-galactic zone (note that I'm not saying they weren't capable of wishing to do it, nor that I'm 100% certain they didn't do it - any more than I meant to suggest that you believed they did it..!). I'm saying this is not a matter of spin that was denounced practically as it was made public (Iraq lies), but a manipulation of another type and scale altogether.

So my point is that you're drawing a false analogy between Iraq War lies and 9/11 as examples of government/spook conspiracy. They're not on the same page.

(Your point, bop, my point, bop. Deuce.)

You offer further analogies - not in the conspiracy theory line - the first, that the thought a bridge could collapse would have been considered "absurd". But there is nothing absurd about the idea a bridge, or any other mechanical structure, might fail and even fall. When public business is properly handled, there are engineers whose job it is to monitor these things. The second, concerning the monsoon disaster, is, I'm tempted to say, even less "absurd" - unfortunately, such disasters have happened before in the region, and we know large parts of Bangla Desh are low-lying and threatened by global-warming water-level rise.

So your examples of perceived "absurdity" don't seem to me to hold up. You offer them, of course, to support the idea that it's wrong to oppose discussion of certain subjects on this blog. Seems to me you're exaggerating the opposition (I've given a clear counter-example re 9/11 that you don't acknowledge, to which can be appended Private's view). Beyond that, I think it's a question of focus. What's our availability, how much time and energy do we have, what should we spend it on?

My answer is that we could spend a lot of time and energy giving off heat and not that much light on subjects like the purported stage-management of 9/11, and that we would not convince large numbers of people anyway, because people will fix their view of this particular issue in function of the broader frames and narratives by which they view the world. It's the broader frames and narratives we should be focusing on. Just my point of view, of course.

Otherwise, you're just growling again about top-down / bottom-up, right? All I want to say to that (at least here and for the moment) is that, though ET may appear to you and some others too top-down, in the larger perspective of communications in today's society, it's very much bottom-up. Don't let's look at things from the wrong end of the telescope...

by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Tue Aug 7th, 2007 at 06:09:18 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Just to add (none / 1)

People rightly appreciate the high signal-to-noise ratio on ET. Do you think that comes spontaneously? Do you really think that the light management that we keep on ET to get that result is too exacting a price to pay? If it is, what's your proposed alternative?

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 7th, 2007 at 06:24:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just to add (none / 1)

Prioritising is the best argument. If we are going to discuss a 'political' subject and try to do something about it, then let's keep it within our tribal skills, expertise and knowledge. We cannot cover everything in discussion (though we have wide news coverage).

And I agree that ET is largely bottom-up and I support the light touch. I just don't like anyone telling me what is absurd or unsubstantiated. It is fair to question the appropriateness of a diary, but not to dismiss it (as in this historical case, in which a diary of mine was front paged by Bob before being dismissed by the proprietor).

It was the way it was done, not why it was done. But, as I said, it is historical, so let's forget it ;-) Let's prioritise.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Aug 7th, 2007 at 12:42:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Just to add (none / 0)

It was the way it was done, not why it was done. But, as I said, it is historical, so let's forget it ;-) Let's prioritise.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Tue Aug 7th, 2007 at 12:43:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Bleh (none / 1)

I said there were anomalies that have yet to be explained. They may be irrelevant, but it cannot be substantiated yet that they are irrelevant.

And I say that the burden of proof here is reversed: it is up to those promoting alternate visions on 9/11 to prove that these anomalies are relevant, i.e. to provide a coherent alternative theory as to what happened that has fewer anomalies that the main version. Picking on the existing narratives while providing an even more absurd narrative should not be taken seriously.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Tue Aug 7th, 2007 at 06:15:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (4.00 / 6)

I would like to link to a handful of modern-day Smedley Butler types (though none afaik has been invited to serve as figurehead for a coup!) -- this is just a few off top of head, but it would be an interesting project to assemble an extensive Whistleblowers' Bookshelf:

Joseph Stiglitz, Globalization and its Discontents

Philip Agee, On Company Business, CIA Diary

My buddy Stan Goff, Hideous Dream a memoir of the 2nd (or was it 3rd?) US occupation of Haiti

The VAW collective who produced the Winter Soldier Reports (see also the documentary Sir No Sir! for more details on the US troops' and veterans' anti-war movement).

There is a small but honourable society of former mercenaries, thugs, high priests and enforcers for Empire who repented, recanted, and decided to blow the whistle on the mafia they used to work for. Their former associates doubtless regard them as stool pigeons, squealers, and traitors; the rest of us, I think, should be grateful for a view, however limited, of the dirty laundry of our overlords...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 04:14:07 PM EST

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (none / 0)

Not a book, and not produced by her, but:

documentary on Sibel Edmonds: Kill The Messenger

Democracy Now interview of Russell Tice

Edmonds, unfortunately, fits the characterization: ""Shrill, twitchy, and Manichaean, your average whistle-blower often comes off as more crazy than confidence-inspiring."

However, Tice does not.

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 07:31:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (4.00 / 4)

my amber warning lights always glow when I hear anyone dissed as "shrill" by the punditocracy :-) it's a highly gendered word and usually carries connotations of sissiness, unbalance, infirmity of purpose, "hysteria" -- in short, being a "girly man" (or just plain being a woman).

I suspect that absent the most impeccable macho credentials, whistleblowers are likely to be perceived as Sissy (and hence shrill rather than "hectoring" or "relentless" or "loquacious" or "didactic") because one of the vaunted virtues of masculinist culture is Loyalty (and Omerta). anyone who demonstrates the flexibility to change his opinions, to deviate from absolute conviction and loyalty to the Team, is a bit suspect in the Manliness department; and more often than not will be accused of "shrillness" (literally, a high-pitched and piercing vocal quality like that of an angry soprano or mezzo, or an overexcited child).

now, whistleblowers often are -- for good reason -- passionate, aggrieved, and obsessive, accustomed to arguing from a defensive position, accustomed to not being believed and having to thrash their way upstream just to get heard, let alone achieve any credibility. they often can't stop talking once they get any chance at all to make their case. but this rather desperate or overemphatic tone is characteristic of just about all "Davids" engaged in intense struggle with a Goliath; and since it comes from a consistent experience of battling the overdogs from an underdog position it shouldn't surprise anyone that we leap to cultural metaphors of femininity (or childishness, which in patriarchal discourse is the same thing) to describe (and subtly to cast aspersions on) the person thus struggling, and marked by their struggle, with entrenched power.

an interesting sociology experiment is to survey the punditocracy's utterance (from right or left field) for statistical incidence of the word "shrill" and see how often or consistently it's used to dismiss or show condescension towards (a) an ideological opponent, (b) an outsider or underdog in conflict w/ the mainstream culture, (c) a female of any stripe. how often are Bush's obsessive and relentless (and somewhat desperate) harpings on "freedom" and "Al Qaeda" called 'shrill' by the media talking-headocracy -- despite their distinct whiff of desperation?

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 08:08:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

That is why (4.00 / 4)

the preservation of an independent Fourth Estate, in whatever form, is so important. Totalitarianism can only survive where the message and the media are controlled.

Monoculture is death.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 07:36:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why (4.00 / 2)

The one thing that no government - totalitarian least of all - can withstand is being laughed at.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 07:45:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why (4.00 / 3)

I agree - I really worry when people (or states) have no sense of humour. To my mind (and they'll surely prove me wrong) you cannot be a creatve thinker without it.

You can't be me, I'm taken

by Sven Triloqvist on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 08:51:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why (4.00 / 2)

Now I think that there is a good diary or two waiting to be written - "George Bush - My Part in his Downfall".

Apart from the relative senses of humour as between Bush and Putin (and I think Putin is one of the finest exponents of deadpan humour around) I think that the way to destroy the current system for good and all is simply to demonstrate just how ludicrous it is.

There are comedians out there capable of it.

"The future is already here -- it's just not very evenly distributed" William Gibson

by ChrisCook (cojockathotmaildotcom) on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 09:13:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: That is why (none / 1)

There are comedians out there capable of it.

Jon Stewart

Stephen Colbert

Truth unfolds in time through a communal process.

by marco on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 at 10:00:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Hmmm... (4.00 / 3)

The one thing that no government - totalitarian least of all - can withstand is being laughed at.

I think the Bush administration is living proof that this claim is false.

In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Mon Aug 6th, 2007 at 07:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: A Very American Coup (Almost) (4.00 / 5)

I had never heard of this plot. However, there is nothing secret about the close ties, both corporate and ideological, between Mussolini and American businessmen.

The well known OSS counter-intel spy, James Jesus Angleton, had a determining role in post-war Italy, where his actions cleaned and recycled fascists and set the stage for the cold war. His father was a strong supporter of Mussolini and, if I recall off hand, honorary head of the Milan Chamber of Commerce in the thirties. James Jesus had a thorough fascist family education. The OSS and the later CIA amounted to a Wall Street mafia, tactically anti-fascist when convenient.

But what is of more interest is the assassination of Italian deputy Giacomo Matteotti in 1924. According to recent research, his assassination may have also been ordered by Mussolini to prevent him from revealing the close business ties of Mussolini with American oil companies involved in the Teapot Dome scandal, a possible major scandal of corruption involving oil rights in Southern Italy, as well as intrigue in Iraq and Persia. Matteotti had received a dossier from the English socialists just days before his assassination and was to address parliament with his accusations.

The owners of the American oil companies involved were, just as their descendants are, well known for their far rightwing positions.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Sat Aug 4th, 2007 at 05:35:43 AM EST