Wednesday, January 17, 2007

Are People Who Question 9/11 Anarchists?

Defenders of the official version of 9/11 claim that people who question the government's account are anarchists who want to tear down the United States of America.

This is important because many Americans in a position to be able to spread the truth or help to obtain justice will fight any effort which they think will destroy America.

Are 9/11 truth activists, in fact, anarchists?

Well, I've been involved in the 9/11 truth movement for years, have spoken with many of the leading advocates for 9/11 truth, and have been involved enough in various groups and discussion boards to have a sense of the types of people who question 9/11. Based on that experience, I would say no.

Specifically, I would guess that no more than 1% of those who question 9/11 are anarchists. The overwhelming majority are conservatives, liberals, democrats, republicans, greens, libertarians, grandparents, teenagers, young parents, professionals, professors, students, scientists, engineers, lawyers, politicians, architects, and others who love America and want to fix the system and improve the system, not destroy it. I believe that other long-time 9/11 truth activists, such as Steve Watson and Paul Joseph Watson, have similar estimates.

Indeed, most people who question 9/11 believe that most "anarchists" within the movement are actually agents provocateur hired by the government to disrupt the movement.

What Do We Have Now?

9/11 activist Jon Gold points out that "[anarchy is defined as] :

'1. a state of society without government or law.

2. political and social disorder due to the absence of governmental control ....

* * *

4. confusion; chaos; disorder: Intellectual and moral anarchy followed his loss of faith.'

We currently have a society that can't hold the people sitting in the White House, that are responsible for so many damn crimes, accountable. Does that count as a "society without Government or law?"
In other words, Gold argues that we currently have anarchy in the U.S., because we have a rogue and criminal executive branch, and the rule of law is not being followed.

There is a strong argument that those running the country right now -- and not 9/11 truth activists -- are the true anarchists, as the former group wishes to create and profit from chaos and the destruction of the rule of law.

As I have previously written:
I am NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, I am calling for the reinstatement of our government. I am calling for an end to lawless dictatorship and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, I am calling for its enforcement. Do you disagree with these goals? If so, then YOU are anti-American.
Anarchy Doesn't Help

For those 9/11 truth advocates who promote anarchy because you sincerely believe it is better than any form of government, let me take a minute to respectfully address that idea.

Did you know that the same Founding Father who argued for periodic revolutions to keep the government honest also argued against tearing down something unless you have something better in mind to replace it? Its true. Thomas Jefferson, the most vocal advocate of the citizens' right to revolt to ensure honest government also cautioned against tearing something down unless it was for the express purpose of replacing it with something better.

Is Jefferson right?

Well, the law of entropy says things tend towards disorganization. It has taken billions of years for life to evolve from one-celled, to multi-celled, then on to plants, animals, smart monkeys, humans, then human society.

No one wants to tear down the state of organization so completely that we go back to monkeys (without the ability to talk), or one-celled critters . . . so the question is how much organization do we want to destroy?

Have you ever lived in the woods for a month with no backpack, no stove, no lighter, no high-tech sleeping bag? No, I didn't think so.

Do you want to live as a native american? Okay, but the native americans had survival skills, cultural traditions, and knowledge developed over many hundreds or thousands of years (especially counting knowledge gained before the migration from Asia to America), stored in the database of oral traditions. If you tear away all of that organization, you're going to be a lot more like this lonely guy than a native.

I could go on, but my basic point is that you need to think through how much organization you really are willing to give up before you go tearing everything down.

It is easy for a teenager to criticize his parents, but a lot harder to actually create a better adult life for himself. A teenager looks silly and immature when he criticizes everything his parents do without understanding the challenges he'll face as an adult. But a young person who rebels against his parents and then creates a better adult life is doing important and heroic work.

The Constitution and The Free Market

The Constitution is a brilliant document. Sure, its not 100% perfect. For example, people of color, women, and non-landowning men weren't counted as citizens. But the basic principles and vision enshrined in the Constitution are tremendously good.

The main problem is that the U.S. hasn't lived up to the Constitution. Even before the ink had dried on the document, anti-American forces -- who had ideas very different from those of the Founding Fathers -- worked to try to undermine and weaken it. Maybe we need some tweaks or even a constitutional convention to make sure that liberty is better protected, but the founding document is basically sound.

What about free market capitalism?

The situation in America today is that corruption is so rampant that the little guy doesn't get a fair shake and the corruption might cause the whole economy to come crashing down at any minute. But does that mean that free market capitalism itself doesn't work (like Karl Marx theorized)?

Well, we don't currently have free market capitalism. Some giant corporations pay little or no taxes The government gives huge grants to certain corporations as part of its effort to promote American exports. The government steps in to prop up the stock market when it is taking a nosedive. And laws are often skewed to favor the big guy. So the problem isn't necessarily with free market capitalism -- we don't have that system in America today.

Moreover, Adam Smith, the "father" of free market capitalism warned against the accumulation of too much wealth in too few hands. He warned that over-consolidation would corrupt the free market and destroy its benefits. So the problem isn't necessarily with Smith's idea of the free market, but our failure to heed Smith's warning about corruption of that system.

Finally, the free market only works if buyers have full information about costs -- both present and future. For example, let's say someone is deciding whether to buy a share of stock in an oil company, but he doesn't know that that oil company supports death squads in Iraq (hypothetically), which will in turn make millions of people in the middle east hate America, which in turn will lead to a world war (which the U.S. may very well start at the urging of the same oil company), which will bankrupt America, which will cause suffering for him and his family . . . .

Would he have bought that share in the oil company stock if he had known all of that? Probably not. If he had known that, he could have made a rational decision. Again, the problem is not necessarily with free market capitalism, but with failing to follow the basic principle that full information is needed for people to make their decisions. The problem is that the true costs of our government's and corporations' actions are being hidden from us.

Is communism better? Look at how Stalin treated his people! How can anyone espouse communism in this day and age?

Maybe someone can come up with a new, better system. But for now, tweaking the Constitutional form of government and free market capitalism is the best way to go, in my opinion.

Instead of tearing everything down and having to reinvent the wheel, and recreate the years of organization which have occurred, why not keep the good and throw out the bad? Throw out (and jail) all of the corrupt criminals who have perverted those systems. Throw out the mechanisms which create an uneven playing field for the wealth. Refine the systems in major ways so that they more accurately reflect the intentions of the Founding Fathers and Adam Smith.

I am not an apologist for the current criminal regime occupying the White House, Congress and many major corporations. All of the criminals should be tarred, feathered and jailed. All of the loopholes in the system should be closed, and the playing field leveled out.

But why start over with some paleolithic version of reality? Why not take the best of modern life and jettison the worst? Why have to start all over at square one?

Why not keep the momentum going of the insights and inspirations of the Founding Fathers and others throughout history who have dreamed big?


Blogger Anarchist said...

I'm an anarchist, and I advocate for 9/11 truth. There are a couple of things I need to say in response to your blog:

Ironically, at the biggest discussion forum for anarchists on the web, discussion of 9/11 is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN. The moderator (a man by the name of Munson) has even said that discussion of any other government deception is allowed, but ANY discussion of 9/11 departing from the official story is COMPLETELY PROHIBITED.

So, as you can see, just as 'truthers' span the political spectrum, so do 'gatekeepers.'

Your blog displays some very deep misunderstandings about what anarchism is. For one thing, anarchy is NOT chaos - it is in fact the very opposite.

The people that rule the planet thrive on chaos - which produces fear - which they "protect" us from. 9/11 itself was a bit of chaos thrown in to make people follow the rulers.

Nor is anarchism tied to "disorganization." Again, it is the opposite. Having a society without rulers would require more organization, not less.

I realize that Thomas Jefferson is a hero to many of you, but from the point of view of many anarchists, he was just another statist - i.e. a murderer wearing the uniform of a hero. Thomas Jefferson openly called for the "extermination" (his word) of the native population of North America. His government broke every treaty made with the Natives - which is a clear violation of article VI of the constitution. Apparently Jefferson had the same opinion of the constitution as your current president, that it is "just a goddamned piece of paper."

Why is the anarchist perspective important for 9/11 truth? David Ray Griffin and others have said that 9/11 Truth has the potential to enlighten people and to make broader changes. The anarchist says (and has always said) that the state is the problem, that once we abdicate responsibility for our own affairs, the state will always take on a life of its own which will always result in the state executing acts of terror against its own citizens.

It was no different in Rome. Senators would scream about "law and order" by day, and send their thugs out by night to terrorize people. It is, in fact, THE VERY NATURE OF STATES TO TERRORIZE ITS OWN CITIZENS.

And so, clearly, if we wish to eliminate terrorism in its entirety, the state must go as well .

We all live in this thing called reality. An anarchist would be stupid to cross the street without looking both ways. Similarly, those of you who are statists (libs, conservatives, commies, fascists, etc) need to understand that until human beings learn to get along without the state, there will always be terrorism.

4:19 PM  
Blogger Phishybongwaters said...

Anarchism (from Greek ἀν (without) + ἄρχειν (to rule) + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν), "without archons," "without rulers")[1] is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government[2] (the state) and support its elimination,[3][4] often due to a wider rejection of involuntary or permanent authority.[5] Anarchism is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centered on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."[6]

There are many types and traditions of anarchism,[7][8] not all of which are mutually exclusive.[9] Anarchists hold different views as to the economic and legal organisation of society; some favour libertarian communism, collectivist anarchism or participatory economics while others support free market systems like mutualism, agorism, or anarcho-capitalism.[10] According to the Oxford Companion to Philosophy, "there is no single defining position that all anarchists hold, beyond their rejection of compulsory government, and those considered anarchists at best share a certain family resemblance".[11] Anarchist schools of thought differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.[6]

If you are going to attempt to call yourself something, maybe get a basic understanding of what it is you claim to be.

Anarchist is not the correct term to be using for yourself, according to your description.

8:50 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home