Are Those Who Question 9/11 Anarchists?
Defenders of the official version of 9/11 claim that people who question the government's account are anarchists who want to tear down the United States of America.
This is important because many Americans in a position to be able to spread the truth or help to obtain justice will fight any effort which they think will destroy America.
Are 9/11 truth activists, in fact, anarchists?
Well, I've been involved in the 9/11 truth movement for years, have spoken with many of the leading advocates for 9/11 truth, and have been involved enough in various groups and discussion boards to have a sense of the types of people who question 9/11. Based on that experience, I would say no.
Specifically, I would guess that no more than 1% of those who question 9/11 are anarchists. The overwhelming majority are conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, greens, libertarians, grandparents, teenagers, young parents, professionals, professors, students, scientists, engineers, lawyers, politicians, architects, and others who love America and want to fix the system and improve the system, not destroy it. I believe that other long-time 9/11 truth activists, such as Steve Watson and Paul Joseph Watson, have similar estimates.
Indeed, most people who question 9/11 believe that most "anarchists" within the movement are actually agents provocateur hired by the government to disrupt the movement.
What Do We Have Now?
9/11 activist Jon Gold points out that "[anarchy is defined as] :
'1. a state of society without government or law.
2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control ....
* * *
4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.'
We currently have a society that can't hold the people sitting in the White House, that are responsible for so many damn crimes, accountable. Does that count as a "society without Government or law?"
In other words, Gold argues that we currently have anarchy in the U.S., because we have a rogue and criminal executive branch, and the rule of law is not being followed.
There is a strong argument that those running the country right now -- and not 9/11 truth activists -- are the true anarchists, as the former group wishes to create and profit from chaos and the destruction of the rule of law.
As I have previously written:
I am NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, I am calling for the reinstatement of our government. I am calling for an end to lawless dictatorship and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, I am calling for its enforcement. Do you disagree with these goals? If so, then YOU are anti-American.
Anarchy Doesn't Help
For those 9/11 truth advocates who promote anarchy because you sincerely believe it is better than any form of government, let me take a minute to respectfully address that idea.
Did you know that the same Founding Father who argued for periodic revolutions to keep the government honest also argued against tearing down something unless you have something better in mind to replace it? Its true. Thomas Jefferson, the most vocal advocate of the citizens' right to revolt to ensure honest government also cautioned against tearing something down unless it was for the express purpose of replacing it with something better.
Is Jefferson right?
Well, the law of entropy says things tend towards disorganization. It has taken billions of years for life to evolve from one-celled, to multi-celled, then on to plants, animals, smart monkeys, humans, then human society.
No one wants to tear down the state of organization so completely that we go back to monkeys (without the ability to talk), or one-celled critters . . . so the question is how much organization do we want to destroy?
Have you ever lived in the woods for a month with no backpack, no stove, no lighter, no high-tech sleeping bag? No, I didn't think so.
Do you want to live as a native american? Okay, but the native americans had survival skills, cultural traditions, and knowledge developed over many hundreds or thousands of years (especially counting knowledge gained before the migration from Asia to America), stored in the database of oral traditions. If you tear away all of that organization, you're going to be a lot more like this lonely guy than a native.
I could go on, but my basic point is that you need to think through how much organization you really are willing to give up before you go tearing everything down.
It is easy for a teenager to criticize his parents, but a lot harder to actually create a better adult life for himself. A teenager looks silly and immature when he criticizes everything his parents do without understanding the challenges he'll face as an adult. But a young person who rebels against his parents and then creates a better adult life is doing important and heroic work.
The Constitution and The Free Market
The Constitution is a brilliant document. Sure, its not 100% perfect. For example, people of color, women, and non-landowning men weren't counted as citizens. But the basic principles and vision enshrined in the Constitution are tremendously good.
The main problem is that the U.S. hasn't lived up to the Constitution. Even before the ink had dried on the document, anti-American forces -- who had ideas very different from those of the Founding Fathers -- worked to try to undermine and weaken it. Maybe we need some tweaks or even a constitutional convention to make sure that liberty is better protected, but the founding document is basically sound.
What about free market capitalism?
The situation in America today is that corruption is so rampant that the little guy doesn't get a fair shake and the corruption might cause the whole economy to come crashing down at any minute. But does that mean that free market capitalism itself doesn't work (like Karl Marx theorized)?
Well, we don't currently have free market capitalism. Some giant corporations pay little or no taxes The government gives huge grants to certain corporations as part of its effort to promote American exports. The government steps in to prop up the stock market when it is taking a nosedive. And laws are often skewed to favor the big guy. So the problem isn't necessarily with free market capitalism -- we don't have that system in America today.
Moreover, Adam Smith, the "father" of free market capitalism warned against the accumulation of too much wealth in too few hands. He warned that over-consolidation would corrupt the free market and destroy its benefits. So the problem isn't necessarily with Smith's idea of the free market, but our failure to heed Smith's warning about corruption of that system.
Finally, the free market only works if buyers have full information about costs -- both present and future. For example, let's say someone is deciding whether to buy a share of stock in an oil company, but he doesn't know that that oil company supports death squads in Iraq (hypothetically), which will in turn make millions of people in the middle east hate America, which in turn will lead to a world war (which the U.S. may very well start at the urging of the same oil company), which will bankrupt America, which will cause suffering for him and his family . . . .
Would he have bought that share in the oil company stock if he had known all of that? Probably not. If he had known that, he could have made a rational decision. Again, the problem is not necessarily with free market capitalism, but with failing to follow the basic principle that full information is needed for people to make their decisions. The problem is that the true costs of our government's and corporations' actions are being hidden from us.
Is communism better? Look at how Stalin treated his people! How can anyone espouse communism in this day and age?
Maybe someone can come up with a new, better system. But for now, tweaking the Constitutional form of government and free market capitalism is the best way to go, in my opinion.
Instead of tearing everything down and having to reinvent the wheel, and recreate the years of organization which have occurred, why not keep the good and throw out the bad? Throw out (and jail) all of the corrupt criminals who have perverted those systems. Throw out the mechanisms which create an uneven playing field for the wealth. Refine the systems in major ways so that they more accurately reflect the intentions of the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith.
I am not an apologist for the current criminal regime occupying the White House, Congress and many major corporations. All of the criminals should be tarred, feathered and jailed. All of the loopholes in the system should be closed, and the playing field leveled out.
But why start over with some paleolithic version of reality? Why not take the best of modern life and jettison the worst? Why have to start all over at square one?
Why not keep the momentum going of the insights and inspirations of the Founding Fathers and others throughout history who have dreamed big?
- GeorgeWashington's blog
- Login to post comments
I think it's important for people to see...
The definition of anarchy...
an·ar·chy –noun
We currently have a society that can't hold the people sitting in the White House, that are responsible for so many damn crimes, accountable. Does that count as a "society without Government or law?"
Who Is? Archives
Jon,
your comment was so insightful I added a new section, and quoted you.
You should...
Have kept my name out of it. You would have had a decisive vote of 10. :)
Who Is? Archives
GW:Thanks for pointing out that we don't have a free-market
I like this quote which points it out quite well:
"We do not have a free market when it comes to the money supply. And since the money permeates the entire market, it isn't much of a leap to conclude that we don't have a free market of any kind at all." - Michael Nystrom MBA (editor of DailyPaul.com)
Very interesting conversation
I would say number 4: confusion, chaos, disorder is the closest description of the "anarchism" of those in the White House and beyond. Although I would associate them more with a nihilistic will to power than any sort of "anarchism." The problem is that they are following the same path as the Third Reich in that they are making the law as they go along. They have entered a permanent state of emergency in which the unitary executive makes laws and drafts signing statements to create the new super-legal territory we all inhabit. This is why, after dozens of scandals, it seems like nothing will stick. And, of course, this is where the hard truth of 9-11 comes in. It WILL stick and it is the latest and most powerful national-security event upon which this super-legislative era is built.
Paul Craig Roberts and Jon Gold are both right about these people we are letting rule over us. They are the biggest lawbreakers of all and the most extreme and violently radicalized group in the land. I think I saw something on 911blogger here about using HR 1955/1959 as a way to investigate the White House and the rest of the neo-cons. I'd been thinking along the same lines. We want the government to investigate our beliefs, because, in terms of 9-11, they're based on facts. Name a group that fits the description of "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" better than this junta. I'm writing an article called "The Fitful Sleeper Cell in the White House" based on this idea. Let's get some damn Centers of Excellence to send us some USC professors to study the deeply disturbed ideology and actionable strategy of the neo-cons and their handlers.
Getting back to "anarchy," if you look at the word "anarchy" itself, the deeper layer of meaning that it suggests is "without hierarchy" rather than without law. In many ways, you can consider the step from a monarchy of a divine-right king to the democracy (meaning "rule by the will of the people" not "pure majority") of a constitutional republic (currently in the hands of a plutocratic oligarchy, true) as an an anarchistic move. It is a leveling of the governmental playing field.
In my eyes:
3 positive contributions of "anarchism:"
1) Faith that humans can figure out how best to care for themselves and each other when given the non-coercive space to do so, which stems from
2) An understanding that "laws" are founded on a deep mutual understanding and an instinctual and evolving ethical imperative that emanates from the human "spirit," and that the best publicly articulated laws attempt to describe that rather than dictate it which leads to
3) Respecting every human being as an individual with equal rights to pursue their own desires and express their unique differences.
3 negative "tyrannies of thought" that "anarchism" sometimes leads to:
1) That hierarchy of any sort in any situation is inherently bad or against human freedom (i.e. there is no such thing as earned position based on skill, experience or responsibility), meaning that
2) There is no room left for much of any level of government being that embedded hierarchies spring up immediately as humans tend towards community, society and governance (i.e. the individual becomes the family becomes the tribe becomes the town becomes the city becomes the state becomes the country becomes the world) whereas
3) Size/scale itself becomes the enemy rather than tyranny, when although more likely, and more easily accepted at larger scales, tyranny is possible at all scales of being (think about the ways you've treated yourself or your loved ones unfairly).
I would say that the USA has a deep streak of some of the best in "anarchism," of the value and pre-eminence of the individual as the source of sovereign power that any level of state power might desire to draw upon, i.e. the consent of the governed. I don't think the more problematic tendencies that we face can be solved just by scaling back the size of government (yes in some cases), but by scaling up the power, rights and responsibilities of the individual(s). And that's what I believe 9-11 truth and justice might lead to if we are focused. I also am writing an article where I title this possibility "The Treason Trial Dividend."
“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato
"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush
Ok, addressed the governance side, now economic, well almost
Before I hone in on economics, anarchism and the potentially creative role of government, let me make a few more points about the relationship of our Constitutional Republic to the best in anarchist thought. I should point out also, before I make these few points that I, like George Washington, am not talking in any way about the "overthrow" of the government. As I outlined early on in my legally mandated letter to Federal Judges on Bush and Cheney's treason ( http://www.911blogger.com/node/10746 ) about which I still have more follow up to complete:
"My intention is not to engage in sedition or libel, but to speak openly and honestly about the largest and most severe case of treason and mass murder in our history. I am not calling for the overthrow of our government but for the restoration of our government by bringing to justice those that have overthrown our government."
What is disturbing about our current state of governance is that there are so many laws (just go watch Henry Waxman talking about his relationship with the "thought crime" bill (HR 1955) he mindlessly and ignorantly voted for which will potentially rule the land- http://www.911blogger.com/node/13359 ) but the most fundamental and most ancient in their mandate, such as the mandates against murder and treason, are (semi)openly violated. This is why you cannot claim yourself to be a pro-constitutional, pro-American candidate or politician if you will not confront the most basic, pernicious and destructive breaking of the framing mandate (protect the life, liberty and possibility of happiness of the individuals whose sovereign power you claim to represent) by the highest officials of the land. And, in this case, I would say there is not one presidential candidate who has followed this basic legal and moral duty to its root, Paul, Kucinich, Gravel and McKinney included (though she is the closest I would say). I will expound on this idea in an article titled "Why "We the People's" Movement for 9-11 Truth and Justice is the Real Constitutional Candidate of '08."
Some of the genius of this country's framing documents is that their content implies the massive un-circumscribed space of freedom from which they draw their conclusions and which they remind us still exists no matter what manner of State comes into being. A couple examples of this are:
1) the idea in the Declaration of Independence that our rights and our equality (not our sameness) are "endowed" to us by our "Creator." If you don't like Godtalk, this can be redefined as "inherent in human nature" or "Spirit" "human destiny." But what is crucial to this formulation is that the Constitution and the government/State it engenders is NOT what gives to we individual human beings our rights, it only exists to secure them and to help define their space in a society of interlocking personhoods. This is a very anarchistic revelation.
2) the idea articulated in Bill of Rights that those rights defined are just the very minimum of freedoms that we have. There was much argument amongst the framers whether even defining these crucial few rights would imply that others did not exist. I see the wisdom in that argument, but am grateful that they went ahead and defined these few, or, I have a feeling, we would already be in full blown tyranny. When there is danger, real or fictitious, liberty can fly out the window quickly as Franklin warned us. Just the 1st and 2nd amendments (the potently practiced power of the 1st and the largely implied power of the 2nd) have been crucial to defending the ultimate liberty of the people against the fear and war mongering "perpetual emergency" National Security State.
4th Amendment=freedom to be left alone by the unreasonable and unjustified intrusion and/or coercion of the state. Most if not all the amendments in the Bill of Rights can be defined negatively in some way, meaning "freedom from" the State intruding upon these rights. 1st amendment=not freedom of speech, but freedom from laws made to obstruct our inherent freedoms of speech/press/assembly/religion. In this way, the Bill of Rights secures these rights and implies many more to be protected and enhanced through time. The last 2 amendments explicitly state this:
9th: Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights
and
10th: Powers of states and people
Again, a deeply anarchistic concept.
Ok, too long a post. I'll stop here and start on economics in a new post.
Economic implications and synergies of anarchism + capitalism
The most appropriate way to describe the junta currently in control is corporatism. Mussolini would have been in awe of the Bush/Cheney puppet-headed oil and war cartel. This is not libertarian free market capitalism. I think it is its right wing authoritarian opposite. Oil companies use government levers to gain access to the people's treasure to kill competition literally and figuratively.
In terms of tyrannies or authoritarian states, you have:
the Left (where the many tends to take precedence over the one) example of totalitarian Communism (Dictatorship of the Proletariat), where the State and Industry are merged with the State bureaucracy in the position of power
and
the Right (where the one tends to take precedence over the many) example of Fascism, articulated most famously by Mussolini as Corporatism, where Industry and the State are merged with Industry (or corporations) taking the driver's seat.
Interestingly enough, they end up looking very similar to each other, mangled messes of tyrannical overreach that serve to hinder the human quest for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or as I would say, life, liberty and the embrace of meaning in all its forms, happiness, sadness, confusion, inspiration, despair, hope, love... except for state-sponsored fear, war and madness of course.
Tyranny of all sorts-mental, physical, emotional and spiritual- are what we are clearly opposed to.
Capitalism, or a free market system based on profit, is linked to what I see as an inherent thrust or instinct in human beings, namely, the deep desire to compete. Whether looking at the evolution of species (whether or not you see design in that process and its resultant forms) or the play of youngsters on a playground, the human desire to compete as an individual and as a team is powerful. I see the better qualities of a capitalist free-market system as related to sublimating, transmuting or focusing this urge to compete into a game that can have benefits for human life; for competition can take the form of sports, b-boy/MC/DJ battles, the upkeep of Moore's Law of doubling micro-processor speeds, or tribal warfare and nuclear proliferation.
However, it must be recognized that while the surface of capitalism is competition, directly beneath that is a vast and deep network of interdependence and cooperation, which is also a deep, deep human instinct. While the NYSE daily delivers a battle for investment and stockprice, the infrastructure depended upon for the traders and bankers to both get to work (streets/powergrids/trains) and be able to have the capacity to work (read/write/rithmatic, let alone biological sources of food) is a work of finely tuned cooperation. The same thing can be said about the evolutionary process. Too much has been made of crude Darwinian "natural" selection. Operating right beneath the surface of the ecological law of the jungle as a battle to the death or "eat or be eaten," is, literally, the underground law of the rhizomatic, cooperative, internodally-communicative ecosystem as a "humming being", further expanded into the living, breathing panetary being of the "Gaia Hypothesis" (co-conceived by 9-11 truther Lynn Margulis).
So, to me, the question is how then to facilitate the creation and nurturing of an economic set-up that properly balances these two crucial forces and gives to them their proper place?
First, it should be pointed out that cooperatives, which are an economic model that anarchists have both embraced and helped develop, are very close in their structural composition to a standard "for profit" corporation. The main difference in structure is that the hierarchical composition is more tightly knit (closer connection professionally, personally and pay-scale-wise from bottom to top) and has a more closed loop in terms of where the "profit" goes. Instead of having a Board of Directors and investors who are mainly disincarnate to the daily work of the business itself, both the "Board" and the "investors" are made up of those that work the business. And, has been shown in the Mondragon network of cooperatives in the Basque region towards the north of Spain (or some would just say "North of Spain"), it ironically appears that well run cooperatives will out-compete the standard corporate model. But this makes inherent sense. If those who work for a business are more involved in reaping the benefits and playing a role in management and long term planning, there tends to be more of a sense of "ownership," responsibillity and care in the quality of the work being done and the long-term intent of the fiscal planning.
I believe that there are powerful synergies that can work with the best of these different types of economic models which can be stirred into the mix of American traditions such as- innovation, worker comraderie, states and townships as laboratories of possibility, good-natured and legally bound but fierce competition, and a commitment to equal opportunity- to create immense creativity, abundance and possibility.
Working with the idea of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, I think that the further down to the root of needs (i.e. food/shelter/healthcare) you go, the less dependent on a global system of cut-throat competitive capitalism you want to be and the more related to a local and cooperative source you do want to be. For example, you don't want to be dependent on Bechtel for your access to fresh water if you are in Bolivia (or anywhere for that matter), but being dependent on Intel for access to micro-processing power is probably a better bet than your local neighborhood computer co-op (though these days I guess you never know what might be possible).
So, here are a few ideas, from my "Treason Trial Dividend" article, that I think might work well in the USA.
Health care/food-1st of all, we need to stop talking about "healthcare" as if it is all about access to high-end medical technologies and affordable pharmaceuticals. This is a tyrannical and myopic way of thinking about this problem, and it is a problem. We face a serious health crisis in this country that we are handing down in even worse forms to the coming generations. In order to deal with "healthcare," we need to talk about "health." And as the father of Western medicine Hippocrates said, we should "Let food be [our] medicine." A very simple, but crucial starting place for proper healthcare is securing access for all people to good food, clean water and fresh air. If these elements are not present, then no matter how many pills, invasive surgical techniques or health spas we have access to, we will be burying ourselves in band-aids in a shallow grave. So, the preamble to a well-organized, IMHO at least somewhat state sponsored (at all levels of government), community-directed, neighborhood physician system is rejuvenating and cleaning up our air and watersheds, and initiating multitudinous Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) cooperatives to recreate the family farm, or something that scale, in an organic or bio-dynamic growing process. This will also draw back together the ancient and highly interdependent relationship between town and country, city and rural.
Education-
Justice Thurgood Marshall once made the point that 1st amendment are fundamentally dependent on an access to education, being that you can't freely express unless you know of something you want to say and literate (aurally and textually) enough to say it. So, being that the Preamble speaks to the Common Welfare and our free speech rights are dependent on access to good education, basing school funding so heavily on property taxes sets the next generation into an immediately unequal situation and is anti-American I think. The way I would propose doing it is financing education fully and equally across the nation on the federal level, being that a well educated group of citizens is the most powerful source of liberty and security a nation can have, and allow the spending decision to be completely decided. The only federal mandates that local schools would have to live up to in terms of education should be civics (understanding your role as a citizen), and basic literacy (math and verbal). Of course, opting out, in the form of home-schooling or charter schooling would be a family's inherent right.
Energy/currency-
Instead of having a fiat currency, not-so-secretly backed by oil control and military might, or even an openly "backed" old-school scenario of precious metals, I think we should drive a move to hyperlocal, renewable energy production, by backing our American currency in new renewable electricity capacity and, possibly, in informational system capacity (broadband and wifi networks). We do have the Saudi Arabia of wind in the middle of this country. And when you combine a strong move to solar/wind/geothermal with land-based energy sources such as switchgrass, cannabis and algae-based biofuels, as is already beginning to happen, you reinvigorate the heartland and the rural areas of this country, which will benefit everybody very quickly. Just as you can set-up CSA's for good food, you can set-up Community Supported Renewable Energy Projects where, hypothetically, you could have community or individual investment in a new green energy project met halfway by the government (a mix of federal, state, local), which could then launch simultaneously a Community Development Corporation and a Community Credit Union with a Community Backed Currency (scalable to the global level because its based on a universally desirable, translatable and easily measured good- green power, the ability to do work over time, in a clean and renewable manner).
Just a start.
And just wait till we permaculturalize the Pentagon, then we'll be walking and talking like a sovereign, responsible and inspiring citizen of the international community.
For now though, we gotta hone in on speaking the truth with power about treason in the White House and beyond. But it never hurts to dream, scheme and plan for what is coming.
“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato
"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush
Documentary
Show your families and communities this film ASAP. This will dispel so many myths and misconceptions, including those about anarchy, democracy and more. They have NOTHING on this film. The truth is innate and self evident.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_A_Republic_If_We_Can_Keep_It
"Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth." - George Washington
"Liberty will not descend to a people; a people must raise themselves to liberty; it is a blessing that must be earned before it can be enjoyed." - ?
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan 'press on' has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race." ~ Calvin Coolidge
spread these quotes and documentary if you can
USA is a constitutional republic not democracy. We are not governed by the majority of the people but by the rule of law. The rule of law protects the minority and weak from the tyranny of the majority. We all have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters. If the majority of the people want security and is willing to sacrifice liberty, the government still cannot infringe on the rights of the majority nor minority. Democracies are mob rule.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Freedom: Two very hungry wolves looking for dinner and finding a very well-informed and well-armed sheep.
"Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference." - Ron Paul
Take action everyday and every 11th. EMA: educate, motivate, activate. Many hands make light work.
Consider joining forces with those who try to prevent history from repeating itself. Become a student of history. We know of no better way to predict the future than by the past.
Ron Paul, perhaps a final warning to apathetic Americans that Our forgotten legacy of a Republic is at risk. Our Liberties and our Currency ... all are collapsing.
Learn the elemental difference between a Democracy and a Republic. A precise, clear film about what's at risk; why, and the urgent demand for action.
History, it would seem, is about ready to repeat itself, with yet another doomed Empire that simply over-extended and economically collapsed from within. Similarly evident to all from the outside, but completely obscured to the citizenry who are about to perish. The Romans call to America from their graves............WAKE UP!
There are lots of good movements around the world for peace and justice, but most are just picking scales off of a dragon. Limited government, protection of the individual and 9/11 truth will be the only ways for us to protect the liberty of our children and the rest of the earth.
http://FreeAtLast2008.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
http://9-11.Meetup.com/322
Many hands make light work!
International truth action every day, every 11th!
Not Black Block
Many in the anarchist community in Portland, Oregon are turning their backs on 9/11 truth. They associate 9/11 truth with Alex Jones, and strongly disagree with his stand on illegal immigration. It is now extremely difficult to get 9/11 truth articles published on Portland Indymedia.
Associating 9/11 truth with Black Block anarchists is ridiculous. 9/11 truth IS about not having blind faith in authority. This involves shades of gray in questioning authority. It is not a case of white and Black Bloc.
Are 9/11 truth activists, in fact, anarchists?
I don't know about the rest of you but yes, I consider myself an anarchist. By that I mean I do not recognize the group of thugs that are running America. In my opinion, the entire government is nothing more than a bunch of well dressed gangsters. I believe the criminality of our present government is unparalleled in all of human history.
I'm with maddog
I've done "black bloc" actions myself before and shortly after 9/11. I've considered myself an anarchist since pre-9/11. I was involved with the anti-globalization movement before and shortly following 9/11. 9/11 utterly DESTROYED the anti-globalization movement (aka global justice movement)...at least the North American sect of it. I was absolutely dumbstruck and befuddled immediately after 9/11 that I was the only self-considered anarchist I knew of who questioned the official story of the 9/11 attacks. My initial reasoning for suspecting 'inside job' was due to the fact that in late Sept. of '01 an enormous protest was being planned for Washington D.C. against the IMF and World Bank in which at least a hundred thousand activists were to descend upon the nation's capital in an effort to physically shut it down. Those plans were in fact in the works just prior to 9/11. 9/11 changed all that. There was still a large-scale mobilization but it transformed into preventing the Afghani war. The actions that took place were much less direct-action-oriented.
Overall I'm perplexed and disgusted with self-proclaimed anarchists, anti-capitalists, and other such anti-authoritarians--the latter a more appropriate description of my philosophy since "anarchism" seems so archaic at this point--in the U.S. who obstinately refuse to even CONSIDER the possiblity that the U.S. government would murder its own citizens. And even to this day. It's nothing short of apalling, not to even mention laughably ironic. I'm happy to see that at least maddog on here understands the reality of false flag terrorism, unlike the vast majority of our so-called comrades who would (no doubt in my mind) leave us dangling off a cliff if they knew we were 9/11 truthers. I've actually been banned from posting on the www.infoshop.org site for supporting the cause of 9/11 truth.
All the hopes and dreams of revolutionary justice and transformation I had during the rise of the 'global justice movement' was shattered when it (the movement) faded away the months following Sept. 11. And that's precisely what it did. Sure, remnants such as Indymedia still exist, and yet even sites such as those have become de facto Gatekeeping sites, infiltrated or otherwise. Portland IMC (www.portland.indymedia.org) was essentially the only IMC that regularly had 9/11 truth articles posted on it, and now (as mentioned above) censorship has now infested even that site.
I sorta forgot where I was going with this after all the digressing, but suffice it to say that the majority of those who call themselves anarchists (at least those in the U.S.) have absolutely no conception of the reality we face today. They focus their energies on a myriad of capillaries while ignoring the main arteries almost wholesale. They become verbally hostile and belligerent when challenged. This wasn't so much the case before 9/11, however. Of course the big baddies during those days to us were the IMF and FTAA (while ignoring Bilderburg, etc.). In fact the concept of "NWO" was only a hinted at, peripheral notion to those working within the anti-globalization struggle. 9/11 did in fact wake me up to how deep the rabbit hole actually goes. Well, at least that it certainly goes much deeper than economic-global subjugation of the planet's resources and people, as the likes of Naomi Klein are still clinging to (she, along with Amy Goodman, were 2 idols of mine before 9/11 btw).
Now this is for those involved in 9/11 truth who DON'T consider themselves anarchists:
Anarchism (let's abandon the word "anarchy" shall we?) is not about disorder. It is not about chaos. Anarchism is the idea that humans, when not coerced, can coordinate cooperative communities in the name of equality and freedom, unhindered. Crime and human misbehavior are CONSEQUENCES of centralized government. The traditional anarchist understands that a central form of authority will ONLY expand and become tyrannical. It is inevitable. And as of 2008 we can certainly see that they are correct at least in this case, no? The powers that be are the ANTITHESIS of everything a genuine anarchist stands for. Many within the Native American population practiced forms of anarchism prior to the intrusions of the white culture, as touched upon in the original article. Of course they scoff at the word, as even I do, but the basic thesis is the same. Central authority corrupts inevitably and when left unchecked, it becomes a cancer upon the world, which of course is what the global elite has become today by craft and design.
Either way it doesn't matter, because to the elite, those who question 9/11 ARE anarchists whether we consider ourselves such or not because we do in fact represent the current power's complete obliteration.
Oh and..."anarchist" is just another label. In reality maddog and I arent' anarchists, we're freedom seekers who desire fundamental transformation in how humans relate to eachother and the environment around us. And I didn't need 9/11 to bring me to that point, I was already recognizing the increasing harm being done to our planet. Another term, by the way, for anarchist is "social libertarian". Noam Chomsky pretends to be one.
A very nice read,
TruthNow. In light of what you said, isn't it interesting how the US public has been *trained* to associate terms like 'anarchist' and 'conspiracy theory' with nutballs?
Yup.
Thanks Kev. And yet, the very people one might expect to be the first to question the official conspiracy theory (anarchists) are precisely the ones who are the most opposed to questioning it. They do whatever they can within their power to distance themselves from the label "conspiracy theorist" due to their conditioning. Radical progressives (including the gatekeeping left-media) in this country are the primary obstacle in the way of 9/11 truth going viral in the U.S. Believe it or not, they are. Man...who would have thought?! Oh, the dichotomies!
Good Post
TruthNow
I am glad you wrote that response. I was gonna write something similar, but didn't get the chance. I too have been involved prior to 911 with the anti-corporate globalization movement, and immediately saw the effects of 911. I have also been involved with indymedia since Seattle, and have been incredibly frustrated with the left-gatekeepers (Chomsky, Goodman, Soloman, Robert Jensen, Barsamian (the chomsky proxy), Cockburn, etc, etc), generally all pundits or academics who in some way rely on official respectability for their livelihoods. And in fact, I think most of them take their cues from Chomsky, ignoring the science and the scientific methods. It's striking how afraid they are to touch this subject. In many cases, I think they are cowards.
Further, the anti-authoritarian movement does indeed suffer serious problems, but for those on this site, I agree with it's fundamental critiques of the state, of power, and of hieararchy. I am also deeply concerned about the xenophobia of the likes of Alex Jones, et al. I find that those without a critique of the state are generally susceptible to its most vicious tactic of using racism and xenophobia to build a nationalist rhetoric against "the other".
My main question for 911 Truth Advocates who are anti-immigrant is: How can you believe anything those in power say or do after 911? Furthermore, why do you cling to a state structure that is essentially 1/3 oligarchy, 1/3 plutocracy, and 1/3 meritocracy? Being anti-immigrant is to buy into the worst forms of state/capitalist propaganda and the divide and conquer strategy. Our focus should be on centers of power, not attacking the powerless.
But that is the beauty of 911 Truth, in that there is common ground for a mass movement and a critique of the state, and this government in particular. We need a popular movement right now against fascism as well. And many 911 Truthers are certainly at the forefront of that.
me 3
i don't consent to be ruled by ANYBODY
Good discussion on Constitution and Capitalism
I'm afraid the Bush regime is intent on tearing up the Constitution
I'm also convinced free market capitalism has been another manipulation.
It's just a veneer of capitalism and it's been fascist corporatism for at least a century. Corporations benefit from laws that allow many manipulations not afforded any other entity. There's been ledger magic and a strong arm mentality in the free market for some time.
I'm afraid we won't need to figure out whether we're anarchists. We'll be labeled as "against us," if we express as much as dissent against the government.
The FEMA camps are real, the Military Commissions ACT of 2006 is real. Beech Grove, Ind. is real. These are the same techniques as employed in the last Century. It's becoming obvious.
I just hope those responsible fail.
...don't believe them!
Anarchists?
Of course, we are anarchists.
"I am an antichrist
I am an anarchist
Dont know what I want but
I know how to get it
I wanna destroy..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH-7kc4Qm2Y
What's the matter with you
What's the matter with you bores? "Anarchy in the UK" by the Sex pistols is one of the defining rock anthems of the 1900's.
Apart from that, I agree with posters that disagree with the original poster.
The Bush adm are not anarchists in any way. Anarchists are the good guys.
Engineers or professors can be anarchists
I´m a spanish truther activist about false flag terrorism (9/11, 7/7, 3/11, etc.). In Europe many of us are of “radical left” (anarchists, anti-authoritarian autonomous, etc.). May be in USA is only 1%, it´s a different culture. But I don´t understand the sense of this post. His author doesn’t know anything about real anarquism and similar groups, Proudhon, Kropotkin, Paris Comune, the ukranian and the spanish revolution, the anti-globalization, etc. It doesn’t have any sense what he´s saying, we don´t want to go to paleolithic or to destroy the world like military-industrial complex, they are authoritarians and not anarquists. I think it´s absurd to be against the false flag terrorism and in favour of the system that causes it (how it cause labour slavery, peak oil, war, etc.) but I will never post a message in a 9/11 forum saying that you can not be conservative and look for the truth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism
I would have been down with the Spanish anarchists in the 30's
If I had been alive, I might have come over from the US to Europe to engage the fascists with the Spanish anarchists. The anarchists have always been the most thoughtful and grounded of leftists. Their faith in human goodness is very powerful.
“Strange times are these in which we live when old and young are taught in falsehoods school. And the one man that dares to tell the truth is called at once a lunatic and fool.” –Plato
"We must speak the truth about terror." --George W. Bush
Abject ignorance
This is by far the goofiest, most error-ridden article I've ever seen on the front page of 911blogger. I'll post a detailed dissection in the next few days on the truthaction forum. Stay tuned.
Danse...
I totally agree. The word anarchy has been so misused and abused that even the most well-meaning folks (like the original poster of this article) sound ignorant and rude to those who consider themselves anti-authoritarians. Those who are in power are ANYTHING BUT anarchists. To call them such is to gravely insult people who really do possess anarchist principles and ideals.
PLease see my response to Shumonik's excellent post
here: http://911blogger.com/node/13456
Regarding TruthNow comments
TruthNow
I am glad you wrote that response. I was gonna write something similar, but didn't get the chance. I too have been involved prior to 911 with the anti-corporate globalization movement, and immediately saw the effects of 911. I have also been involved with indymedia since Seattle, and have been incredibly frustrated with the left-gatekeepers (Chomsky, Goodman, Soloman, Robert Jensen, Barsamian (the chomsky proxy), Cockburn, etc, etc), generally all pundits or academics who in some way rely on official respectability for their livelihoods. And in fact, I think most of them take their cues from Chomsky, ignoring the science and the scientific methods. It's striking how afraid they are to touch this subject. In many cases, I think they are cowards.
Further, the anti-authoritarian movement does indeed suffer serious problems, but for those on this site, I agree with it's fundamental critiques of the state, of power, and of hieararchy. I am also deeply concerned about the xenophobia of the likes of Alex Jones, et al. I find that those without a critique of the state are generally susceptible to its most vicious tactic of using racism and xenophobia to build a nationalist rhetoric against "the other".
My main question for 911 Truth Advocates who are anti-immigrant is: How can you believe anything those in power say or do after 911? Furthermore, why do you cling to a state structure that is essentially 1/3 oligarchy, 1/3 plutocracy, and 1/3 meritocracy? Being anti-immigrant is to buy into the worst forms of state/capitalist propaganda and the divide and conquer strategy. Our focus should be on centers of power, not attacking the powerless.
But that is the beauty of 911 Truth, in that there is common ground for a mass movement and a critique of the state, and this government in particular. We need a popular movement right now against fascism as well. And many 911 Truthers are certainly at the forefront of that.
Agitkid.
ps. TruthNow: are you familiar with Bookchin's communalism and social ecology? I highly recommend AK's latest book by that title.
Dude, your pen-name alone ...
honors a slave-owner, the richest man in the colonies, the leader of a class war (the one that followed after the British were kicked out). I don't know why, since I bet you don't meet the same economic profile.
Now you want to angle for respectability on behalf of 9/11 truth by banishing the dread a-word, for which you accept the distorted definitions provided by the very same media who dismiss your own beliefs about 9/11 as "conspiracy theory."
This movement absolutely was pioneered by anarchist thinkers and old hippies - can you imagine straights would have figured out 9/11 from the first day forward - and its anti-statist spirit and d0-it-yourself works (both the good and the bad, actually) are entirely in the anti-statist tradition of anarchism.
---
"Truth is not measured in mass appeal."
summeroftruth.org