zeitgeist

"but alot of the newer zeitgeist/911 truth (etc.) fans are relatively apolitical people just searching for ideas to explain their anger/frustration at the world who happen to hit on this kind of thing before they encounter more rational theories..."

That statement basically sums it up.

I was one of those people. Demolition charges in the World Trade Centers and all that crap. I came dangerously close to falling into the point of no return (I started watching Alex Jones on the internet).

Then, by awesome chance, I stumbled upon Noam Chomsky.......

......and then I woke up!!

Fucking Alex Jones. Piece of shit nationalist-xenophobe. I hate that guy.

What worries me is that the anarchist movement seems to be getting swamped with zeitgeist/911 truth people. Almost all the newer people in the movement seem to be really huge on it, and don't seem to know any leftist philosophy other than conspiracy theories. I believe one guy actually chastised me for liking Proudhon (this man claimed to be an anarchist.)

What's more, is that people's stance on zeitgeist/911 truth stuff is now being used to gauge people's legitimacy as anarchists. For example, people have declared Noam Chomsky a statist apologist because he doesn't believe 9/11 was an inside job. I say their priorities are all out of whack.

What I'm frightened of is that 10-20 years down the line the majority of anarchists will care more about protesting against the 'federal bank scam' and the '9/11 cover up' than actually trying to get rid of the state.

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it dude. It's the same shit with the "national anarchists", at most they're just a very inconvenient nuisance.

"I believe one guy actually chastised me for liking Proudhon (this man claimed to be an anarchist.) "

You think that's bad! Just about an hour or two ago, I was waging a comment war on Common Dreams.org (basically me vs everyone else), I was trying to get across to them the importance of maintaining an anti-nationalist position in relation to the Israel/Palestinian conflict.

It got to the point where one poster (username: "endCapitalism") made this little jewel of a claim:

"Anarchists are as useless as Zionists and many times are one and the same."

I asked him to back it up, and he laid this little turd:

"Both Zionists and Anarchists are ultimately anti-working class and tools of the corporate elite. Your very words around here, support that conclusion."

I'm actually going to make a post tomorrow describing my little journey into the abyss of that comment board. Just for the lulz.

Sorry if I strayed off topic.

I have been fortunate to encounter only a few of these people within actual anarchist circles.

Whenever the topic comes up I just do what I can to impress upon people the utter stupidity of the 911/fed-reserve stuff.

Outside of anarchist circles, I've come across workmates talking about the Zeitgeist stuff, and usually these people are pretty receptive to hearing that a critique of a part of the monetary system is necessarily incomplete. If they're interested, I go on to basic Class Struggle politics and relations of production and how finance capital fits in with those relations and can't be viewed in isolation, and they're usually pretty receptive as long as I avoid using terminology with a historical baggage.

to be fair, Proudhon was a xenophobic, warmongering, misogynistic, anti-semite, so maybe it's not so out of line to question some people's motives for liking him (I don't mean you specifically, Zazaban).
The zeitgeist stuff is infantile conspiracy mumbo-jumbo, but that doesn't mean that honest historical research into 9.11 is somehow conspiracionist by definition or even "anti-anarchist".

I thought the Summer 2007 issue of Class War summed it up rather well :

Having said this, I'm not sure that 9/ll conspiracy is the main thing of the Zeitgeist people. They seem to be jumping on this bandwagon to get an audience for their own pet scheme which is the so-called Venus Project for a moneyless technological (not to say technocratic) wonderland.

Dang guys, I think I'm just a fucking retard.... Please be patient with me.

I think 9/11 had a certain criminal element involved within it. Several reasons:
- Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin (Others as well.)
- Gov't/Corps will do anything to achieve agenda (Pinochet, Suharto, ZM, etc.)
- Hitler and the burning of the Reichstag
- I am still looking for proof that Islamists were responsible for 9/11. CIA, NSA, and FBI have not shown any that I can see. I refuse to believe press releases, I want evidence.

How much influence Gov't/Corps had in 9/11 I am unsure, but I doubt they are perfectly innocent from the above reasons.

I sort of liked the Venus Project thing. Didn't get the moneyless technology vibes, but understood it as a resource based economy being more desirable than a monetary based economy. Isn't anarchism/libertarian socialism going to be a resource based economy?

**Side note: Alex Jones does not support Zeitgeist due to the movies calling out Christianity.

888 and others interested in debunking the waste of time that is 9/11 conspiracy theory, have a look at my article in the latest Datacide "Denial Networks: On Crisis and Continuity in the 9/11 'Truth' Movement". I just uploaded it to the libcom library here:

http://libcom.org/library/denial-networks-crisis-continuity-911-truth-movement

This was published in Datacide 10 which should be findable in the UK:

http://datacide.wordpress.com/2008/11/02/datacide-10-out-now/

If you think about it, it’s only ‘natural’ that the ruling class ‘conspires’.

They are a tiny minority ruling the world’s various states against the interests of the vast majority of the population.

As well as repression and the weight of ‘tradition’ (‘it’s always been like this; no other way of running the world is possible’), lies, deceit and a more or less conscious manipulation of ‘the truth’ have been the hallmark of ruling classes throughout the ages in order to perpetuate their grip, even if the modern bourgeoisie has brought this dark art to new heights.

Machiavelli may have been a feudal figure, but his scheming advice was taken on board by the new rising merchant class of the time. And this bourgeois class never relies more on its conspiracies and detailed planning than when it is facing up to the class struggle, or when it needs to mobilise the population for fighting its wars.

The more ridiculous ‘conspiracy theorists’ of today (David Icke’s giant lizards anyone?) in fact hide this reality: their outlandish claims serving to mask the truth of ruling class conspiracies.

I think that one of the most overt acts of duplicity last century was the US stance over Pearl Harbor, an incident which permitted and precipitated the US’s entry into WW2. As far as I can judge, a fair proportion the world’s ‘straight’ historians accept there was something extremely fishy about this incident.

The act of barbarism that was the destruction of NY’s Twin Towers had many similar echoes, in my view. Even if it’s the case that the US administration may not have known exactly all the details of what was about to unfold, there’s a fair amount of evidence to suggest that it was aware of an impending attack and prepared to take advantage of it. Like the case of the Reichstag fire, it’s always necessary to pose the question: ‘Who profits from the crime’?

My favourite recent piece of rather inept duplicity comes from a recent trip by the Polish president to Georgia. It’s here:
http://www.warsawvoice.pl/newsX.php/7352/2101916517

And a rather more developed article on Pearl Harbor is here:
http://en.internationalism.org/wr/250_pearl.htm

But the funny thing about this is that Chomsky is in fact a statist. That's the thing about these people, they may have one or two truths that may be quite significant -- since they go against the dominant view in society, and deal with an important matter -- but then most of the rest of their perspective is full of shit. That is how they can recruit some inquiring, but not very clear, people to their cause. Just as, in the case of 911, it is quite easy to see the dominant view as full of holes, but that doesn't mean one must opt for one or another conspiracy theory on it.

was having a beer with a few mates (one of whom posts here) about a year ago, and a guy came and put a flyer for loose change and another film on our table, they were screening them upstairs. a few beers later we thought it would be a laugh and went up. couldn't stop chuckling with incredulity at the non-sequiturs (firefighter: 'oh my god that building's gonna come down, get my men out of there!' narrator: 'he knew the buildings were being pulled. how did he know? why? we will never know, he was killed in the collapse. they covered their tracks.' )

they confronted us at the end. had a go at us for being 'socialists' who are 'sheep' for having jobs, 'bitter' because we don't enjoy our jobs like they do (!) and told us we need to 'WAKE UP AND SEE THE TRUTH!!!1.' when they started evangelising with a copy of david icke in hand i tossed it on the floor and it nearly came to blows. didn't help that i was pissed and muddled david icke with david irving, but during the pushing/shoving/stand off one of them did pull out the 'jews were tipped off and called in sick on 9-11' line. anyway in my experience these people were fuckwits more akin to religious cults like scientology, but these were the people who organise these things not your typical 'believer' searching for explanations for why the world is shit i guess.

flying planes into buildings killing thousands is certainly criminal, whoever the perpetrators are

this isn't evidence of anything to do with 9/11 though. only that states are capable in general of black ops/false flags (Gladio in Italy/the Bologna railway station bombing is another example).

this is a better analogy to 9/11 than you realise, since the Reichstag fire really was lit by a council communist who opposed the Nazis. what is significant is how the Nazis used the fire, set by a genuine enemy, to advance their pre-existing agenda (compare PNAC).

well there's the CCTV of the guys boarding the planes, the claims of responsibility... certainly much more evidence pointing to Islamists than an inside job. but so what, the US state is just as murderous either way, and what is important, like the Reichstag fire, is what they used 9/11 to do.

perhaps we should intern them without trial on the basis of your hunch?

I don't find Lurch or Virindi's posts convincing at all. What does it mean to say (Virindi) that 911 "had a certain criminal element involved with it"? That is just vague. No matter who did it, those that Bush & co. accuse included, they would of course have to be a "criminal element" owing to what they did. This is the fuzzy sort of thinking that makes conspiratorial types of analyses attractive to some. Then, the first three reasons you provided for believing the conspiracy theory (or one such) on 911 are completely irrelevant to 911. Only the final one has any relevance, but my reply to that is contained in my previous post.

As for the Venus Project, Virindi, and your question, what exactly do you mean by a "resource based economy"? In any case, communism is not about resource based or any other based, but about social relations, and about the suppression of the economy (as a separate social sphere).

Lurch, I don't find it only 'natural' that the ruling class 'conspires', and most certainly not if you are talking about the ruling class as a whole. They are just too divided, and their system keeps them so. I don't deny that there have been conspiracies by relatively small groups of ruling class people. (But I will not get into any details here, so don't even try to goad me on that.) The only issue on which the ruling class can overcome internal divisions is that of dealing with a working class revolutionary threat, and on that issue they have no need to be conspiratorial -- they act in concert quite openly. Even if a small minority of them chose to do something conspiratorial, that wouldn't prove anything like what you are claiming.

Pearl Harbour was definitely a tricky manipulative piece of work ("duplicity", as you say) by the US administration -- as was the Gulf of Tonkin incident -- but I wouldn't call it a conspiracy.

Seeing the ruling class acting in conspiratorial ways is counter to communist analysis and a communist perspective. It fosters good vs evil type thinking, leading people to support the 'good ones' (whoever they are) against the 'evil ones'. It is the system of capitalism, its social relations and mode of functioning, that should be our focus, not evil clans and such.

indeed - see the creationists battle for a designer and their thinly (or not at all) veiled agenda for religious restoration. the comfort blanket of telos.

if i may bang on about one of my hobby horses, this is exacly the vacuum nietzsche feared with the death of god, people being 'human, all to human' seeking other forms of slave-morality as a comfort blanket (conspiracy theories, alternative medicine...) rather than determining their own values in gods absence. of course he was a bit of an idealist fuckwit sometimes, and the prevelence of these values can't be understood without regard to material circumstances. from a communist point of view this means seeing 'master morality' as being a collective project to impose our needs on capitalist society not simply an individualistic ideal of personal development.[/hobby horse]

All that stuff about banks creating money "out of thin air" is pure nonsense though.

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/jan09/page12.html

yup, that's my hobby horse

One of the best books I've read on 9.11 that goes beyond the "evil terrorists did it; end of story" myth without falling into the conspirationist trap, is Peter Dale Scott's "The Road to 9/11". It is written from a bourgeois democratic perspective, not a class-based one, but the guy is an amazing writer nonetheless; his vast diplomatic experience under several American presidents and the fact that he properly sources all of his claims (the lack of which is what mainly discredits the "truth" movement), makes this a useful account amongst the myriad of shitty 9.11 tracts.
From Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/Road-11-Wealth-Empire-America/dp/0520258711/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231332677&sr=8-1

Actually, Zeitgeist doesn't make that last jump, maybe because the filmaker is called Peter Joseph. Maybe too that's another reason Alex Jones doesn't like it.

Waslax wrote:

I most certainly agree with you here. However, we perhaps have different interpretations or appreciations of what the modern capitalist class is and the economic, military and social dynamics which oblige it to behave in one way and not another, etc, etc.

In all events, what this calls for is quite a detailed and thorough discussion of the organisation and consciousness of the bourgeoisie, both historically and today. And this thread is probably not the best place to conduct it as, fair enough, it’s axed around what seems to be a not too serious ‘conspiracy site’ (which I’ve not looked at).

Nonetheless, despite the divisions which exist within any given national bourgeoisie (it’s a class based on competition after all) there is, I believe, a tendency towards unity of thought and action when faced, as you rightly say, with the working class and also with ‘external’ rivals and in the face of the economic crisis. This ‘unity’ in the national interest is both a reflection and result of, on the economic level, a tendency towards state capitalism and on the political level, towards totalitarianism.

Perhaps ‘conspiracy’ is not the best way to describe this state of affairs, but the fact remains: behind the facade of ‘democracy’, of ‘party pluralism’ (in the ‘advanced’ countries at any rate); behind the lie of ‘transparency’ the state is obliged to adopt very definite policies, regardless of which party is ‘in power’. It is organised to achieve this. It ‘conspires’ to achieve this: would we expect it to rely on telepathy?

exactly, but who makes these decisions? does the bourgeoisie democratically vote on matters of foreign policy? no; the end result will be in their class interest, but the people who make the decisions on whether or not to carpet bomb laos or sponsor afghani druglords are few and privileged, and they have every reason to "cover up" their supra-political actions; acknowledging that is not conspirationist.

Vlad: I don't think we disagree on this issue (though I could be wrong). Neither (as I said) do I want to fixate on the word 'conspiracy'. But a decision-making process by a 'few and priviledged' people who 'have every reason to "cover up" their actions' is the very dictionary definition of 'conspiracy'.

that may be, but there is a marked difference between what an actual conspiracy constitutes in the modern bourgeois political process, and the conspirationist theories of misguided people who think zeitgeist is a documentary, imo.

actually, in law as well as dictionaries a conspiracy is simply an agreement between 2 or more parties to commit an act. while it has nefarious overtones, these aren't definitive of what a conspiracy is. government is the very definition of conspiracy

conspiracy theories on the other hand are marked by wild speculation beyond the facts and non-sequiter logic. if there's any evidence for them (like the Bologna railway station bombing, or the sexing up of the Iraq dossier) then they cease to be conspiracy theories and are just conspiracy facts.

Joseph K wrote:

So Joseph, you agree that it is 'only natural that the ruling class conspires'?

in the legal sense of conspiracy i outlined, but of course. adam smith could tell you as much. as i say, this is distinct from conspiracy theories.

Then could we please, Vlad and Joseph, get beyond petty sniping, in order to demolish the false theories of 'conspiracy theorists', to discuss the deeper issues of how, in general, class societies are based on lies and 'conspiracies' to hide the reality of exploitation, to the reality of modern capitalism which has made an 'art form' out of such practices. I've got enough trouble with my 'enemies': I don't want to wreck this thread with arguments with folk I actually agree with.

i can't see any petty sniping here, i just think it's useful to define terms clearly, and any discussion of ruling class conspiracies has to distinguish these in a legal sense from 'conspiracy theories' as irrational flights of fancy.

Joseph: if you want a 'last word' on this, you've got it. There is a real discussion here, but maybe for another time. For the record, I agree with your statement: 'government is the very definition of conspiracy'. This particularly and especially applies to the capitalist mode of production and its political expressions, IMO.

Yeah, I don't think I've ever had a run in with any of the people who organize this shit, but I think it's probably not even worth your breath on those people. "Cult" is probably the best way to describe it.

But your average person who gets duped by this stuff is probably just, like you say, searching for explanations for why the world is shit. If a person is using their critical faculties it doesn't take long for them to see the stupidity.

Although, on a side note, I had a friend that got into the 911/fed-reserve conspiracy populist stupidity and it actually pretty much destroyed the friendship. It was very much what I'd imagine it would be like to see someone join a suicide cult or something similar.

The makers must have a lot of resources and expertise..... I wonder what their real intentions are....... Surely if they are clever enough to know how to manipulate, they must know that their story just doesn't add up? We need to follow the money trail.... I think the CIA and Mossad are behind it myself...

At least three people I've worked with have been either a little or very interested in conspiracy theories, so I think it's pretty widespread, and I don't think in any of those cases it was linked to right wing politics - although the guy who was most into it I only saw a few minutes a day, so never had an in-depth discussion about it.