Deep State Doublethink

Somewhere between George Bush and Noam Chomsky, who believe the 9/11 Commission Report, and David Ray Griffin, who believes "the Bush-Cheney administration orchestrated 9/11" (Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11, 2006, p. vii-viii, ), there is Peter Dale Scott.

Scott doesn't say who did it, but as Ola Tunander puts it,

"Peter Dale Scott exposes a shadow world of oil, terrorism, drug trade and arms deals, of covert financing and parallel security structures – from the Cold War to today. He shows how such parallel forces of the United States have been able to dominate the agenda of the George W. Bush Administration, and that statements and actions made by Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld before, during and after September 11, 2001, present evidence for an American "deep state" and for the so-called "Continuity of Government" in parallel to the regular "public state" ruled by law. Scott"s brilliant work not only reveals the overwhelming importance of these parallel forces but also presents elements of a strategy for restraining their influence to win back the "public state," the American democracy."

This is not very different from the more widely held "rogue network" theory described, for example, by Webster Tarpley, as "an outlaw network of high officials infesting the military and security apparatus of the United States and Great Britain." Tarpley sees this network as "ultimately dominated by Wall Street and City of London financiers," but many other candidates have been proposed (Bilderbergers, Bohemian Grove, Skull and Bones, Illuminati, CFR, CIA, Mossad, Federal Reserve, etc.).

What these two points of view have in common, if indeed they are different at all, is the idea that there is, or still is, a "public state" (or "non-rogue" network) at all. This sounds comforting, to the extent that it encourages us to think that if we can just expose and get rid of the bad guys, we can "win the country back." The latter expression brings us all the way back into mainstream politics, where anyone dissatisfied with the status quo can complain about the country having gone to the dogs and being desperately in need of change.

It is along this continuum that we lose Chomsky and other advocates of a "structuralist" or "institutional" approach, which they oppose to "conspiracy theory" generally. The system cannot be fixed, they say, by superficial reforms, or by getting rid of the bad guys, because it is based on capitalist imperialism and the profit motive. Even if the "deep state" were exposed and removed, things would not improve significantly because the public state is the real killer. Chomsky's entire (political) oeuvre is dedicated to showing how the US government (and its allies) wreak havoc in the world, not by conspiracy but openly and consistently as the logical and predictable consequence of the economic system it serves.

I think both points of view are flawed. Why Chomsky et al. refuse to acknowledge the evidence for high-level government complicity in "deep state" events like the JFK assassination and 9/11 is simply not comprehensible. They fit easily (and politically very effectively) into a "structural" analysis: both events precipitated imperialist wars -- the latter undeniably, the former arguably.

On the other hand, is this notion of a coexisting deep and public state not precisely the state of doublethink Orwell described in "1984" -- "holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them" (Orwell, 1984)? How is it possible, logically, to have both at the same time? The concepts, it seems to me, are mutually exclusive. If the deep state exists, there can be no public state, by definition. The same is true of the rogue network. There can be no rogue network within the government controlling the government, because if that is the case the rogue network is the government.

This is not "semantics." Scott is not talking about the public face, the propaganda mask, that "bad" governments use to disguise their evil nature. There would be nothing new about that. He is talking about two governments ("states"), a good one and a bad one, that are so intertwined they can hardly be told apart, like Jekyll and Hyde. This is what Scott's oeuvre is all about -- showing us how closely intertwined they are. My problem with this is that precisely because they are so intertwined, I see no point in trying to distinguish them.

Worse, Scott's theory in the end exonerates the very institutions (CIA, FBI, Military Intelligence, etc.) he impugns. Like his friend John Newman, who can present a mountain of evidence proving that Oswald was a CIA agent without implicating the CIA as an institution, Scott does not locate the deep state in the CIA or any other government agency, or in the government at all, since the "overworld" extends far beyond the US government into organized crime, international banking and finance, transnational corporations, foreign intelligence agencies, etc. Thus "9/11 was an inside job," for Scott, does not mean the (US) government did it. Ditto for JFK, and all other "deep events."

As long as this doublethink holds, one is paralyzed. One cannot blame the government, or agencies of the government, because they didn't do it. Despite the overwhelming evidence tying them to all sorts of misdeeds, they are innocent as institutions because they are, after all, part of the "public state." This is where Newman leaves us, and it is where Scott leaves us. Maybe there is something about being a former intelligence officer (Newman) or a (Canadian) diplomat (Scott) that prevents them from taking the final, logical step, which I see as inevitable. If everything, or even half, of what they say is true, the government did do it, and only the government can solve the so-called "mysteries" and rectify the situation, whereupon it follows that we must try to remake the government into a true "res publica." Rather than exonerate the CIA as an institution, for example, it must be completely reformed (or abolished) as an institution. Since this can probably not be done without reforming the overarching institution, the government, of which it is a part, we can now rejoin Chomsky et al. in calling for fundamental change. I wonder if Maj. Newman and Prof. Scott would be with us on that one.


What is your opinion of the alternatives for political change that Scott discusses in the conclusion of "The Road to 9/11"?


Hi rep,

My only quarrel with Scott is that he doesn't go far enough. I don't see how someone who knows as much as he does can fail to see the forest for the trees.

Another thing that puzzles me is that he does not believe the BBC announced the collapse of WTC 7 prematurely. I have asked him twice about this and sent him the links, but his response is "Can you present a reasoned argument that it actually happened?"

I also tried to get him to respond to the thoughts in the essay above, but he didn't.

As for political action, I think 911blogger is on the right track.


I think he answers you

in the conclusion to Road to 9/11.

If I find some time, I'll type up or scan some of the pertinent pages.

Scott is criticized for not going that extra step, but for the steps that he does take, they are mostly impeccable, which many authors documenting the covert world cannot honestly say.

Scott names names, he always has, and the names keep coming back like recurring tumors. It's not his personal fault that the perps of JFK aren't incarcerated, anymore than it is Mark Lane's or anyone else's.

Yes, we're up to our ass in corruption, but we've never had the samizdat of the internet before. We must safeguard it.

(He doesn't answer the BBC thing, to be clear, but the political thing. If I get a chance to meet with him again, I'll harass him about Miss Jane Standley.)


The text you quote actually makes my point.

"But the consequences of global inequality cannot be shielded from Americans forever, as this country learned with a shock on September 11, 2001."
"In the wake of 9/11, Americans were encouraged not to think of al Qaeda with compassion, or even to consider the reasons why jihadists had attacked the United States."

This makes it clear that Scott is much nearer to Chomsky (and George Bush) on 9/11 than to David Griffin (or I presume most of the people reading this). Scott does not think 9/11 was an inside job. All he says is that the government hasn't told the whole truth. "Jihadists" did it.

"...the immoral folly of Vietnam."

Chomsky would disagree, and so do I. The war in Vietnam served the economic and political interests (destroying the threat of a bad example, i.e. an independent Vietnam) of the ruling class (power elite, military-industrial complex, Wall Street, whatever you want to call it if you don't like the word "class"). See Chomsky for this argument; he makes it better than I can.

"Immoral" of course, but not from the point of view of the warmongers, and "folly" implies that it was a "well-intentioned mistake," which is of course the official propaganda line on that history. I just wish Chomsky would also agree with me that JFK was killed in order to get him out of the warmongers' way.

"...institutions that, although worthy of preservation and respect, are clearly not working as intended."

Given that Scott, like George Bush and Noam Chomsky, believes that "jihadists" were responsible for 9/11 and (unlike Chomsky but like Bush) that Vietnam was an "immoral folly," it is not surprising that he says this. I suppose he means the intelligence agencies and the military. Even if he does NOT think these institutions were behind the JFK assassination and 9/11 (et al.), this is an egregious understatement just on the basis of what he himself has documented.

Scott must know perfectly well that if our "institutions," in sum, our government (his "public state"), were still in anything remotely like a state of health, or remotely resembling the purposes for which they were supposedly created and are commonly described, the crimes of 9/11, JFK, etc. would have been solved long ago. If these institutions were still "legitimate" in this sense, sure, there could be "rogue elements" that might even manage to kill a president or fly an airplane into a building. But they could NOT have done what they did on 9/11 (brought the Air Force to its knees), and more importantly, even if they could have done it they could not have gotten away with it. A legitimate government would have solved the crime long ago.

Scott is trying to hang on to the illusion that the government is still (if it ever was) the "public state" he imagines (and which we have all been more or less brainwashed into believing it is (if we grew up in the US). As I said in my essay, I think this is debilitating. We need to know where we stand. If you read my MITOP article, you know that I think the perpetrators want (some of) us to know, too, but I think we could turn that against them if we get beyond the doublethink stage where we are now.

Rep, if you run into Scott again maybe you could ask him to spell out why he thinks "jihadists" were behind 9/11, and why the CIA and other secret government agencies are "worthy of preservation and respect." If they were, we wouldn't need a 9/11 truth movement because those institutions would have done their job. And yes, please do ask him why he doesn't believe the BBC prematurely announced the collapse of WTC 7.

Scott says he is not a Marxist. Neither am I. Nor am I an anarchist. Nobody is talking about throwing babies out with the bath water. But I object to his saying the water is not as dirty as it is. That is not the way to get the baby clean.

Thanks for responding to this, rep. I think it's important, and I'd be pleased to see more comments.


Framing the debate

You bring up I think some valid criticisms of Scott's position. However, I have some thoughts of my own that I think are worth considering.

"In the wake of 9/11, Americans were encouraged not to think of al Qaeda with compassion, or even to consider the reasons why jihadists had attacked the United States."

This of course assumes that "al qaeda" was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. You would have a hard time convincing many people who frequent this site of that opinion.

I use the word "opinion", but I could also be using the word "conclusion". How does one reach a conclusion? Typically, by addressing the total sum of information that we can know.

What members of the 9/11 truth movement "think" happened on 9/11 is I believe--largely irrelevant. What is relevant is the facts as we can nail down with certainty. This is the critical and real issue. Once the facts are established, the conclusions will fall into place. What we cannot know, we must admit to and call for an investigation. I believe that vigorously debating and solidly confirming the facts of 9/11 is of critical importance; debating opinions is largely an entertaining diversion.

It is one thing to "know" the facts, and it is another to disseminate this information. What I mean is that we all take it for granted that we know what we know. If we do not communicate these facts to the uninformed, we cannot make progress. This is significant because phrases like "9/11 was an inside job" are essentially useless if they are not supported by credible facts. I can claim for example that 9/11 was an inside job, but if I support it with bad information, misleading information, or even debatable speculation, I am not helping my conclusion.

This leads to my next point. There are some things that we cannot know that happened on 9/11. Much of the information surrounding the hijackers for example cannot be known. Did they really hijack the planes? Did they even board the planes? Did they fake identities? I can't confidently claim one way or another because the information is being hidden from us. This is an example where if possible we need to get a new investigation.

Unfortunately, many within the movement appear to be more concerned about the "conclusions" and "opinions" than with the facts and confirming the facts about 9/11. I believe that the 9/11 truth movement should be a fact based movement and not an opinion or "authority" based one (i.e. David Ray Griffin says this is true, or Tarpley says this or true, so it's true). We need to think for ourselves and hold ourselves accountable for any and ALL claims that we make. That is, if we want to be taken seriously. Real progress could be made if we adopted this approach. After all, you cannot dismiss a "conspiracy theorist" if he does not offer you any theories.

This is exactly how the LIHOP/MIHOP false dichotomy is used to disrupt the 9/11 truth movement. The real debate should be about the facts of 9/11. Debating among ourselves about "opinions" or "conclusions" is a diversion when we do not also confirm the facts as our basis for this debate.

What is clear is that the necessary conclusions will fall into place when the facts have been established. Indeed, you cannot reach a conclusion until you first establish the facts. We cannot put the cart before the horse.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog


I'm glad to get some more thoughts on this, because as I told Rep, I think it's important. I urge you to consider whether insisting on waiting for all the facts to come in is another form of denial, just as Scott's insistence on the existence of the "public state" is a form of denial.

The facts are in. As many have said, there is more than enough on the table to begin the criminal prosecution. The next step, and the problem, is to do it. This is not a matter of "facts," but a purely political matter. (Same with the prosecution of Bush et al. for murder, as Bugliosi says.) The remaining facts will be revealed if and when the criminal prosecution takes place.)

The reason I've jumped on Scott is that by pussy-footing around the question of responsibility with this illogical notion of "two states," and even saying outright that "jihadists" did it and thus fully agreeing with Chomsky and George Bush, he loses credibility and certainly does the truth movement no good.

'Public Myths' as an example of "belief" versus truth

"The facts are in. As many have said, there is more than enough on the table to begin the criminal prosecution. "

The facts are certainly in, but I think the larger issue is the effective dissemination of these facts. Without public pressure you can be sure there will be no trials. And without spreading information about 9/11 there can be no public pressure.

"The reason I've jumped on Scott is that by pussy-footing around the question of responsibility with this illogical notion of "two states," and even saying outright that "jihadists" did it and thus fully agreeing with Chomsky and George Bush, he loses credibility and certainly does the truth movement no good."

You'll find no argument from me that "Jihadists did it", because this claim has never been proven by any stretch of the imagination. The evidence that "jihadists" did it is extremely flimsy. For years they refused to release passenger lists, airport videos, and a significant amount of evidence. I think the whole point of this is partially to encourage misinformation, and secondly to muddy the issue of criminal responsibility. The more evidence that is released--even if it doesn't prove complicity, allows researchers to focus on provable issues. This idea of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks I think goes to the core issue of what the 9/11 truth movement is about. A strong case can be made that "Jihadists" were not responsible for 9/11. A very strong case can be made that official reports are a cover-up, and that includes the NIST report on the twin towers. One does not have to understand physical evidence arguments to understand that the NIST report fails, for example: to adequately explain the collapse of the towers.

But as for your secondary point that "The reason I've jumped on Scott is that by pussy-footing around the question of responsibility with this illogical notion of "two states," and even saying outright that "jihadists" did it... he loses credibility and certainly does the truth movement no good."

I would actually think this point is somewhat debatable, and I'll explain why.

As Orwell has explained, 2+2=4 regardless if you believe it to be 5. What this essentially means, is that public opinion or "belief" is not necessarily the same thing as the TRUTH.

Let's try this thought experiment: Philip Zelicow is an expert in the creation of "public myths"--manipulating the public to "believe" something that is plausible, but not necessarily true. The 9/11 "official story" is a public myth believed by many to be true. While as I explained above, the case for "jihadist" responsibility is extremely flimsy, it has not stopped a very large number of people from believing it. This is unfortunate, but how disinformation and propaganda works. But does it matter what people "believe" or does it matter what the facts tell us?

As I explained in my previous post, we can only arrive at truth by establishing the facts. Once we do this we can talk about conclusions--but the conclusions themselves are easily manipulated and various. You see, anyone can believe pretty much "anything" about 9/11. You can have a discussion with 20 different people and you will have 20 different versions of what they think happened on 9/11. What is constant and unchanging--are the facts themselves. What is not constant, is the knowledge of these facts. The official story largely depends on "omission"--the most common technique of disinformation.

So to answer your question finally, yes I think he would lose credibility for advocating that "jihadists" did 9/11, because the case for this is very flimsy. But ultimately, it shouldn't matter what Scott thinks happened, because we shouldn't rely on any one person to tell us what happened on 9/11. We should only rely on the facts.

A great number of people believe that "jihadists" carried out 9/11. Why is that? What can we do about it? Ultimately, we need to educate others about the facts which reveal the full story of 9/11.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog

I think we agree

Scott does say that "jihadists" did it (see the citations from his book that Rep posted), so I am wondering why the hell he is considered a leader of the 9/11 truth movement. I agree that we need to educate people, and that's why it is so frustrating to see Scott, who has so much information to offer, conclude that the 9/11 Commission was essentially right ("jihadists" did it). This is not the way to educate people, and if I wanted to be nasty, I could say that it is a technique that can be used in order to "defuse" the truth. I'm sure that CIA propagandists have a term for this. It's logical. You get all this evidence together showing that it was an inside job, and then you pull the rug out from under all of it by concluding (or simply asserting, which is what Scott does at the end of the book) that "jihadists" did it. (If "jihadists" did it, it was not an inside job; there's no getting around that.)

You see, if our opponents can point to the sage, respected Peter Scott, who is featured at all the conferences and rallies for "9/11 truth," who has all the facts together, "impeccably" to use Rep's word, and he--and this is the point--concludes that "jihadists" did it, then who are we lesser lights in the crowd to question his conclusion? Nobody stops and thinks, "Hey, wait a minute, Scott did a hell of a job of research, that's true, but his conclusion was not based on this research!

The same can be said of Chomsky. He just goes a bit farther than Scott in denying any validity at all to the "truthies." Ergo: if Chomsky doesn't doubt the 9/11 Report, why should anybody?

This has been a useful discussion, Arabesque. Thanks. I am more convinced than ever that Scott is counterproductive to the truth movement. I wish Rep would chime in here again. He has been very supportive of Scott, and I'd like to know if he has been having doubts similar to mine (and yours?).


In terms of "trouble spots" in public personalities promoting 9/11 Truth, Scott is pretty darn low on the "trouble" meter. When he speaks publicly, his talks do not hinge upon convincing the audience that "jihadists" did it. His focus seems to be generally that team Cheney had COG ready to roll on 9/11, the Feds had "instant suspects" ready to blame in the wake of 9/11, just like Oswald was the instant patsy of JFK. He also points out that insider trading preceded JFK as well as 9/11, another parallel that I was unaware of.

Far more troubling to me is the cluster of Fetzer, Reynolds, and Wood, and those who promote them. These people are infinitely MORE counterproductive to the truth than you allege that Scott is. I am far more concerned about their public and private collusion.

Scott's language about "jihadists" should be modified. Unlike Chomsky, I believe that Scott will listen to voices of reason, and it will modify. (It's too bad that Scott has not responded to you. Have you corresponded with Scott on other issues with the same result?)

I don't feel paralyzed by Scott's writing. I feel intellectually challenged, and pushed to be more thorough in my own research and analysis.

I do see your point of view, and I am going to keep this in mind as I carefully read and review "The War Conspiracy", which has been re-published;

As far as our critics go, they openly mock Scott as a JFK researcher and therefore don't read his books, and thus, aren't parsing his comments for ammunition to use against us. Unless you know of an example?

I'm not sure that Scott considers himself a leader of 9/11 Truth. I consider him an exceptionally well-learned speaker on topics that the media loves to hate. His talks have proven to be so popular that he is invited to speak at 9/11 Truth events again and again. (He does suggest direction for 9/11 Truthers, but from my experience, 9/11 Truthers don't like to even be advised, never mind directed.)


Yes, Rep, I've corresponded with Scott, and he sent me a pre-pub PDF of The War Conspiracy but did not respond to my request (I wrote a couple of times) for his opinion on my "The False Debate" and MITOP. I don't think he read either, frankly, because it is absurd to say, as he did, that the former does not concern NSAM 263/273! I suspect I am the only person on this side of the fence that has challenged him, and he will probably never forgive me, especially if he reads what I have written here, so I won't write again. If you can get a response out of him about any of this (also about his skepticism about the BBC WTC 7 pre-announcement), I'd like to hear it.

Re Fetzer et al., I just don't hear much either about them or from them, so I don't see them as a problem. Scott is more of a problem, because he is much more credible, and even if he doesn't broadcast his conclusions (just the opposite), they are there for anyone to find, and as I said, therein lies the danger: If Scott, given his credibility and acceptance in the "movement," says that he "doesn't know" who killed JFK (as I have heard him say in interviews), and that he doesn't know who was behind 9/11 either but nevertheless defends the institutions of the state and in the end supports the official lie (that "jihadists" did it), then it makes it much more difficult for others to refute this conclusion--even though the conclusion is not warranted by his research.

This is exactly parallel to John Newman's Oswald work. Newman works his way into becoming the top "dissident" authority on Oswald, and what is his conclusion? That the CIA, as an institution, is innocent of the plot against Kennedy. Who can refute this conclusion, and in fact come to the exact opposite conclusion on the basis of the very evidence that Newman presents, when the author himself says something completely different? Do you see the pattern? Good research, junk conclusion. If you tout the former and keep the latter low-key, you win in the end. Because nobody (except me) is jumping up and saying, "Great research! Terrible conclusion."

Let us both read "The War Conspiracy" with this in mind. Unfortunately, this may take me a while because I lost the PDF he sent me when I changed computers recently.

Fetzer et al.

"Re Fetzer et al., I just don't hear much either about them or from them, so I don't see them as a problem. Scott is more of a problem..."

No. Wrong. This is a major problem. The disinformation associated with their milieu has now been introduced into the legal arena in a New York District Court;

Does this now make you guilty of "diffusion"? It's not my fault that you haven't heard of this. It was on the front page of for most of last week.

This is not a legal precedent... YET. "Yet" is the key word here. If a legal precedent does manage to get set, this could inoculate Silverstein Properties and the investigation labs associated with NIST from legal investigations and prosecutions. The "evidentiary tributaries" leading off from there could potentially be severed forever.

This is infinitely more counterproductive to 9/11 Truth than anything you allege above by Scott.

Assuming that demolition theories have some merit, it conceivably could be the Holy Grail to the whole deal. The dangers you fear regarding Scott simply pale in comparison. Already, New York District Courts, and the defense attorneys that dwell in them, can now point to this judge's dismissal as a guidepost for future lawsuits and litigation that are linked to "9/11 Truth". And they will. I've heard from an attorney who is familiar with the NY District Courts and says that they are already notoriously difficult to get a fair shake in. Why would anyone be working to give potential perps a safety margin?

You disagree with Scott on his conclusion. Big deal. He's not running around blowing up bridges to the truth like Team Disinfo. This is a far more pressing concern than your speculation about some hypothetical guy sifting through Scott's dense writing so he can go, "Aha! Peter Dale Scott says this!"

Disinformation pollution of 9/11 Truth is happening right now. It's not hypothetical. It's in progress. This is a priority concern, in my opinion, compared to your general disagreement with Scott.


First of all, when people say "disinformation" is not an issue, I think they are missing the fact that the 9/11 official story itself is "disinformation". It is carefully constructed and elaborate disinformation. By declaring ourselves a 9/11 truth movement, we are by definition concerned about the issue of disinformation. There are obviously, two poles to the cover-up and one side is the explanations for the official story and the other is false/misleading explanations for what happened. I think that disinformation is a serious issue and the effects of the damage are underestimated. The 9/11 truth movement has to by definition understand the techniques of manipulation--be that in the form of the official myth of 9/11, or other more subtle forms of misleading information and propaganda--ad hominem, appeal to authority, straw-man, distortion, omission, etc.

However, it is unfortunate that Peter Dale Scott apparently gave permission to include his article in Fetzer's book. A book that includes obvious disinformation like the no-plane/video fakery theories.

The 9/11 Conspiracy
James H. Fetzer

David Ray Griffin has also included an article in this book. By mixing articles together in which TV fakery is promoted, the only purpose can be to discredit these other articles. The Myth and the Reality by DRG includes the "no hijacker names on the flight manifests" claim, which I just wrote an article about.
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog


Scott gave the article to Steven Jones and Jim Fetzer for publication, before the great schism. He told me this when I talked to him in Vancouver at the 9/11 Truth Conference. Scott and Fetzer are not friends.

Jones removed himself from the project, and Fetzer took over, that's my understanding. Scott submitted the article for publication with the knowledge that Jones would be there as an editor to provide balance, and keep out bogus stuff.

But that didn't happen.

Where is your article?

Arabesque, can't find your article on the hijackers' names on your blog.

Passenger Lists

9/11 Misinformation: Flight “Passenger Lists” Show “No Hijacker Names”
A 9/11/2008 Resolution: Start Your Own 9/11 Blog