9/11 as a Deep Political Event

[Charles Drago]

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

Lauren,

I respect you for displaying the requisite courage to question on multiple levels many of our shared field of study's shibboleths.

For me, the key word in Scott's construction is "repressed." In the lexicon we commonly use here, the word has a relatively narrow meaning. Here's my shot at it:

"REPRESS: v. To keep data hidden from public access to prevent the discovery of illegal political acts and to protect the individuals and systems responsible for and benefiting from them."

The acts of keeping private certain aspects of a political campaign, to use your example, would not rise (sink?) to meet the definition of deep political acts unless they were undertaken to hide "illegal" campaign activities.

A campaign has every right to view as proprietary, and thus withhold from public scrutiny, its legal and appropriate television advertising strategy. In doing so it would not be "repressing" that information, but only preventing it from being used by opponents to gain an unfair advantage.

If, however, said strategy included efforts to circumvent FCC rules and regulations and/or use illegally obtained funds, then the act of hiding those efforts would qualify as repression.

Let's leave the political arena and enter the football stadium.

Bill Belichick is under no obligation to share the New England Patriots' playbook with any other NFL head coach. In keeping it from public scrutiny, he is not committing an act of repression. However, if Bill Belichick were to violate NFL policy by secretly taping opponents' practice sessions and hiding that fact from the league and the public, he would be repressing the record of his contractually proscribed actions.


By the way, you've previously challenged me in just such a manner as you now challenge Scott --

https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/new...ly&p=71440

-- and I hope you and others realize that I deeply appreciate and even welcome such engagement (not to mention the implicit and unwarranted comparison):

Until then, I remind you of the truth: Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence in this case who does not conclude that a criminal conspiracy resulted in the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy is cognitively impaired and/or complicit in the crime.

I have always been troubled by this phrasing. It tends to place the imagined offender in the positions of a false choice between being called stupid or guilty of participation in the murder of the JFK. It glosses over degrees of complicity. It ignores that most people who deny that JFK was murdered by "criminal conspiracy" are themselves the victims of decades of mind control. Further, it does not take into account that there are those who believe in a version of "criminal conspiracy" that is itself a cover-up and therefore by your definition are complicit. Finally, as you are attempting to practice satygraha, it strikes me as being unkind and that by its very phrasing is self-defeating.

May I suggest a re-do?

My response:

May I suggest a re-do?

You may.

I decline.

May I suggest that you undertake a reading more sensitive to nuance and subtext?

For your edification:

1. Begin with "Anyone with reasonable access to the evidence ... " Those who do not enjoy such access are not necessarily "stupid." Rather, they are, to varying degrees, simply uninformed or under-informed. This "stupid" business is wholly in your mind and nowhere to be found in my construction.

2. Nowhere do I speak of "belief" in anything. Nor do I qualify "criminal conspiracy" beyond its literal meaning. One step at a time.

3. Kindness and unkindness are matters of intent (writer's) and interpretation (readers').

4. My phrasing is intentionally confrontational in service to my prime subtext: The time for reasonable debate of the conspiracy/LN positions is long past. To prolong the faux debate is to prolong the hegemony and security of the Sponsors (and their heirs) of JFK's murder. Debate is precisely what they want us to do, ad infinitum. Our obligation to "those who do not enjoy such access" is not to show them both sides of an long-settled argument, but rather to educate them -- to demonstrate the truth of conspiracy.

One step at a time.

5. You are quite right to point out that millions have been victimized by the manipulators of perception. In my Introduction to Evica's A Certain Arrogance I noted that as our struggle continues, we often are "tempted to argue that the realities of war often require an honorable combatant to mimic, for a limited period and with noble intent, the darker designs of an evil foe." From the perspective of the satyagrahi as I'm able to comprehend it, such behavior is unacceptable.

So perhaps the notion of de-programming the victims -- an act of kindness to be sure -- would be consistent with the principles of satyagraha.

And the effort to effect such de-programming directs my words which are so troubling to you.