“In a Society Governed Passively by Free Markets and Free Elections, Organized Greed Always Defeats Disorganized Democracy”


In his excellent new essay arguing that "Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression", Matt Taibbi writes:

In a society governed passively by free markets and free elections, organized greed always defeats disorganized democracy.

I agree.

This same thinking applies to the government's lies about Iraq, as more and more evidence proves that the American government knowingly lied when it claimed that Iraq had wmds, and when it claimed there was a link between Iraq and 9/11. The "organized greed" of those in government who wanted to invade Iraq defeated the "disorganized democracy" of everyone else.

If asked, Taibbi might even admit this parallel.

But Taibbi and many other quasi-mainstream writers have a blind spot when it comes to the ultimate example of where "organized greed ... defeats disorganized democracy": false flag operations.

Financial commentator and former broker and options trader Max Keiser is perhaps less shy than Taibbi. As Keiser said of Goldman's manipulation:

This was a controlled demolition sponsored by Goldman Sachs . . .

This is a false flag operation. The American people were scared out of their wits due to the financially engineered financial collapse . . .

Keiser's analogy is, of course, to the "controlled demolition" of the World Trade Centers on 9/11 and the "false flag operation" and "engineered collapse" on 9/11.

In a false flag operation, the "organized greed" of certain elements within a government and/or its military and intelligence services use fear-inducing attacks to "scare people out of their wits" in order to drum up a sufficiently scary enemy to justify its military and political objectives defeats the disorganized democratic wish for peace, truth and justice.

It is ironic that writers such as Taibbi don't seem to be able to distinguish between insane conspiracy theories which are contrary to the weight of scientific and historical evidence, on the one hand, and real conspiracies such as Goldman's manipulation of the markets (which many other financial writers also acknowledge) and 9/11, on the other hand.

Those who cling to the official story of 9/11 are like the old people in Russia who cling to their momentos of Communist rule - the photos of Stalin, or handkerchiefs emblazoned with the old Soviet symbol - long after the Russian leaders themselves say that free market capitalism is the way to go:

  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) - who led the 9/11 staff's inquiry - said "At some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened". He also said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is not spin. This is not true."
  • The Commission's co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) "obstructed our investigation"

And given that all of the so-called "confessions" of the alleged 9/11 plotters have turned out to be worthless, it is stunning that people like Taibbi can't admit their assumptions were wrong, and re-examine the evidence anew.

Judges have had to distinguish between real conspiracies and false allegations of conspiracies for hundreds of years, based upon well-established rules of evidence and logic. High-level legal scholars have looked at the evidence and found the government's explanation of the 9/11 conspiracy (solely involving Al Qaeda) to be wanting. I don't know why writers like Taibbi can't do the same in regards to 9/11.

Taibbi and others like him use their keen analytical abilities to address certain conspiracies, but then dismiss others as "insane" without actually looking at the evidence put forward by numerous high level military leaders, intelligence professionals, Congressmen, FBI officials, structural engineers, architects, scientists and other credible people who doubt the government's version of 9/11.

They are insightful intellectuals on some subjects, and like the old Russians fools on others. Perhaps honestly discussing 9/11 is rocking the boat too much even for those journalists who are insightful reporters on other issues.

Liberals often mistakenly assume that only those on the right question 9/11. But in fact, many prominent liberals don't buy the government's story. Likewise, conservatives often assume that only liberals question 9/11, but that is not true.