9/11 as a Deep Political Event

[Lauren Johnson]

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?

[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."

[Lauren Johnson]

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

I'm so tired, I can hardly think straight. Three hard days of hiking and a long drive to and from Montana.

Charlie, I have always reacted negatively to this definition. It sounds so inclusive so as to be meaningless. It almost means (to me) that almost everything is a part of deep politics. E.g. is secretly planning a political campaign "deep politics." Isn't it just normal politics that you don't want to become public. In other words, what is deep politics vs. politics?

[Lauren Johnson]

Continuing this thought experiment: Assume the entire 9/11 event really was just 19 terrorists with box cutters. The entire USG response was one of embarrassment and covering up blundering on the part of all major aspects of the government tasked with protecting the country. Would this be 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.

[Charles Drago]

Continuing this thought experiment: Assume the entire 9/11 event really was just 19 terrorists with box cutters. The entire USG response was one of embarrassment and covering up blundering on the part of all major aspects of the government tasked with protecting the country. Would this be a deep political event?

I'll go along with your assumption -- even though doing so gives me a violent case of the heebie-jeebies.

In this example, what you call "blundering" no doubt would rise (sink?) to the level of criminal malfeasance. Thus the act of repressing the record of said malfeasance would constitute a deep political act.

[Lauren Johnson]

Thanks Charlie. Very helpful.

In this example, what you call "blundering" no doubt would rise (sink?) to the level of criminal malfeasance. Thus the act of repressing the record of said malfeasance would constitute a deep political act.

Allow me to propose a continuum of deep political interpretations of 9/11:

1) The govt. story: who could have known in time to stop determined haters of America who are willing to die? No one.
2) The story of malfeasance -- who wouldn't try to cover it up?
3) Disaster capitalism: being ready for a terrorist act to happen and being read to take advantage of it.
4) LIHOP: Letting a known operation to take place.
5) MIHOP: Creating a false flag operation from the ground up (both 4 and 5 are intended to create the global war on terror benefiting the MIC)
6) Strategy of Tension

Jeffrey Orling has been roundly criticized for adopting positions from option 4. Option 5 positions are often criticized. Charlie, your answer confirms what I have long thought. Deep politics forum uses so many definitions of "deep politics." I think it would be helpful to work up a better working definition.

[Lauren Johnson]

Oops, sorry, Charlie. I missed your long post #5. Yah, it has taken some getting up my nerve to say Just wait a minute. I'll have to read it later. Thanks again.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Allow me to propose a continuum of deep political interpretations of 9/11:

1) The govt. story: who could have known in time to stop determined haters of America who are willing to die? No one.
2) The story of malfeasance -- who wouldn't try to cover it up?
3) Disaster capitalism: being ready for a terrorist act to happen and being read to take advantage of it.
4) LIHOP: Letting a known operation to take place.
5) MIHOP: Creating a false flag operation from the ground up (both 4 and 5 are intended to create the global war on terror benefiting the MIC)
6) Strategy of Tension

Jeffrey Orling has been roundly criticized for adopting positions from option 4. Option 5 positions are often criticized. Charlie, your answer confirms what I have long thought. Deep politics forum uses so many definitions of "deep politics." I think it would be helpful to work up a better working definition.

Lauren - in my judgement, these positions are not mutually exclusive.

Let me use an example to illustrate.

A small group of individuals who are part of the armed wing of banned group LNM, organised in a highly compartmentalised cell, plot a bombing. Their controller, Z, is an asset of intelligence agency X. He has been supplying the cell with weapons material, and encouraging them to commit action A to create fear and tension. On the night, Action A fails & the cell turn to Action B. The only person outside the cell who knows of Action B is controller Z. If Action B is thwarted, controller Z - who is the highest ranking intelligence agency asset in LNM - will be exposed. Z and his intelligence agency handler agree to allow Action B to occur. Dozens of ordinary people are kiled and maimed.

Is this LIHOP, MIHOP or Strategy of Tension?

By my reading, it an impure mixture of all three.

Disaster capitalism is the opportunistic exploitation of the aftermath of a horror, and is always likely to happen.

Btw the scenario above is based on a couple of very real incidents that my co-founders will probably recognise.

[David Guyatt]

Allow me to propose a continuum of deep political interpretations of 9/11:

1) The govt. story: who could have known in time to stop determined haters of America who are willing to die? No one.
2) The story of malfeasance -- who wouldn't try to cover it up?
3) Disaster capitalism: being ready for a terrorist act to happen and being read to take advantage of it.
4) LIHOP: Letting a known operation to take place.
5) MIHOP: Creating a false flag operation from the ground up (both 4 and 5 are intended to create the global war on terror benefiting the MIC)
6) Strategy of Tension

Jeffrey Orling has been roundly criticized for adopting positions from option 4. Option 5 positions are often criticized. Charlie, your answer confirms what I have long thought. Deep politics forum uses so many definitions of "deep politics." I think it would be helpful to work up a better working definition.

Lauren - in my judgement, these positions are not mutually exclusive.

Let me use an example to illustrate.

A small group of individuals who are part of the armed wing of banned group LNM, organised in a highly compartmentalised cell, plot a bombing. Their controller, Z, is an asset of intelligence agency X. He has been supplying the cell with weapons material, and encouraging them to commit action A to create fear and tension. On the night, Action A fails & the cell turn to Action B. The only person outside the cell who knows of Action B is controller Z. If Action B is thwarted, controller Z - who is the highest ranking intelligence agency asset in LNM - will be exposed. Z and his intelligence agency handler agree to allow Action B to occur. Dozens of ordinary people are kiled and maimed.

Is this LIHOP, MIHOP or Strategy of Tension?

By my reading, it an impure mixture of all three.

Disaster capitalism is the opportunistic exploitation of the aftermath of a horror, and is always likely to happen.

Btw the scenario above is based on a couple of very real incidents that my co-founders will probably recognise.

I agree Jan, too narrow a definition would, I suspect, impede rather than enlighten our joint efforts to understand and highlight deep political actions.