This week's Diet Soap podcast features an interview/panel discussion with the fine people at Better Bad New on the subject of WTC 7, the controlled opposition to US Empire, and May 1968 in Paris. It also features a podcast sound collage with Slavoj Zizek, Jason Horsley, Robert Scheer from Truthdig, and his holiness Osho Rajneesh. Mother Teresa should jump in a lake. Also there is Gracie Coates singing Twisted Truths, Chris "Isto" White singing Black Orpheus, and a Titanic factoid from Miriam.
From the diet soap website:
"On the Diet Soap podcast this week is an interview with Len Bracken-a writer of fiction and nonfiction, the author of one of the first widely distributed books published in the United States suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job--Shadow Government: 9-11 and State Terror. He is also the author of the first biography on Guy Debord in any language entitled Guy Debord Revolutionary. This week Len discusses the financial crisis, the 911 conspiracy, and the possibility (or lack thereof) for revolutionary change in the US. Also featured this week is a montage of podcasts and youtube videos from the last week along with a Titanic factoid."
This week Doug Lain from the Diet Soap podcast and KMO of the C-realm podcast discuss 9/11 conspiracies on both their respective shows. There is a special emphasis on the pervasive resistance to critically engage with the subject, and an analysis of how leading alternative thinkers and dissidents seem unable to think critically on the subject. The C-Realm podcast is here and the Diet Soap podcast is here.
The second half of the transcript of the Diet Soap interview of Peter Dale Scott is up at the the Examiner. Peter discusses COG, the anthrax attacks, and the purpose behind the use of torture. The entire interview of Peter Dale Scott can be heard at the Diet Soap podcast.
A partial transcript of the Diet Soap interview of Peter Dale Scott is up at the the Examiner. Peter discusses why the question of why there was a failure to intercept the hijacked planes is very important and how the 911 Report failed to investigate the rule change that led to the intercept failure. The entire interview of Peter Dale Scott can be heard at the Diet Soap podcast.
This week's Diet Soap podcast features the second part of a conversation with Peter Dale Scott about his book "The Road to 9/11." Peter also discusses his views on the pros and cons of Noam Chomsky, his admiration and impatience with anarchism and other revolutionary strategies for social change, and the necessary difficulties involved with attempts to understand deep politics. Phil Och's song "Love Me I'm Liberal" along with a factoid on the Titanic are also featured.
This week's Diet Soap podcast features an interview with author and scholar Peter Dale Scott about his book “The Road to 9/11″ this week. Peter is well known for investigating what he calls “deep politics.” His website is peterdalescott.net. Also in this episode are the voices of KMO of the C-Realm podcast (reading from CS Lewis’ “Through the Looking Glass”), Michael Parenti, Noam Chomsky, and the members of the SWP.
"We must conclude that a change is imminent and ineluctable in the co-opted cast who manage the domination and, notably, those who direct the protection of that domination. In such an affair, the novelty of course will never be displayed on the stage of the spectacle. It will only appear like lightning, which we know only when it strikes. This change, which will decisively complete the work of these spectacular times, will occur discreetly and, although it concerns those already installed in the sphere of power, conspiratorially. It will select those who will take part part in it on this central requirement: that they clearly know what obstacles they have overcome, and of what they are capable."-Guy Debord
The editors over at NOT BORED (a pro-situ 'zine) added this footnote:
I haven't ever had a chance to watch the Zembla documentary on 9/11 in its entirety, but have instead just focused on Jowenko's testimony. Today I found the following excerpt at youtube; it covers US foreknowlege and insider trading.
Now that Richard Porter of the BBC has explained that, "One senior fire officer was quoted in a subsequent interview as saying there was a 'bulge' in the building and he was 'pretty sure it was going to collapse'." And named this senior fire office as the primary source behind the premature report of WTC 7's collapse we need to be careful and reasonable in our response.
We need to know the name of this fire official, discover if this official was interviewed by FEMA, and discover precisely what sort of collapse he anticipated given the reported bulge in the building.
We might be able to use this BBC blunder to gain access to information that has been withheld up until now, but in order to do that we have to recognize what it is we're after.
I've lifted the following comment from the BBC webpage where Richard Porter's editorial "Part of the Conspiracy?" currently resides. British members of this blog site should consider writing to their MP and to the BBC to reiterate the position taken below, people in other parts of the world could simply write to the BBC.
"Dear Mr. Porter,
In your own words: "We did what we always did - sourced our reports... and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving." - Richard Porter, Head of News (BBC World)
In the interest of free and open public discourse, as befits a public broadcaster, the BBC must provide the aforementioned "source" for its premature report on the collapse of WTC7.
This story will not be going away any time soon!"
I wrote this in response to Peter Michaelson's essay at Buzzflash. http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/803
I agree that there are an infinite number of ways to
seek power, and that not all of them are rational.
However, I believe you're being sloppy or myopic when
you suggest that conspiracy theorists are given a
false sense of security when they cling to irrational
beliefs. Having read a number of articles and books
on the subject of US complicity in the attacks of 9/11
I would argue that taking the notion seriously brings
on a sense of anxiety and not security. I think that
would be the normal reaction to that belief system.
In any case, whatever a person's motives may be for
believing this or that fact or theory doesn't have any
impact on the truth value of the fact or theory. In
the case of 911 conspiracies I believe that there are
many facts that lead to believing that the US was
complicit. The August 6th memo, dozens of foriegn
intelligence warnings, and the most recent revelations
about Tenet's meetings with Rice and Rumsfeld on the
subject establish that the Administration had
I came across this interview of Jeffery St. Clair this morning and found it enlightening. What struck me most was how specious his argument was regarding the American left. I wasn't surprised that he dismissed the notion of US complicity in the attacks of September 11th, but was a little bewildered by the repetition of the Counterpunch talking points on the subject. He very clearly put forward the notion that interest in theories about 9/11 are not merely a symptom of the left's deep mistrust of the current administration, but are in fact a causative factor behind the left's inability to organize an effective resistance to the current administration. He states unequivocally that this focus on the cause of 9/11 has stopped people from organizing, distracted people from their opposition to the occupation of Iraq, and essentially reflects a retreat.
But he offers nothing in the way of evidence for this assertion, not even anecdotal evidence.
Recently I stumbled upon a transcript of something
you'd written on a Znet forum and I thought I'd ask
for clarification. You wrote:
"The concept of a 'false flag operation' is not a very
serious one, in my opinion."
I wonder why you would sa that. For instance, are you
suggesting that the Gleiwitz incident didn't happen or
that it wasn't important?
I should divulge that I find the evidence for US
complicity in 9/11 compellng. Specifically it seems
to me that the current administration had foreknowlege
of the September 11th attacks and were criminally
negligent at best and may have facilitated the attack.
You were discussing this issue when you claimed that
the very concept of a false flag attack wasn't
serious, but I'm not asking you about that subject
now. I'm just curious about your more general view
that 'false flag opearations' don't happen or aren't