I. Introduction: The Axis of See-No-Evil
"What a fool does in the end, the wise do in the beginning." - Spanish Proverb
The self-deception of American liberals about 9/11 is hard to accept for a lot of supporters of the 9/11 truth movement, and the general movement for transparency and accountability. Strangely, the generation that declared "it's forbidden to forbid" are forbidding a new independent investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In the worldview of the self-styled radicals of the 1960's, evidence that incriminates the U.S. government in the 9/11 attacks either doesn't exist, or isn't sufficient enough to merit a new investigation. Their close-mindedness is more alarming for civilization than the fact that powerful shadowy elites have manipulated the democratic process in the United States so immensely, and for so long, that they have been able to start a global war on freedom at the turn of the millennium by pitching it as a global struggle against terrorism.
The sad legacy of the so-called radicals of 1968 was already well established before the new century, but their compliance with the official 9/11 story for nine years has completely cemented their place in history as utter fools. I used to have contempt for them, but not anymore; now, I have sympathy for these fools. They're still children when it comes to political resistance to tyranny.
I'm not angry that the children of 68, now in their sixties, take the forces of darkness too lightly. I understand their lack of understanding of the grave reality that faces us today; I accept their outright rejection of provable facts; and I sympathize with their refusal to name evil as evil. Unlike my generation, they did not grow up watching The Lord of The Rings, The Matrix, and Harry Potter, three films that reminded kids of a biblically illiterate age of the ever present battle between good and evil; power, and freedom.
Professor David Ray Griffin confronted the leftist critics of the 9/11 truth movement with undeniable evidence, and sound logic in his essay, "Left-Leaning Despisers of the 9/11 Truth Movement: Do You Really Believe in Miracles?" Prof. Griffin, a religious scholar, is more critical of the American empire than members of the traditional left like Noam Chomsky because he sees what they refuse to see; the American empire is evil; it is not incompetent, it is not irrational, at least not about its short-term goals; it is not misled, or deluded, or wrong; it is evil. People who serve evil have their own reasons, their own logic, their own motivations, and their own designs for the world. Evil and powerful people know what they want, and they get what they want so as long as good men and women deny their own power, and refuse to challenge evil men openly, and boldly.
In his essay, "9/11, American Empire, and Christian Faith," Prof. Griffin says:
"We must ask whether the term “evil,” which US leaders have used so freely to describe other nations, must be applied to our own. There can be no doubt about the application of this term to 9/11. We can here quote President Bush himself, who on the evening of 9/11 said: “”Thousands of lives were suddenly ended by evil, despicable acts of terror. . . . Today, our nation saw evil, the very worst of human nature.”80 No explanation of why the attacks were despicable was necessary. The proposition was self-evident. This proposition is even more self-evident, of course, if the attacks were orchestrated by our own government," (1).Of course, the fools on the left are no match for the fools on the right when it comes to misjudging the U.S. government. I have less sympathy for the Christian fundamentalist fools because they aggressively supported the invasion of Iraq, and many of them are in the fold for a new war with Iran. Their ignorance, and denial are more poisonous for the country, and for the world because they're more warlike.
The number of fools who still believe in the legitimacy of the current U.S. government is not known because polling is almost always inaccurate, and used for political purposes. There could be 50 million fools, or 150 million. Regardless of their background, life history, tribal mentality, or age, they are all blind because they have all accepted the government version of 9/11, and evade the same disturbing well-founded evidence that the twin towers, and building 7 collapsed due to controlled demolition. Collectively, they represent the Axis of See-No-Evil.
The fool who I have the most sympathy for, the biggest fool since 9/11, is author/journalist Christopher Hitchens. Sometimes the biggest fools are those with the biggest intellects, and that's true for Hitchens. His characterization of Gore Vidal as crazy for believing that the United States government had a hand in the 9/11 attacks in a February, 2010 Vanity Fair article called "Vidal Loco," was wrong-headed, rude, ignorant, and frankly, embarrassing for a guy who should command deep knowledge of the National Security apparatus in the United States, the history and crimes of the Bush family, and the powerful influence of the American oligarchy. His article doesn't require any further comment than what Dr. Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed said in his response, "Hitchens Has No Clothes."
II. The Two Words of The Century, "Conspiracy Theory"
The charge of "conspiracy theory" to 9/11 truth is common in the corporate media, and more disappointingly, in the alternative media as well. A fool can't fathom the idea that he can be deceived so greatly, and for so long about something that is so transparent. He falsely thinks that he is too smart to be a victim of mass trickery, and too politically sophisticated to dabble in unofficial narratives about important events. Evidence that points in any way to a massive state crime on 9/11 is automatically discounted by the fool because what it reveals about the American state can't be possible in his mind. That powerful elites regularly conspire together against the interests of the people never crosses his mind for longer than a minute. "Not in our age," the fool deceives himself. "The people of Germany in the 1930's were irrational, and easily misled; but the same can't happen to me, not in America, not in 2010," the fool repeats in his head over and over again. State propaganda becomes totally unnecessary shortly after repeating the big lie to the masses of fools, because the fool learns very quickly to repeatedly lie to himself.
Charles Pigden, a professor of philosophy at the University of Otago, New Zealand, writes in his essay, "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom," that not all conspiracy theories are the same, some are grounded in reality that deserve attention and comment more than others:
"Some conspiracy theories are sensible and some are silly, but if they are silly this is not because they are conspiracy theories but because they suffer from some specific defect – for instance, that the conspiracies they postulate are impossible or far-fetched. But conspiracy theories as such are not epistemologically unclean, and it is often permissible – even obligatory – to believe them," (2).Pigden asks us to approach "conspiracy theories" with an open mind, and take them seriously if they are backed up by provable facts:
"What the conventional wisdom demands is not so much that we disbelieve this conspiracy theory or that, but that we adopt the intellectual habit of discounting, dismissing and disbelieving conspiracy theories (indeed of “dissing” them generally). Rather than running around trying to evaluate the evidence, the sensible strategy is to shut our eyes to their intellectual charms. I advocate the alternative strategy of not dismissing conspiracy theories out of hand, simply because they are conspiracy theories, but of being prepared to investigate them and even to believe them if that is what the evidence indicates," (3).Other academics take a different approach to conspiracy theories, viewing it as a dangerous phenomenon that must be ridiculed, dismissed, and silenced. In an article published in the journal Intelligence and National Security called "'Who Profited from the Crime?' Intelligence Failure, Conspiracy Theories and the Case of September 11," Robert Alan Goldberg, a professor of history at the University of Utah, says that conspiracy theorists are a menace to society:
"A tale well told may disguise its weaknesses. Conspiracy theorists ignore mundane tests of logic and evidence for explanation based on circumstance, rumour and hearsay. Thinking magically, they create antagonists who exercise power without constraints. Human error, chance and bureaucratic process have no place in their narratives. Proximity in time and location are bent to create collusion; common interests define guilt. Similarly, casual accusations of high crimes and mass murder sell books, but their credibility demands testimony based on more than innuendo. The plot weavers, working from a premise of conspiracy, focus with a vengeance on their suspicions and reject inconsistencies and more plausible alternatives. Thus, al-Qaeda plays a minor and supporting role, always lost in the shadow of US power brokers. Meanwhile, as in the execution of the Pearl Harbor attack, Washington is callously and flawlessly able to plan, perform and conceal its role in another day of infamy. Fast-paced writing suitable to the adventure genre augments the prosecutorial style of the conspiracists and disguises logical leaps and gaps in evidence. Most readers, captivated by the sensational, do not hold the conspiracy theorist to exacting criteria of proof and are quick to believe. Interconnected and reinforcing, the message grows more credible through repetition. The result is a seamless web of subversion that is suspended from history. This kind of thinking about the unthinkable is not merely wrong. Conspiracy theories are dangerous for they demonise public officials and erode faith in national institutions," (4).The title of Goldberg's book, "Enemies Within: The Culture of Conspiracy in Modern America," says more about his own paranoia than the paranoia that he attributes to conspiracy theorists.
In an interview with the New Internationalist Magazine, Goldberg said:
"Many commentators dismiss conspiracy thinking as the province of the marginal or fanatical. Better to understand it as a refuge in time of crisis and tragedy. Conspiracy theories offer much to believers. They order the random and bring clarity to ambiguity. They provide purpose and meaning in the face of the chaotic. They also tender support to the traumatized who cry for vengeance and demand the identities of those responsible. Conspiracy thinking, similarly, offers a cure for powerlessness. It lifts the despair of vulnerability by arming believers with tantalizing, secret knowledge to understand and defeat the enemy. Conspiracy plots appear so credible because they are filled with details - names, dates, numbers - hard data that seemingly can be not be denied.Goldberg's worldview is puzzling. Who are the "traditional authorities" that he refers to? The U.S. government that has started two criminal wars in the Middle East? Members of the Wall Street oligarchy that have looted America? The CIA within the CIA that journalist Robert Parry documents in his article, "The CIA/Likud Sinking of Jimmy Carter"? The Bush crime family that author/journalist Russ Baker exposes in his book, "Family of Secrets"? Goldberg's conception of history is two-dimensional, he is clearly out of his depth. And his faith in the righteousness of the U.S. government is more dangerous for the country at this point in history than any conspiracy theorist's skepticism of that same government. As Prof. Griffin writes in his essay, "9/11: The Myth and the Reality," America's political and military leaders do not have a moral compass, so being suspicious about their direct involvement in the 9/11 tragedy, as well as in other state crimes, is not a reflection of conspiratorial thinking, but a natural response to the pattern of state criminality in the United States since the end of WWII.Moreover, in the face of a decline in faith and trust in authorities, conspiracy theorists pose as competing authorities who offer the facts of a new history, a new version of the past. In it, are revealed who has betrayed America's promise, traditions, and beliefs. Conspiracy theorists thus create a counter history which tells us how and why America has lost its way. This pits conspiracy theorists with traditional authorities in a struggle for power - a struggle for the control of history and therefore the present and future," (5).
III. Putting The 9/11 Crime In Context
The all encompassing influence of the National Security State in American domestic affairs, and on the world stage must be stressed before people are more ready to accept that 9/11 was a state crime. As of now, some people still assume that America has been free and democratic since WWII, so they can't even begin to comprehend the evilness that they have allowed to penetrate into the American political system. Others, who are more skeptical of the American government, still affirm that the theory of blowback satisfactorily explains 9/11, despite the evidence of a "controlled demolition" which suggests that the perpetrators of the 9/11 crime had national security connections, and secret access to the core columns of the three buildings. Otherwise, how could WTC 1, 2, and 7 be rigged with explosives without the knowledge of WTC employees?
As we saw in the orchestrated implosion of the global economy, the hidden hand of the market is powerful enough to keep incriminating information about certain companies and individuals from the public, so why do we doubt that the same can't be true for the hidden hand of global terrorism? If the official 9/11 account is bulletproof, as some still insist, then why does it have to be constantly protected by the media shield? In a free and open society, facts are not swept aside, scientific evidence is brought to light by the press, and government secrecy is a dirty word. But sadly, the official institutions in America are not in favor of such a society. In the past sixty years the political and economic elite in America have reach the heights where they are confident enough to preside over a super terrorist state.
In the book, "State Crime: Governments, Violence and Corruption," authors Penny Green and Tony Ward write; "States instigate or participate in terrorism (in the narrow sense) in a variety of ways. State personnel may themselves carry out terrorist acts while concealing (or at least not openly acknowledging) their official roles; or they may instigate or condone actions by non-state agencies that enjoy varying degrees of autonomy," (6). They go on to argue that states are "goal-directed organisations," that "tend to be dominated by instrumental rationality, adopting what they perceive as efficient means to achieve organisational goals," (7).
Two of the biggest reasons why people deny that the American state could pull off 9/11 are that it lacks the organizational capacity, and also that it is an act of irrationality. But the analysis of Green and Ward demonstrates that state terrorism is rational, and goal-oriented. Maybe people can more easily accept that the U.S. government had a direct role in the 9/11 crime if it understands the larger purpose of the war on terrorism, which is to suppress Muslim discontent and to enlarge the influence of the National Security State in an era of global transformation.
But that is not to say that the American state always acts rationally, or that the goals of a new corporate global order, and conquering the Middle East are sensible in the long run. Green and Ward point out:
"First, some states pursue goals that are wildly unrealistic. Where terror is used to promote unrealistic goals (or inappropriate means, such as the pseudo-scientific farming techniques of Mao's 'Great Leap Forward': Becker 1996), it may prevent officials from assessing prospects of success realistically or from reporting failures or the reasons for them. Where failures are acknowledged they can only be blamed on sabotage, which must be countered by greater use of terror. Rather than being a rational means of pursuing goals, such terror makes rational decision making impossible," (8).There are many examples of U.S. irrationality in the war on terrorism. Despite the massive failure in Afghanistan, U.S. General George Casey, the Chief of Staff of the Army, said on July 10, 2010 that America will stay in the region for another decade. A logical state would've come to the conclusion soon upon entering Afghanistan that it is physically unconquerable, and not worth the effort, blood, and cost. Another example of U.S. military irrationality is General McChrystal's comment in his Rolling Stone profile that he was betrayed, and his operation was crippled when General Eikenberry leaked cables about America's Afghanistan strategy to the public that pointed to previously unmentioned risks about the U.S. mission in the country. Gen. McChrystal's comment reveals the truth of the remark made by Green and Ward that; "Where failures are acknowledged they can only be blamed on sabotage."
Michael Welch, Professor of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, has written one of the most detailed account of crimes committed by the American state in his book, "Crimes of Power & States of Impunity: The U.S. Response To Terror." At the beginning of the book, Welch describes the essentials of elite crime, which can be realized in state crime, corporate crime, or state-corporate crime. Welch:
"A study of state crime, of course, would prove incomplete without taking into account strategies for curbing such harm. According to Ross, "Controlling state crime can be accomplished through sound theoretical conceptualization that both identifies the criminal actions committed by the state as well as the mechanisms that sustain those actions and devises methods to control these illegalities and hence to minimize the abuse of coercive power" (2000a, 10). Ross also attends to criminogenic situations, organizations, and networks as sources of state crime, most notably the military-industrial-complex and national security agencies, which draw on political and economic vectors in pursuit of power. Rather than retreating into nebulous conspiracy theories, Ross emphasizes the importance of identifying key political and economic players who are instrumental in formulating and carrying out policies and practices. Controlling state crime is often easier said than done, as many incidents since September 11 demonstrate. Echoing the call by human rights groups, Ross insists that state and corporate elites ought to be subjected to greater democratic controls, governmental checks and balances, and oversight by civil society, the media, and nongovernmental organizations. Scholarship aimed at elite crime--particularly from the perspective of human rights--tends to be at once critical and interdisciplinary: drawing on conceptual influences from sociology, social psychology, economics, law, history, political philosophy, human geography, cultural studies, ethics, and so on. Although empirical evidence is crucial to substantiate accusations of wrongdoing, it is also important to attend to theoretical constructs located at the macro- (historical, economic), meso- (organizational), and micro- (interactional) levels (Kauzlarich and Matthews 2006; Kramer and Michalowski 2006). By refining our understanding of elite crime in its various permutations (e.g., state crime, corporate crime, state-corporate) we might improve further the capacity to minimize such atrocities while holding violators accountable," (9).At the end, Welch urges us to face the atrocities committed by the American state, punish the guilty, and reverse National Security policies:
"It is clear that further legal activities are necessary to hold accountable those responsible for serious human rights abuses. In dismantling states of denial, however, it is crucial to confront broader social and cultural forces that encourage turning a blind eye to state crime, even as so much evidence stares us in the face. Still, when a full realization of atrocities does register, it is then important to channel public outrage into action, thereby confronting official denial while reversing bystander passivity (S. Cohen 2001)," (10).Getting past public denial about U.S. involvement in 9/11 is a difficult task, but it is not impossible. Pointing people to the propaganda of the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, CBS, NBC, ABC, will get easier once they see that their lives have been ripped apart because of the economic crash. Then, people will better understand what the philosopher Slavoj Zizek said in a 2006 essay called, "Five Years After: the Fire in the Minds of Men," about how the all pervasive threat of terrorism has made us overlook the much more dangerous reality in this new century; the mass manipulation by the U.S. government. Zizek, like others, advocates for greater democratic transparency and accountability. He writes:
"Here, then, is where we are five years later: still unable to locate 9/11 into a large narrative, to provide its "cognitive mapping." Of course, there is the official story according to which, the permanent virtual threat of the invisible Enemy legitimizes preemptive strikes: precisely because the threat is virtual, it is too late to wait for its actualization, one has to strike in advance, before it will be too late. In other words, the omni-present invisible threat of Terror legitimizes the all too visible protective measures of defense. The difference of the War on Terror with previous XXth century world-wide struggles like the Cold War is that while, in the preceding cases, the enemy was clearly identified as the positively-existing Communist empire, the terrorist threat is inherently spectral, without a visible center. It is a little bit like the characterization of the figure of Linda Fiorentino in The Last Seduction: "Most people have a dark side... she had nothing else." Most regimes have a dark oppressive spectral side ... the terrorist threat has nothing else.IV. The Way Out
The power which presents itself as being all the time under threat and thus merely defending itself against an invisible enemy, exposes itself to the danger of manipulation: can we really trust them, or are they just evoking the threat to discipline and control us? The paradoxical result of this spectralization of the Enemy can thus be a reversal of role: in this world without a clearly identified Enemy, it is the US themselves, the protector against the threat, which is emerging as the main enemy... as in Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient-Express in which, since the entire group of the suspects is the murderer, the victim itself (an evil millionaire) should turn out to be the criminal.
The lesson is thus that, in combating terror, it is more crucial than ever for the state politics to be democratically transparent. Unfortunately, we are now paying the price for the cobweb of lies and manipulations by the US and UK governments in the last decade, reaching their climax in the tragicomedy with the Iraqi weapons of mass destructions. Recall the August 2006 alert apropos the thwarted terrorist attempt to blow a dozen planes on their flight from London to the US: no doubt the alert was not a fake, to claim this would be too paranoiac - but, nonetheless, a suspicion remains that all of it was a self-serving spectacle to accustom us to a permanent state of emergency, to the state of exception as a way of life. What space for manipulation open up such events where all that is publicly visible are the anti-terrorist measures themselves? Is it not that they simply demand from us, ordinary citizens, too much - a degree of trust that those in power had long ago forsaken? THIS is the sin for which Bush, Blair, and their consorts should never be forgiven for," (11).
Men that live in a closed society of any kind have only one obligation, and that is to think critically about their world, their government, and their beliefs. Socrates said that wisdom begins with admitting ignorance. I hope the fools of the left, and the fools of the right realize that basic and ancient truth now.
Russ Baker recently wrote in an article called, "The Game That Goes On And On," that: "Figuring out how our world works—actually works —requires a skeptical eye and a willingness to follow the facts wherever they lead." I have faith that those that are sitting on the 9/11 fence will do just that, "follow the facts wherever they lead," and learn to be more assertive in the future. Once they fight for justice, truth, and freedom with greater intensity, and more determination than at any period in their life, then we will see the real power of civil society, and how much of a force it is compared to the state, and corporations.
Notes:
1. Griffin, David R. "9/11, American Empire, and Christian Faith." April 28, 2006.
2. Pigden, Charles. "Conspiracy Theories and the Conventional Wisdom." 2007. Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology. Volume 4: Issue 2. Pg. 219 - 232.
3. Ibid.
4. Goldberg, Robert A. "'Who Profited from the Crime?' Intelligence Failure, Conspiracy Theories
and the Case of September 11." 2004. Intelligence and National Security: Volume 19: Issue 2. Pg. 249 - 261.
5. Goldberg's interview with New Internationalist Magazine in September 2004.
6. Green, P., & Ward, T. "State Crime: Governments, Violence and Corruption." 2004. London: Pluto Press. Pg. 107.
7. Ibid. Pg. 108.
8. Ibid. Pg. 111.
9. Welch, M. "Crimes of Power & States of Impunity." 2009. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Pg. 7.
10. Ibid. Pg. 177.
11. Zizek, S. "Five Years After: the Fire in the Minds of Men." 2006.
