9/11 as a Deep Political Event

[Charles Drago]

Magda says this at post #480 in the Szamboti thread:

But the existence or not of CD doesn't impact in the greater scheme of 911 being a deep political event with specific beneficiaries. There is no definitive position on it that I can see. And those that have an opinion, of any sort, on it do keep coming back again and again....

OK, for the sake of discussion, let's agree with Magda that CD is not a primary factor in 911. She says, in the greater scheme, it is a deep political event with specific beneficiaries.

OK, what does make it a deep political event and who indeed are the specific beneficiaries? How would one claim to know that it is a deep political event and not something else? What would that something else be? Are the "specific beneficiaries" the sponsors, the false sponsors, the facilitators, and/or the mechanics? Does the Drago/Evica model even apply?

The Evica/Drago (it's important to me that we use the proper billing) model was designed to be applied to all deep political events and thus is appropriately applied to 9-11.

In addition, individuals and systems at all levels of the model by definition benefit, to varying degrees and in various ways, from the event under scrutiny.

Moving on: Before we can answer the question "What does make [9-11] a deep political event?" we must reacquaint ourselves with Peter Dale Scott's definition of deep politics, the term he coined:

"All those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged."

Let us also recall that "deep politics" derived from Scott's earlier term, "parapolitics", which he originally defined as:

1. a system or practice of politics in which accountability is consciously diminished. 2. generally, covert politics, the conduct of public affairs not by rational debate and responsible decision-making but by indirection, collusion, and deceit… 3. the political exploitation of irresponsible agencies or parastructures, such as intelligence agencies… Ex. 1. The Nixon doctrine, viewed in retrospect, represented the application of parapolitics on a hitherto unprecedented scale.' 2. Democracy and parapolitics, even in foreign affairs, are ultimately incompatible.

Let it be noted that Scott concluded that "parapolitics as thus defined is itself too narrowly conscious and intentional . . . it describes at best only an intervening layer of the irrationality under our political culture's rational surface. Thus I now refer to parapolitics as only one manifestation of deep politics."