9/11 as a Deep Political Event

[Tony Szamboti]

I have spent much time re-reading this thread to much benefit. Charlie Drago's post at #5 is an excellent review and a reminder that parapolitics is a kind of deep politics. He also reminds us of PDS's definition of deep politics: "All those political practices and arrangements, deliberate or not, which are usually repressed rather than acknowledged." He also reminds me of my previous challenge of PDS's def'n -- now that's embarrassing.

Allow me to continue with the thought experiment about what makes 9/11 a deep political event. Jeffrey Orling has been roundly criticized for his poor skills in deep political analysis. Further, Jeffrey has on several occasions made fun of deep politics. Ironically, given PDS's definition of deep politics, the core of Jeffrey's analysis is actually quite consistent with the definition.

Briefly, Jeffrey rejects any notion of 9/11 being a directly organized psy op originating from any source within the USG. It is not an inside job. Period. In fact, it is a version of LIHOP, Let It Happen On Purpose. He thinks that the MIC with its dominance within US political life has created an environment, which was eager for a terrorist attack which of course would be the casas belli for endless warfare. This attack was the inevitable consequence of decades of imperialism and is was commonly known within the security establishment that the discovery and preventing such an attack should never be a conscious goal. Any over zealously person who would catch on to such an attack should be ignored within the security apparatus, e.g. Colleen Rowley. Of course, this implicit policy position of intentional nonfeasance must be suppressed, which is illegal. It is therefore fits the definition of deep politics.

Ergo, Jeffrey Orling has been unjustly criticized.

Remember, this is a thought experiment to provoke critical thought and discussion.

Of course, people involved in a cover-up can admit to some vague unethical behaviors, by what they sometimes use generic terms for, like the MIC, but these generalities would never lead to investigations and identifications of perpetrators.

A cover-up can always admit to general overall poor behaviors that will cause no harm. That way they don't sound completely off the wall while denying the part that can cause harm. What they can't admit to and vigorously attempt to point away from are specific crimes and behaviors which would show they were capable of those crimes.

Acknowledgement of something specifically done, like the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7, would lead to investigations and identifications of perpetrators. It seems this acknowledgement must be stopped and the collapses portrayed as natural events due to damage and fire at all costs. No different than the at all costs defense of the lone shooter paradigm in the three major assassinations of the 1960s, and no acknowledgement of the serious evidence of more than one shooter in both Kennedy assassinations and that James Earl Ray was not involved in the King assassination.