Share this
Mister Wong
Digg
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Googlize this
Blinklist
Facebook
Wikio
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Naomi or Noam Am I?
by Peter Zaza
Not sure if that's a clue for a cryptic crossword, or I'm about to tell you a story. I went to see Naomi Klein a few nights ago here in Victoria BC Canada.
by Peter Zaza
Not sure if that's a clue for a cryptic crossword, or I'm about to tell you a story. I went to see Naomi Klein a few nights ago here in Victoria BC Canada. She was finishing up a book tour for her recently released "The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism" before heading abroad for the next stage of her promotional tour.
In this excellent book Klein exposes how catastrophic events become extremely profitable for corporations while enabling governments to further an agenda of "disaster capitalism".
As
a speaker she brings together an aspect that at once encompasses her
excellent research abilities while showing a personal warmth that
enhances the impact of her arguments. I found her to be both very
informative and engaging with the audience. She took a few questions
afterwards and it was then I found myself questioning some of her
views. The second speaker up to the microphone was a gentleman here in
Victoria whom I happen to know named Hal Sisson.
Let me tell you something about Hal Sisson. This man is a noted author with 10 books published, he is a life-long social activist, spent 40 years as a lawyer, he's been a stand-up comic, and a few other vestments and layers I've yet to delve into. He's also 86 years old and a rare sort of individual who retains a sharp mental faculty despite their age. Most times I'm with him I forget that this icon is almost twice as old as myself.
Let me tell you something about Hal Sisson. This man is a noted author with 10 books published, he is a life-long social activist, spent 40 years as a lawyer, he's been a stand-up comic, and a few other vestments and layers I've yet to delve into. He's also 86 years old and a rare sort of individual who retains a sharp mental faculty despite their age. Most times I'm with him I forget that this icon is almost twice as old as myself.
I'm heartened to think that it is possible for some of us to
keep it so together despite the ravages of time, but usually it's about
then I lose my thought and start looking for my keys only to find them
in my own pocket. Hal is also a prominent member of the Victoria 9/11
Truth organization - amongst my friends in this group we share a quiet
reverence for this man, as well as an appreciation for being able to
benefit from his wisdom and experience.
Hal Sisson's question was, "In view of your remarks relating to events which create economic emergencies and subsequent capitalistic opportunities and predations - disaster capitalism - do you have any comment or opinion in regard to the fact that many of them may well be covert false-flag operations by rogue elements of western government or intelligence agencies - events such as 9/11, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Madrid and British bombings?"
Hal Sisson's question was, "In view of your remarks relating to events which create economic emergencies and subsequent capitalistic opportunities and predations - disaster capitalism - do you have any comment or opinion in regard to the fact that many of them may well be covert false-flag operations by rogue elements of western government or intelligence agencies - events such as 9/11, the Gulf of Tonkin or the Madrid and British bombings?"
This was exactly what I kept thinking about all evening while she
described events like Katrina, the tsunami that devastated the coasts
of Southeast Asia, or the fires in Greece. In many instances
governments will clearly manipulate people's misfortune to push through
repressive laws and gross examples of economic opportunism after such
events, but I was also interested in her thoughts on how some of these
events are purposely created within the Hegelian dialectic.
Although
she is clearly willing to unveil post 9/11 misdeeds such as the
out-sourcing of war operations to Halliburton and Blackwater, it is the
event itself and the forces behind it to which Hal Sisson's
interrogative bespeaks.
Her answer started out all right - she said, "First of all, I'm not so sure I would put anything past these people. It's just that with these conspiracy theories I feel that we're taking away all this energy that could be going toward other issues that are so important right now".
Alarm bells started ringing in my head, I
immediately thought to myself "female Chomsky". I've actually seen and
read interviews where Noam Chomsky comes right out and says, "It's not
important who is behind 9/11, there are so many other things these
people are guilty of...other things are more important." or "it's just
an Internet thing". Sorry Noam - I believe it is THE most important
thing.
My blood boils every day when I read a news piece about the War
of Terror or anything to do with the Department of Homeland Criminals,
or especially the frequent reports about another one or two hundred
Iraqis dead or wounded.
You have the unmitigated gall to insinuate that it is not important when our own soldiers are giving their lives away based on this horrible lie?
You have the unmitigated gall to insinuate that it is not important when our own soldiers are giving their lives away based on this horrible lie?
I'm sickened to think that
some people can be so callously indifferent or morally bankrupt not to
connect the obvious dots in this situation. Moreover, why should it be
such a mental stretch for anyone to even imagine that the US government
was complicit in 9/11 when we have so much declassified material
showing their guilt in perpetrating such acts.
That's why Hal Sisson's
question is so relevant - because we know as a matter of historical
fact that the Gulf of Tonkin and many others were false-flag
operations, self-inflicted wounds - we know they are more than capable
of it and it is a technique used by military powers since ancient
times. This is not some ludicrous idea, and to pull out the old
utility-knife catch phrase "conspiracy theory" and smear anybody who
questions the official doctrine is not only offensive - it represents
the shoddiest form of logic I can imagine.
You should have heard the crowd at that precise moment. As soon as she said "conspiracy theories" there was a murmur of disapproval toward the questioner, it was like a bunch of trained monkeys who stand up all at once when the buzzer goes off - and when she wrapped all of us independently thinking individuals into a neat ball and drop-kicked us in the gonads with the following summation, "It's just that with these conspiracy theories I feel that we're taking away all this energy that could be going toward other issues that are so important right now" - the audience burst into applause.
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." - Einstein
You should have heard the crowd at that precise moment. As soon as she said "conspiracy theories" there was a murmur of disapproval toward the questioner, it was like a bunch of trained monkeys who stand up all at once when the buzzer goes off - and when she wrapped all of us independently thinking individuals into a neat ball and drop-kicked us in the gonads with the following summation, "It's just that with these conspiracy theories I feel that we're taking away all this energy that could be going toward other issues that are so important right now" - the audience burst into applause.
The mood was something like, "There,
that should put to rest you 9/11 truth idiots, way to go Naomi - we are
cognitively dissonant en masse".
I was crestfallen at that moment when
I saw first hand the results of some studies that show greater than 80%
of the public are too apathetic and will just as soon swallow up the
government's propaganda as think for themselves.
Sure, we've got our
Naomi Kleins and Noam Chomskys to stand just a little on one side of
the gate while many followers believe they lead the vanguard against
the controllers - but no way will they go that extra step and take a
peek over that wall.
I'm not saying she is employed by them or even
necessarily conscious of it - perhaps within her own paradigm she
resembles many who just can't imagine our leaders murdering some of us
on purpose to further their agenda, and yet that's what war is all
about. That's the part that is puzzling - she has no trouble expounding
on the methodologies of torture and crisis manipulation by these
people, but her natural curiosity and professional assiduousness stop
short at the root causes of 9/11. Maybe she feels that if she touches
that truth her days flying about doing book tours are over.
Naomi's worried about how much energy I've got. Little does she know I'm a seething mass of thermo-nuclear potential.
I've got enough in me to
listen to her build her arguments, present her thorough research, and
draw together elements for her theories. And whoa - look at that, I've
still got plenty left over to examine the various aspects of 9/11 - who
da thunk?
As well, since when is it up to you to decide what subject is
deserving of my energy? How would you feel if someone just wrote off
your entire theory by smearing it with a brush and saying, "it's just
not important"?
Sorry Naomi, I'm disappointed - I still think you are great author with important, well presented information that everyone should be made aware of, but your inability to step over that line and deal with 9/11 is problematic to myself and others - this is precisely the difficulty we face when it comes to the wider population's suspension of disbelief regarding this issue. The reaction of that audience demonstrates so poignantly the struggle we face in bringing forth the truth about 9/11.
Sorry Naomi, I'm disappointed - I still think you are great author with important, well presented information that everyone should be made aware of, but your inability to step over that line and deal with 9/11 is problematic to myself and others - this is precisely the difficulty we face when it comes to the wider population's suspension of disbelief regarding this issue. The reaction of that audience demonstrates so poignantly the struggle we face in bringing forth the truth about 9/11.
Set as favorite
Bookmark
Email This
Comments (7)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by a guest, October 15, 2007
How frustrating it is to see a talented person such as Klein elaborate on a key use of mass conditioning and then not apply it to the key event of our times! It goes to show just how effective this 'shock doctrine' is! If she had a better understanding how the minds of the people who create and execute this doctrine work, I bet she'd be able to think a bit better.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by a guest, October 16, 2007
Impressive to see a respectful criticism of the reticence of prominent progressives to ask the hardest questions about 911. I add to it my essay, "Why the Left Should Not Be Hostile to 9/11 Truth Efforts" linked here:http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=2007032.
On a personal note, Chomsky was my professor at MIT and has been one of the most important people in my life. I wrote him in July 2005 asking him to condemn my 911 truth activism in lesser terms than most would expect. His answer was that he wouldn't condemn it, but he asked I not try to interest him in it. Subsequently, of course, he has been drawn into the fray, at least a bit.He noted once that there is no peer reviewed work on the issue, which is no longer the case.
The question I have for progressive scholars who deny the validity of power structure research into 9/11: where do you draw the line between the evidence which came from whistleblower Daniel Ellsburg in the 70's and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds in recent years?
On a personal note, Chomsky was my professor at MIT and has been one of the most important people in my life. I wrote him in July 2005 asking him to condemn my 911 truth activism in lesser terms than most would expect. His answer was that he wouldn't condemn it, but he asked I not try to interest him in it. Subsequently, of course, he has been drawn into the fray, at least a bit.He noted once that there is no peer reviewed work on the issue, which is no longer the case.
The question I have for progressive scholars who deny the validity of power structure research into 9/11: where do you draw the line between the evidence which came from whistleblower Daniel Ellsburg in the 70's and whistleblower Sibel Edmonds in recent years?
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by a guest, October 17, 2007
Let me make it plain and simple. Any conspiracy that assumes that the U'S Gov't was behind 911 has two inherent flaws in it. Number 1 it assumes that the gov't is smart enough to pull it off and number 2 it assumes that it can keep a secret. Wrong on both accounts. These actually aren't my words but rather those of Richard Clarke. For crying out loud, Clinton couldn't even get a blow job without the whole world finding out, yet you think they could cover this up without even one leak.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by a guest, November 13, 2007
The problems with the last comment are multiple. First, it dismisses without examination the physical evidence in support of controlled demolition by making assumptions. There is a world of difference between a fact and an opinion based on assumptions like they aren't smart enough, or they couldn't keep it secret.
The second problem is that they could keep it secret enough. With the enormous lack of care and curiosity displayed by the American public, you wouldn't have to be that good to keep from getting your cover completely blown.
Third, the US government kept a doomsday weapons program involving 30,000 plus people and a entire new town secret during WW II--the Manhattan project. It's been done before, so it can be done.
Finally, if you where in on such a plot, you wouldn't be very likely to reveal it for three reasons. First, you would likely have no conscience anyway if you willingly did such a thing. Second, you would be guilty of a capital offense. Somehow, I think the death penalty would come into play somewhere. Third, if they are capable of killing that many innocent people at once, how long would it take them to kill an informer and his family? Not very long.
The idea that such a thing could not be kept secret is superficial and doesn't make sense.
The second problem is that they could keep it secret enough. With the enormous lack of care and curiosity displayed by the American public, you wouldn't have to be that good to keep from getting your cover completely blown.
Third, the US government kept a doomsday weapons program involving 30,000 plus people and a entire new town secret during WW II--the Manhattan project. It's been done before, so it can be done.
Finally, if you where in on such a plot, you wouldn't be very likely to reveal it for three reasons. First, you would likely have no conscience anyway if you willingly did such a thing. Second, you would be guilty of a capital offense. Somehow, I think the death penalty would come into play somewhere. Third, if they are capable of killing that many innocent people at once, how long would it take them to kill an informer and his family? Not very long.
The idea that such a thing could not be kept secret is superficial and doesn't make sense.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Winston Smith, December 21, 2007
Our perception of daily affairs that our senses report is mostly faulty, our believes about affairs we haven't witnessed in person depends on psychological group phenomena. If enough people claim a certain lie, it is psychologically and sociologically more efficient to adapt the majority opinion, and the reactions to Naomi Klein's gatekeeping provide evidence for this mental lethargy.
Changing a majority opinion is a difficult process, but it can be done. People believed that women need no right to vote, that indigenious people need no right vote, that it's okay to have slaves, but persistent majorities managed to sway this harmful illusions.
Thank you for a well written article that has the power to change the minds of those who are not convinced to know everything already. People can be driven by a desire for freedom or avoidance of fear. Losing your fears is no loss at all.
Changing a majority opinion is a difficult process, but it can be done. People believed that women need no right to vote, that indigenious people need no right vote, that it's okay to have slaves, but persistent majorities managed to sway this harmful illusions.
Thank you for a well written article that has the power to change the minds of those who are not convinced to know everything already. People can be driven by a desire for freedom or avoidance of fear. Losing your fears is no loss at all.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by Stein Bauge, April 19, 2009
I believe Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky have done a great work to make people think for themselves,
and become involved.
I think people should take them up on that and not crave that they be political leaders.
Chomsky says he started writing on politics after he found he sucked as an organizer.
I'm sure they have reasons for staying out of the fray, it would probably make their research work
harder if not impossible.
She might have used another word than conspiracy theory though and people should not just lap up all she says.
and become involved.
I think people should take them up on that and not crave that they be political leaders.
Chomsky says he started writing on politics after he found he sucked as an organizer.
I'm sure they have reasons for staying out of the fray, it would probably make their research work
harder if not impossible.
She might have used another word than conspiracy theory though and people should not just lap up all she says.
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
written by African Shaman from Mzansi, October 01, 2009
My opinion after reading Noami Klein's The Shock Doctrine, some Noam (Moan:-))Chomsky stuff and John Pilger's compilation Tell Me No Lies is that Klein and Chomsky, being US Citizens, [Naomi Klein is a Canadian citizen. -ed.] realise the core consequence of Bush and friend's engineering the events around 911 to secure oil reserves in Iraq and oil pipelines through Afghanistan. And they have jobs and economic interest to protect. John Pilger, unlike Klein and Moansky, definitely has a more open view and do not regard 911 as a holy cow that should not be investigated.
The core consequence is: Bushes' USA and allies (Blair's UK, Australia, Israel etc.)who illegally invaded Afghanistan and Iraq are just as guilty of extremely serious war crimes as Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany was. So if they engineered 911 as pretext to invade Afghanistan & Iraq, and this is substantiated by a new "US Truth Commission" and the World Court, the USA and allies should pay war damages to Afghanistan and Iraq! That is likely to cripple the economies of these countries who are already affected by the current global economic crisis. US & UK politicians, even if they are / were against Bush & Blair, also realise this and therefore keep quiet. Therefore to get critical support, the opposition politicians need a way out in order to come out of the closet.
If the countries are held liable for war damages it will be as disastrous for the citizens of these countries as the wars was for the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq. Why should taxpayer's bail out the ruling and financial elite as is happening now with international banks that first go bankrupt and then are saved with the tax money of the citizens who still has to pay their debts to those banks!!! But it is particularly individuals in the governments of these countries and global arms manufacturers,oil companies(Haliburton etc.)and other corporate cronies, who are actually responsible for and deliberately misled & ignored the citizens of these countries and UN resolutions to commit these war crimes. So it is they and not the tax payers of these countries who should pay reparation for war damages and who should be criminally indicted for these war crimes.
But for any success in the international arena, reforms to the Security Council is required. Otherwise the USA and UK will block any international action against the guilty parties. Why does 5 countries in the world have a veto right and permanent seats on the security council? This is a ridiculous undemocratic dictatorship of elites! In my opinion the veto right should be changed to 2/3 majority for key issues and a simple majority on minor issues. Membership should be changed so that permanent membership is given to economic and regional groupings as is currently done for the non-permanent members like the Africa block e.g. the EU has 3 seats which are allocated on a rotation basis to member countries and not kept as the exclusive perpetual rights to the UK and France. Why is the undemocratic structure of the Security Council tolerated by UN Members? It is totally ridiculous! But it provides an excuse to the political and corporate dictators of the world as the highest global authority is a de facto dictatorship as well.
With these changes in the Security Council the USA and UK will not be able to block Security Council resolutions and opposition politicians like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton might step out of the closet (if they are not as guilty as Bush and Cheney et al). And maybe international justice will prevail for the victims in Afghanistan, Iraq and especially those in the USA who suffered from the actions of their own people. And maybe Klein and Nosky will join the band wagon.
Viva Gaia, viva global justice and compassion!
PS: Noam Chomsky how can u say that the people who died in 911 does not matter? They matter as much as the Palestinians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Israelis who are daily dying due to the wars engineered by the ruling elite. It is unjust and immoral. Get out of your academic ivory tower into the real world! Get your heart in balance with your considerable intellect. Read a bit of Osho, take Ayahuasca and free your heart from the dictatorship of your head!)
The core consequence is: Bushes' USA and allies (Blair's UK, Australia, Israel etc.)who illegally invaded Afghanistan and Iraq are just as guilty of extremely serious war crimes as Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany was. So if they engineered 911 as pretext to invade Afghanistan & Iraq, and this is substantiated by a new "US Truth Commission" and the World Court, the USA and allies should pay war damages to Afghanistan and Iraq! That is likely to cripple the economies of these countries who are already affected by the current global economic crisis. US & UK politicians, even if they are / were against Bush & Blair, also realise this and therefore keep quiet. Therefore to get critical support, the opposition politicians need a way out in order to come out of the closet.
If the countries are held liable for war damages it will be as disastrous for the citizens of these countries as the wars was for the citizens of Afghanistan and Iraq. Why should taxpayer's bail out the ruling and financial elite as is happening now with international banks that first go bankrupt and then are saved with the tax money of the citizens who still has to pay their debts to those banks!!! But it is particularly individuals in the governments of these countries and global arms manufacturers,oil companies(Haliburton etc.)and other corporate cronies, who are actually responsible for and deliberately misled & ignored the citizens of these countries and UN resolutions to commit these war crimes. So it is they and not the tax payers of these countries who should pay reparation for war damages and who should be criminally indicted for these war crimes.
But for any success in the international arena, reforms to the Security Council is required. Otherwise the USA and UK will block any international action against the guilty parties. Why does 5 countries in the world have a veto right and permanent seats on the security council? This is a ridiculous undemocratic dictatorship of elites! In my opinion the veto right should be changed to 2/3 majority for key issues and a simple majority on minor issues. Membership should be changed so that permanent membership is given to economic and regional groupings as is currently done for the non-permanent members like the Africa block e.g. the EU has 3 seats which are allocated on a rotation basis to member countries and not kept as the exclusive perpetual rights to the UK and France. Why is the undemocratic structure of the Security Council tolerated by UN Members? It is totally ridiculous! But it provides an excuse to the political and corporate dictators of the world as the highest global authority is a de facto dictatorship as well.
With these changes in the Security Council the USA and UK will not be able to block Security Council resolutions and opposition politicians like Barack Obama and Bill Clinton might step out of the closet (if they are not as guilty as Bush and Cheney et al). And maybe international justice will prevail for the victims in Afghanistan, Iraq and especially those in the USA who suffered from the actions of their own people. And maybe Klein and Nosky will join the band wagon.
Viva Gaia, viva global justice and compassion!
PS: Noam Chomsky how can u say that the people who died in 911 does not matter? They matter as much as the Palestinians, Afghanis, Iraqis, Israelis who are daily dying due to the wars engineered by the ruling elite. It is unjust and immoral. Get out of your academic ivory tower into the real world! Get your heart in balance with your considerable intellect. Read a bit of Osho, take Ayahuasca and free your heart from the dictatorship of your head!)
report abuse
vote down
vote up
Votes: +0
Write comment
