Manufacturing Counterculture

Manufacturing Consent is a documentary supposedly about Noam Chomsky's work of the same name, though ironically it functions as little more than an advert for Chomsky, essentially ignoring the book's other author Edward Herman. This is clear from comparing the subtitles of the book (published 1988) and the film (released 1992). The book's subtitle is 'The political economy of the mass media', the film's is 'Noam Chomsky and the mass media'. The man himself is introduced by the description 'the most important intellectual alive' and it continues in a similar vein.

The point here is that Chomsky is arguably the most important intellectual alive, because he's probably the most famous, the most widely read, and therefore the most influential. Not because he's got the best ideas and arguments, but because films such as this one have propelled him as close to rock star status as an MIT professor could hope to be. However, this means we should treat his work with the utmost caution, not with fawning praise and uncritical coverage, yet the latter is mostly what happens. However, from his philosophical bases to his advocacy of global government Chomsky appears at best a misguided and outmoded fool and at worst a shill of titanic proportions. Whether knowingly or otherwise, Chomsky is part of a dynamic of deception that affects everything from the shoes people wear to which country gets invaded this year.

Old Noam's background is in linguistics, and he belongs to a school of thought stretching back through the fraud Rene Descartes all the way back to the first writer of the dialectical method, Plato. This is significant, because Descartes willingly suppressed his own work at the behest of the Church during the Copernican revolution, and Plato was part of an aristocratic culture of knowledge where intelligent young teenage boys were sodomised by older men as part of their apprenticeship. Neither were men of great fidelity or credibility.

Descartes committed what I consider the greatest intellectual hoax of all time, and it has become the most quoted bit of philosophy of all time. This is 'cogito ergo sum', in essence 'I think therefore I am'. The argument in Rene's Meditations is essentially that one can doubt pretty much anything, except that oneself much exist, in order to be doubting the other stuff. 'I think, therefore I am', because I must exist in order to think. At first glance it seems a plausible argument, but it is an ideological confidence trick that makes Fukuyama seem like a parlour game. The most straightforward fallacy is that the argument is circular: 'I think, therefore I am'. Naturally, if you assume from the off that it is 'I' that is thinking, or that there has to be a 'I' that thinks at all, then you're going to conclude that this thing exists, because without it you're left with a tautology 'If I exist then I exist'.

Friedrich Nietzsche put forth essentially this sort of criticism in his most famous text Beyond Good and Evil, which is now the name of a popular computer game franchise.

There are still harmless self-observers who believe that there are "immediate certainties"; for instance, "I think," or as the superstition of Schopenhauer puts it, "I will"; as though cognition here got hold of its object purely and simply as "the thing in itself," without any falsification taking place either on the part of the subject or the object. I would repeat it, however, a hundred times, that "immediate certainty," as well as "absolute knowledge" and the "thing in itself," involve a CONTRADICTIO IN ADJECTO; we really ought to free ourselves from the misleading significance of words! The people on their part may think that cognition is knowing all about things, but the philosopher must say to himself: "When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, 'I think,' I find a whole series of daring assertions, the argumentative proof of which would be difficult, perhaps impossible: for instance, that it is _I_ who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of a being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an 'ego,' and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking--that I KNOW what thinking is. For if I had not already decided within myself what it is, by what standard could I determine whether that which is just happening is not perhaps 'willing' or 'feeling'? In short, the assertion 'I think,' assumes that I COMPARE my state at the present moment with other states of myself which I know, in order to determine what it is; on account of this retrospective connection with further 'knowledge,' it has, at any rate, no immediate certainty for me."--In place of the "immediate certainty" in which the people may believe in the special case, the philosopher thus finds a series of metaphysical questions presented to him, veritable conscience questions of the intellect, to wit: "Whence did I get the notion of 'thinking'? Why do I believe in cause and effect? What gives me the right to speak of an 'ego,' and even of an 'ego' as cause, and finally of an 'ego' as cause of thought?" He who ventures to answer these metaphysical questions at once by an appeal to a sort of INTUITIVE perception. - Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

While Nietzsche calls believers in such Cartesian horseshit 'harmless observers' it has become clear that he's being too kind (or sarcastic). The assumption of one's own existence, of individual ego as the origin of thought, will, desire has become the dominating belief of the Western world in the 20th century, and on into the 21st. While conformity has in some ways never been more prevalent, the grand irony is that the thing to which the greatest number of people conform is this particular conception of individuality as origin. People cling to their mass produced cultural identities claiming to have chosen them for themselves. If this genuinely were true then the advertising industry would not be worth nearly 20 billion pounds in the UK alone.

So why is this such a tremendous hoax? For two reasons: firstly, because in allowing this fallacious presumptuous ideology to become dogma philosophy has become about the analysis of internal experience, about chipping away at words and creating ever complex ways of trying to describe the indescribable. All this time we should have been focussing on our role in the world, how we interact and develop as a result of that interaction, instead of some stupid reinvention of the notion of the eternal soul. Secondly, by taking this idea as the explanation for human behaviour people become intensely selfish, introspective and thus spiritually stagnant. The rise of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy has contributed to this immensely, as Cartesianism spread throughout the academy and spawned its own discipline. A sense of isolation followed, with people increasingly seeing others as competitors, or as means to an end for an aim they see as theirs alone. Frightened, distrustful, needy - the perfect citizen.

Chomsky does nothing to alleviate this, because as part of the same academy he cannot challenge what is so inherent to the intellectual system. In the video above he talks of a Cartesian 'common sense', saying that people just talking to each other demonstrates an inherent creativity that separates us from all other animals. As a critical writer on the left old Noam should be familiar with the work of George Orwell, in particular his essay Politics and the English Language, since Noam is a political writer with a background in linguistics. There, Orwell explains how imprecise use of language encourages imprecise thought, so instead of being masters of language, using it in the way most useful to our needs, it is a means of encouraging anodyne, repetitive thinking and using people's mouths as just another means of spreading propaganda.

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. The debased language that I have been discussing is in some ways very convenient. Phrases like a not unjustifiable assumption, leaves much to be desired, would serve no good purpose, a consideration which we should do well to bear in mind, are a continuous temptation, a packet of aspirins always at one's elbow. - Orwell, Politics and the English Language

Noam is someone who should, and probably does, know better. However, his answer of praising 'common people' is more about cultivating popularity than it is about a realistic explanation of the philosophical and political relevance of language.

The film briefly explains Chomsky's contribution to linguistics, and while it flatteringly tries to portray the notion of Universal Grammar as revolutionary it is little more than a reworking of Plato's notion of innate ideas, that the mind has inherent structures common to all people which enable them to learn language. As Noam argues, 'if you took a Japanese child and brought it up in Boston it would grow up speaking Boston English, if you took my child and brought it up in Japan it would grow up speaking Japanese' and therefore it 'logically follows' that there is a structure common to all languages that 'flows from' an inherent structure in all human minds. Of course, Chimpsky is assuming that one can treat languages (and for that matter human minds) as distinct, fixed entities, because otherwise one literally couldn't make the argument that he's making. As such, there are implicit proposition in his argument and his claim that it 'logically follows' is nothing more than arrogant bluster. Put another way, if one defines language as an activity rather than a structured entity then there's no need to confine oneself to a discussion about inherent structures in the mind. Besides which there are rather obvious structural difference between alphabetic languages such as modern (or 'Boston') English and idiogrammatic languages like Chinese, as Derrida discussed in detail.

This particular intellectual debate reached something of a pinnacle in 1971 in a recorded live debate between Noam Chomsky and poststructuralist Michel Foucault, a man well versed in the work of anti-Cartesians such as Nietzsche. Foucault consistently pointed out the assumptions Chomsky was making and rephrased a number of his arguments more accurately and acutely. The whole debate was broadcast on Dutch TV, and you can watch a telling extract below:

Foucault explains how Chomsky's narrative of liberation is based in the very social mechanisms that he says he is seeking to overthrow, and that he is using concepts derived from a particular philosophical tradition which itself has much to answer for in the formation of the institutions that should be overthrown, or at least radically altered. As radical as Chomsky might seem in the stuffy corridors of MIT, or in what remains of the progressive Left in America, sat alongside Foucault he comes across as conservative. In terms of being able to critically respond to the models of progressives like Chomsky, a lot depends on one's awareness of other possible ways of looking at the world. Despite being a self-proclaimed anarchist Noam goes on in Manufacturing Consent to state that the 'totalitarian society' that existed in the US during World War 2 'was justifiable due to the wartime conditions'. For all his discussion about inalienable rights, an inherent human need for creative work and the merits of libertarianism when it comes down to it Noam is happy to see fascism fighting against fascism.

Why is this important? Primarily because Noam is so famous and so widely read, and to a great many people he represents the alternative political perspective. In talking about propaganda in the way he does (five filters and all) he encourages a specific view of it and way of analysing it. The things Chomsky doesn't talk about (false flag terrorism, the creation of money as debt, secret societies and so forth) are widely ignored, or even ridiculed, by those who consider themselves radical and alternative. Control of the mainstream is a given in any system of political propaganda, but control of the fringe is if anything more important, because it enables the distraction and diversion of decent, intelligent people who might otherwise prove difficult for the ruling class.

One of the more notorious examples of this is the FBI's COINTELPRO program, formally run from 1956 to 1971. They targeted and infiltrated radical groups and either sought to destroy or discredit them or if necessary take out their leadership. Nearly a year before the much-disputed assassination of Martin Luther King FBI director J Edgar Hoover wrote:

The purpose of this new counterintelligence endeavor is to expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize the activities of black nationalist hate-type organizations and groupings, their leadership, spokesmen, membership, and supporters, and to counter their propensity for violence and civil disorder. - Hoover memo, August 1967

Likewise, according to Vincenzo Vinciguerra supposed neo-nazi terrorist group Ordine Nuovo had no political ideology, and were nothing more than an instrument of 'parallel' networks maintained by the intelligence and security services. during the Mossadegh coup in Iran in 1953 the CIA paid protestors to cause trouble on the streets, adding to the tension and making it appear like a popular insurrection from within. The following year during operation PB/Fortune, the CIA's plan to get rid of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala veteran covert operative and Watergate burglar E Howard Hunt was the head of propaganda for the mission. Echoing what Orwell said about language, in his memoir he wrote that the mainstay of the psychological warfare part of the operation was a guerilla radio broadcast. Hunt wrote:

Relatively few Guatemalans owned a radio at the time, but it was considered to be an authoritative source of information, and we knew that wherever interested ears tuned in, gossiping lips would soon follow, spreading the message. - Hunt, American Spy p74

Thousands of anti-communist pamphlets were dropped in towns, an Archbishop was persuaded to write a letter urging the people to rise up against the allegedly communist leadership, housewives were even taught to riot in the street, banging pots and pans in protest. Students were coerced into a widespread graffiti campaign, and fake death notices about the president were sent out to local newspapers to disrupt the agrarian community from which Arbenz was given so much support. Under the guise once again of an internal revolution, the CIA ousted a leader who was trying to help peasants, and radical students groups aided the rise to power of the military dictator Castillo Armas.

One man fighting in Guatemala on Arbenz's side was Ernesto 'Che' Guevara, a communist revolutionary who would lead the CIA on a chase halfway around the world until his assassination in 1967. Hunt commented that letting Che leave Guatemala after Arbenz had been ousted was the greatest regret of his professional career, however the image of Guevara's face, typically reproduced black on red, dominates a huge range of mass produced products, initially in the counterculture but now in the mainstream.

Along near identical lines, when punk first because popular in the mid to late 70s certain groups explicitly identified themselves with the symbols of communism, notably lead singer of The Clash Joe Strummer, pictured wearing a Brigade Rosse/Red Army Faction t-shirt.

These symbols, though typically of the Soviet Union rather than militant groups, became mainstream fashion in the 1990s, with even sportswear giant Addidas getting in on the action. Much like grunge, then into goth/metal, at least in the UK these were the accepted symbols of the youth who wants to look their best while sticking it to 'the system'. What this illustrates is not just how the fringe often becomes the mainstream, but how the very symbols of the old enemy are now the carefully branded, pre-packaged alternative for those who want to conform to non-conformity.

What it also illustrates is just how easily people can be made to see the very images and emblems of totalitarian regimes as a fashion choice, and therefore an expression of their ego. So much for Chomsky's common sense when you see 'freethinking' adolescents volunteering their bodies as adverts for the symbology of control, in short, when they are so carefully indoctrinated that they see wearing a communist uniform as their own choice. My advice is to get ahead of the game - get a Kosovo Liberation Army uniform and t-shirt with Bin Laden's face on.

Curiously, when Prince Harry wore a Nazi armband to a friend's party there was enough controversy that an official apology was issued. However, while Nazism is still a little too close to home, Stalin and Mao appear on t-shirts in much the same way Barack Obama does, as is wonderfully satirised at the start of an episode of Peep Show. One particular tale sums up just how easily capitalism and communism, the corporate and state machinery, combine and how their symbols have become 'superbrands', in the sense used by Naomi Klein in No Logo.

As documented by Anthony Sutton, the Caterpillar Tractor Company was critically involved in a transfer of technology to the Soviet Union which enabled them to develop their tanks. They were involved in the first five year plan in 1930 and the Chelyabinsk plant was started in the same year. It would end up producing tractors that were virtually identical to Caterpillar models, and from there adapted the technology for use in tanks. In 1980 they were still involved, through the Russia No. 6 project which built a huge pipeline to get Siberian gas to the Western European market. In 1986 the company changed its name to Caterpillar Inc. and by the 1990s had developed into a fashion label brand. Though they initially broke into the market with rugged-looking footwear, presumably so middle class suburbanites could pretend they worked on oil rigs, they have expanded into a huge range of shoes aimed at an array of markets. They even have their own fashion shows.

The Rolling Stones, fronted by middle class boys from Kent, with a lead singer who studied business courses at the LSE, were identified as devilish, rebellious and thus icons of 60s counterculture. However, the most satanic thing Mick Jagger ever did was draw a crude image of a goat on his chest which he revealed while performing 'Sympathy for the Devil' at the Rock and Roll Circus in 1968. The Stones have appeared on movie soundtracks for decades, even having a film named after one of their songs, and were the first band to embark on a corporate sponsored stadium rock tour in the 1980s. By 1997 Tommy Hilfiger had taken over from Jovan (a perfume company) and had the rights to clothe not only Mick Jagger but also the support act Sheryl Crow.

From protest movements to pop music the inside (the mainstream) and the outside (the fringe) are largely defined, mediated and regulated by the same people and institutions. Though corporate branding has taken over much of the propagandist role previously adopted by intelligence services the outcoe is much the same. Whether intentionally or not, Chomsky participates in this by defining the alternative to mainstream political discussion, but when the alternative to arch-globalists is a man who advocates global government it's not surprising to see a backlash of sincere criticism.

A study of Chomsky's stands on particularly dreadful actions such as JFK's assassination, 9/11, and with regard to the roles of the CIA and FBI, shows Chomsky to be a de facto defender of the status quo's most egregious outrages and their covert agency engines. He conducts his de facto defence of the Empire he appears to oppose through applying the very propaganda methods against which he has warned, including use of the derogatory phrase "conspiracy theorist," which in one context he has characterized as "something people say when they don't want you to think about what's really going on."

His recommendation that people practice "intellectual self-defence" is well taken. But how many could dream the person warning you is one of the most perilous against whom you'll need to defend yourself? That he is the fire marshal who wires your house to burn down, the lifeguard who drowns you, the doctor with the disarming bedside manner who administers a fatal injection? If Noam Chomsky did not exist, the diaboligarchy would have to invent him. To the New World Order he is worth 50 armoured division. - Barrie Zwicker, Towers of Deception

Zwicker, a Canadian journalist and media critic, has written extensively on 'conspiracy theories' and the role of not only mainstream but also more fringe, progressive media in refusing to discuss matters of critical importance. To finish this time here's one example of his work that is widely referenced and admired - The Great Conspiracy: The 9/11 News Special You Never Saw.

Please sir, I want some more

Charles Dickens' novel Oliver Twist, published in the late 1830s, has been adapted for the screen and TV several times, the above comes from the 1960s musical 'Oliver'. It tells the story of a young boy living in poverty in industrial Britain. The eponymous hero was born into a workhouse, a provision of the 1834 Poor Law (Amendment) Act. The 1830s was supposedly a time of progressive reform by the British Whig government, but that is as misleading as viewing today's liberal reforms in the same light.

1832 saw the 'Great' Reform Act which promised to extend voting rights and clean up the electoral system. In truth the franchise was extended to over 600,000 (from a population of around 14 million) and they cleaned out the 'rotten boroughs' of the old system. The rotten boroughs were truly incredible: at the time England and Wales were divided in counties and boroughs, both of which returned (elected) members to parliament. However, there was tremendous inconsistency in the number eligible to vote in each constituency - Yorkshire (a county) had more than 20,000 voters, Westminster (a borough) more than 12,000 but they elected two members to the House of Commons just as did Dunwich (population 232, voting population of around 30) and Gatton (population 146, voting population 7). As such, the local baron would tend to in effect elect himself to one of the two seats available, and sell the other to another rich bastard. Just as it is only fair to say it was a step forward for democracy to eliminate these rotten boroughs it is only fair to point out it was ridiculous that it took until the 1830s to do this.

The reality of 'Great' Reform Act was that it did little to amend the functioning of Parliament. This was shown by the persistence over the following decade and a half of a movement known as Chartism, which originated in the London Working Men's Association. They came up with six points of reform, most of which were eventually adopted in later legislation:

THE SIX POINTS OF THE CHARTER
1. A vote for every man twenty one years of age, of sound mind, and not undergoing punishment for crime.
2. The ballot —To protect the elector in the exercise of his vote.
3. No property qualification for members of Parliament—thus enabling the constituencies to return the man of their choice, be he rich or poor.
4. Payment of members, thus enabling an honest tradesman, working man, or other person, to serve a constituency, when taken from his business to attend to the interests of the country.
5. Equal constituencies securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors,--instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of larger ones.
6. Annual Parliaments, thus presenting the most effectual check to bribery and intimidation, since though a constituency might be bought once in seven years (even with the ballot), no purse could buy a constituency (under a system of universal suffrage) in each ensuing twelvemonth; and since members, when elected for a year only, would not be able to defy and betray their constituents as now. - Chartists.net

Interestingly, not even the Chartists advocated female suffrage and it took almost a century after the 'Great' Reform Act for women to be granted the right to vote, just as it took decades to legislate for the tenuous masquerade of democracy we enjoy in Britain today.

1833 saw the passing of a long overdue piece of legislation - the Slavery Abolition Act. While the trade in slaves had technically been abolished by the 1807 Act, slavery itself was allowed to continue perfectly legally. This 'anomaly' was cleared up by the 1833 Act, but only freed slaves under the age of six. Older slaves were redesignated 'apprentices' and had to work a given term to gain their freedom. Compensation to around 40,000 slave owners ran to £20 million, a hell of a lot of money in those days, when the total government budget for the year was only £51 million. Public debt was over £780 million, the country effectively bankrupted by the Rothschild influence on the Bank of England.

This presented a significant economic problem for the British government, and therefore the British Empire. To keep costs down, they exempted from the Abolition Act all territories under control of the East India company, a true prototype for the corporatocracy. Much like Halliburton in today's Iraq, the East India Company was an elite conglomerate of commercial interests who monopolised monopolised the bounty offered by what we now just call India. Locals were colonised, authorities bribed and coerced, tax revenues siphened out of the country, private armies hired to quell those who dared oppose corporate rule: it really hasn't changed that much in two centuries.

However, at the same time as allowing slavery to continue in India, the UK government divested the East India Company of its commercial operations when they renewed its charter in 1833. The governmental operations (military provision and so on) continued, retaining colonial control but trade with India was now open to any merchant with the capacity to get ships halfway round the world. This allowed for a greater regulation of Home Charges, whereby the Indians paid for the colonial authority which allowed the continuation of slavery. By centralising the authority responsible for governing India it became easier to levy these charges. As commercial exploitation increased, so did the power of the colonial government.

While this did enable an increase in trade which no doubt contributed to the sustained economic growth of industrial Britain this didn't solve the government's economic problems. In 1834 they passed the Poor Law (Amendment) Act, which reduced expenditure on the domestic poor. Under prior schemes such as the Speenhamland system, labourers suffering from spiking food prices would have their wages topped up based on current bread prices. According to the Royal Commission this undermined the wages of slightly wealthier workers who didn't qualify for relief, and encouraged employers to pay low wages. Similarly, Malthusians on the Commission argued that such relief only encouraged poor families to have more children, thus exarcerbating the problem.

So the Act established a National Commission who oversaw the running of workhouses, essentially labour camps for the poor. Families were separated, often as soon as they entered the workhouse. The workhouses themselves were designed on the principle of 'less eligibility', where conditions for those inside were worse than that of the lowest paid labourer on the outside. This aimed to discourage any but the most desperate of people from entering the workhouse. One notable man who spent some of his youth in such an institution was Charles Chaplin and Oliver Twist was in part written as a rejection and protest against the Poor Law system.

One somewhat-overlooked aspect to both the recommendations of the Royal Commission set up to study the operation of the Poor Laws, and the 1834 Act itself, is the principle of segregating 'different types of paupers'. The old would be separated from the young, able bodied men separated from able bodied women, the infirm and disabled somewhere else. Indeed, while the Poor Law Commission had no authority to build new workhouses it did have far-reaching powers to strictly control conditions within existing ones. What people ate and wore, as well as moral standards (unmarried mothers were treated particularly badly) were all be dictated by the Commission. While the British are credited with creating concentration camps in South Africa at the end of the 19th century the philosophy that brought them about was clearly popular some 70 years prior when dealing with the domestic poor.

Aside from Malthus and utilitarians like Jeremy Bentham, who has propagated such ideas? According to conspiratorial histories of Freemasonry, very similar ideas are to be found among the Illuminati, a Bavarian cult founded by Adam Weishaupt, an agent of Amschel Mayer Rothschild, which took control of the international freemasonic movement in the late 18th century. Detailed in the highly controversial book Pawns in the Game by William Guy Carr is an alleged meeting in Frankfurt in 1773 attended by AM Rothschild and a dozen other wealthy and powerful men. Rothschild apparently outlined a 25 point plan by which they could take over the world.

14. He next explained the necessity of having their ‘Agentur’ always come out into the open, and appear on the scene, when conditions had reached their lowest ebb, and the masses had been subjugated by means of want and terror. He pointed out that when it was time to restore order they should do it in such a way that the victims would believe they had been the prey of criminals and irresponsibles. He said “By executing the criminals and lunatics after they have carried out our preconceived ‘reign of terror’, we can make ourselves appear as the saviours of the oppressed, and the champions of the workers.” The speaker then added “We are interested in just the opposite ... in the diminution, the killing out of the Goyim."

15. He next explained how industrial depressions and financial panics could be brought about and used to serve their purpose saying “Enforced unemployment and hunger, imposed on the masses because of the power we have to create shortages of food, will create the right of Capital to rule more surely than it was given to the real aristocracy, and by the legal authority of Kings.” He claimed that by having their agentur control the ‘Mob’, the ‘Mob’ could then be used to wipe out all who dared to stand in their way. - Pawns in the Game

Regardless of whether Amschel Rothschild every actually called this meeting and said these things, it is an apt explanation of how such ideas can be part of a framework of control. Despite much vaunted progress for democracy and the poor, it appears the same philosophy is applied to the poor of numerous countries in the world.

Appropriately, this overarching policy comes with a crisis attached, the food crisis. In some respects, it is very real, far more so than terrorism or single motherhood or global warming. An average of 24,000 people die every day from hunger or hunger related diseases and the UN reported in December 2008 that around a billion people now suffer from starvation. These numbers had been heading in the right direction (slowly) until the 'global financial crisis'. As this peopleandplanet article notes, this isn't about the amount of food available - while population doubled over the last half century, food production tripled and life expectancy increased significantly. It is a political and economic decision to let these people starve.

The World Bank, run by a member of the Bilderberg Group, is doing its best to appear to be the 'saviour of the oppressed'.

"In London, Washington, and Paris people talk of bonuses or no bonuses. In parts of Africa, South Asia, and Latin America, the struggle is for food or no food," Zoellick said...

..."If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernising multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies," Zoellick said. "Bringing sunlight to national decision-making would contribute to transparency, accountability, and consistency across national policies." - Financial Express

So what have the UN and World Bank done to alleviate the food crisis? So far, absolutely nothing to prevent or regulate the speculation driving the spikes in prices. Derivatives traders can make fortunes betting on the price of wheat or sugar and in doing so can drive prices up to the point that tens of millions more people can no longer afford to eat enough. The UN launched a National Basic Food Prices Data and Analysis tool. A self-styled 'early warning system' it aims to make information on food prices and markets more accessible, which will only encourage speculation.

The World Bank have seen this as business as usual, making $2 billion available to countries trying to battle the crisis. The countries in question:

GFRP is disbursing funds to Afghanistan ($8 million), Bangladesh ($130 million), Benin ($9 million), Burundi ($10 million), Central African Republic ($7 million), Djibouti ($5 million), Ethiopia ($275 million), Guinea ($10 million), Guinea-Bissau ($5 million), Haiti ($10 million), Honduras ($10 million), Kenya ($50 million, $5 million), Kyrgyz ($10 million), Laos ($3 million), Liberia ($10 million), Madagascar ($10 million, $12 million), Mali ($5 million), Moldova ($7 million), Mozambique ($20 million), Nicaragua ($7 million), Nepal ($36 million), Niger ($7 million), Philippines ($200 million), Rwanda ($10 million), Sierra Leone ($7 million), Somalia ($7 million), Southern Sudan ($5 million), Tajikistan ($9 million), Togo ($7 million), Yemen ($10 million), and West Bank and Gaza ($5 million). - World Bank

Though there are other countries borrowing money from this scheme, this list should show you that these are places which despite an awful history with debt have no choice, other than watching their people starve and having to explain why they didn't take the money. However, by creating this money as debt we perpetuate the inflation which means these countries can never even catch up with the prices of today, let alone get ahead of the prices tomorrow. We also keep these countries beholden to a system which has no intention of letting them develop economic independence, as Zoellick's comments make clear. By making debt and aid a policy we ensure continued control over the colonies and a monopoly on their resources, just as the East India Company did in centuries past.

Then there's genetically modified crops, a subject where much of the controversy surrounds a giant company, Monsanto, apparently owned by the Rockefellers. It's former Chairman and CEO Robert Shapiro attended the 1999 Bilderberg meeting. In the months prior to the club meeting in November, Monsanto and the Rockefeller Foundation staged a PR exercise to deflect attention away from a potentially devastating technology - so called 'terminator' seeds. In June 1999, Dr Gordon Conway, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, gave a speech to the Monsanto directors urging them not to take up terminator technology. By October, Shapiro had publically announced that Monsanto would not 'commercialise' the seeds.

However, this didn't stop Monsanto from making third world farmers sign contracts promising not to save seeds from their GM crops, effectively ensuring the same economic effect - that farmers have to buy new seeds every year. This sort of policy has the backing of the US Congress, who in 2007 endorsed a deal by the USDA where they are using public money to subsidise the agricultural insurance of farmers who plant GM crops.

The brutal impact of these policies is already being seen, and India is again one of the battlegrounds. In autumn 2008 it was widely reported that up to 200,000 farmers in India had committed suicide due to crop failure. The GM companies like Monsanto had moved in and convinced the farmers that if they bought the seeds they'd see harvests like never before, prompting the farmers to take out large loans to purchase the technology. When the crops failed the farmers were not only left with little or nothing to sell, but huge unrepayable debts. The farmers weren't even told that the GM seeds required twice as much water. Perhaps the most brutal aspect of this is that even the UN said in October that organic farming is probably the best option for farmers in developing countries.

It seems that scarcity (both real and artificial) has been generated so that the masses, the food producers in the developing world, are forced into accepting economic and technological systems of control. If they haven't planned this then it's gone remarkably well, shoring up an elite system where 2% of the population own half of the world's wealth. Howevever, they haven't stopped there. In Svalbard, a desolate rock in the Arctic Ocean, there is a 'doomsday seed vault' supposedly set up to preserve as many seed varieties as possible against threats to biodiversity. Behind blast-proof steel reinforced concrete walls sit genebanks containing millions of seed varieties. Essentially unmanned, it is nothing other than a private military installation.

Who has largely funded this project? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, known depopulation enthusiasts, the Rockefeller Foundation, Monsanto, and European biotech giant Syngenta whose Chairman (who used to work for Barclays) attended the recent Bilderberg meeting.

Now is it simply philosophical sloppiness? What leads the Gates and Rockefeller foundations to at one and the same time to back proliferation of patented and soon-to-be Terminator patented seeds across Africa, a process which, as it has in every other place on earth, destroys the plant seed varieties as monoculture industrialized agribusiness is introduced? At the same time they invest tens of millions of dollars to preserve every seed variety known in a bomb-proof doomsday vault near the remote Arctic Circle ‘so that crop diversity can be conserved for the future’ to restate their official release? - globalresearch

The potential for a group of companies and foundations who both monopolise existing seed stocks and possess the technology to render any crop sterile are enormous. If they so chose they could wipe out pretty much the entire harvest of the world and make every food producer in the world pay to access the seed stocks in Svalbard. As globalist and depopulationist Henry Kissinger once said:

"If you control the oil you control the country; if you control food, you control the population." - Kissinger

To finish off, this documentary 'Controlling our Food' details the history and policies of Monsanto. For those with doubts that these companies and foundations could be capable of such horrific plans this uncompromising depiction will probably dispell such feelings as they tell the story of Monsanto product Roundup, a cancer-causing, non-selective herbicide that can kill just about any plantlife imaginaginable, and the technology produced by Monsanto which makes their plants resistant to its effects.

Peak Oil and Snouts in the Trough

Peak Oil is a highly contentious issue in the realm of conspiracy theories. Either the earth is running out of oil, or about to run out of oil and the oil companies are lying and saying there's plenty left, or there's plenty left and the oil companies are lying and saying oil is scarce. Taken at face value either is plausible given the motive of vast amounts of money. According to the Fortune 500 rankings for 2009, Exxon-Mobil are now not only the most profitable company in the world (as they have been for years), but also the company with the highest revenue in America, the world's largest economy. Prior recent rankings generally had them in second position for revenue behind retail conglomerate Wal-Mart but this year they've done them on both fronts. With revenues just shy of $443 billion and profits of $45 billion they are a latter day Standard Oil Company.

Recently published Forbes figures show not only that wanted Mexican drug barons can still be included in richlists as long as they are wealthy enough, but that big oil is still big. Last year's figures show 7 of the 10 most profitable firms are oil companies. Petronas of Malaysia made an appearance in 8th position as the most profitable company in Asia. This year, PetroChina had that honour. As the names imply, they are both oil interests.

In a year where banks and retailers suffered the top 6 most profitable companies were oil giants, with combined revenues into trillions of dollars and combined profits nearing $200 billion. The two most profitable companies in the US, the most profitable in China (and ultimately Asia), in Russia, the UK and Europe are big oil. So the motive to tell lies is there in abundance, and certainly someone's telling lies. The popular Chinese paper China Daily reported that not just one but three Chinese firms are in the shortlist of the most profitable in the world. Along with PetroChina, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) and China Mobile were all reported to be in the top 10.

They aren't. They're all in the top ten for market value, but not profits. Likewise, China Daily cited ICBC as saying they are now the most profitable bank in the world. Again, this isn't true, according to the Forbes figures Banco Santander has that crown, though ICBC is the highest ranked bank for market value. You might think this was just down to confusion but there's a huge difference between market value and profit, and the English edition of People's Daily (another Chinese newspaper), got the story right. So China Daily, owned by the Communist Party of China just as People's Daily is, is lying about the status of its companies, presumably because market value isn't considered as important for propaganda purposes as profits. Doubleplus good.

Similarly, Peak Oil involves a misapprehension of the potential problem and a lot of deception, by pretty much all of the people involved. It was originally developed as a theory by M King Hubbert, who worked as a researcher for Royal Dutch Shell, a company with long standing ties to the French arm of the Rothschild family and the Bilderberg Group. Indeed, Nathan Mayer Victor Rothschild, the 3rd Baron Rothschild, was head of research for Royal Dutch Shell for several years in the 1960s despite his training being in biology, not hydrocarbon geology.

These days the theory is little advanced, and is propagated by the likes of Mike Ruppert, a 'former' CIA man who advances the theory that 9/11 was engineered or allowed to happen to enable the mobilisation of the US military to take control of the world's last remain oil and gas reserves in his book Crossing the Rubicon. The book is full of graphs that look just like the one presented by Hubbert in this short video:



Essentially, the theory is that global oil production will reach its peak approximately now, in the few years following the turn of the 21st century. The graph of production over time is a bell curve, with a rapid rise to the peak and a rapid fall away from it. There are numerous problems with this statistical manipulation.

Firstly, it assumes to know how much oil there is in the world, often referred to as Total Recoverable Reserves. This is a combination of Recoverable Reserves (oil in the ground that we already know about) and Yet To Find, an estimate of how much oil there's left out there that we don't know about. Once again we see the unknown unknowns of Team B's Communist threat and the more recent terrorist threat, and Iraq's WMD. We don't know how much oil is out there left to be found, so we'll assume there's an amount consistent with the prediction we want to make about when the peak in oil production will happen.

Secondly, it assumes that the extraction of oil is uniformly difficult, or easy. For example, if it's easy to get 90% of the world's oil but only particularly difficult to get the last 10%, then it's only as we approach having to extract that last 10% that we'll hit the problems identified by Ruppert et al. If, by contrast, only the first 10 or 15% of the oil is easy to extract, and there's another 85% of it buried deeper than present technology allows us to get, the problems come much more quickly. This itself is not only dependent on the physical amount and location of the oil, but also the technological development of equipment to locate and extract it, which is again something Hubbert could not know in the 1950s, and we cannot predict now. If we've reached the limit of such technology already then once again, the peak will happen earlier. If we've some way to go on the development then the peak will come later.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, is the misuse of language by the thousands of people claiming to be experts. 'Peak Oil' refers, in the language of almost everyone who talks about it, to a peak in oil production. However, we don't produce oil. We extract it, ship it around the world, split it up, refine it, and convert it into useful things like petrol and plastic. Nowhere have we actually produced anything that wasn't there before in a modified form. The actual production of oil is something of a contentious issue. While there's a consensus that it is a fossil fuel produced biogenically, i.e. from organic matter, the abiogenic theory has yet to be comprehensively refuted.

Regardless of what actually makes oil, it must come from somewhere, be produced by some process. The figure never referred to in any calculation of peak oil that I've seen is the amount of oil being produced by the earth over any given period. When you have a system whereby oil is being produced, somehow, and then extracted by us at a certain rate then the point at which we run out, or even begin to run out, is affected by the rate of production as well as the rate of extraction. However, by calling extraction production and ignoring real production altogether, a fixed point in time can be defined in what's actually a dynamic process. This is then endorsed by thousands of scientists who are either so stupid as to not realise what they've missed or are actively participating in a deceit.

Sadly, the same is true of so many critics, commentators and alternative theorists/conspiracy theorists. In taking peak oil for granted, they use it as an assumption to inform on other topics. Peak Oil was the motive for 9/11, according to Ruppert. Indeed, many in the 9/11 movement buy into this notion without critically examining in the same way they examine the terrorist attacks and the possible culprits. Likewise, many in the environmental movement talk about Peak Oil alongside Climate Change, blaming the world's woes on big oil companies in a vaguely anticapitalist gesture.

Consider that the Shell CEO Jeroen Van Der Veer (Bilderberg) is now officially endorsing Peak Oil theory as a reality. Consider that Exxon Mobil in June 2007 issued an official statement saying it had never doubted the threat from Climate Change. Then, in May 2008 a 'revolt' led by the Rockefeller family (major shareholders) led to them ceasing to fund 'climate change denial', i.e. research countering the finding of the IPCC. In January 2009 the world's largest oil company then joined the ranks of those calling for a worldwide carbon tax. Consider that JP Morgan Chase, the world's largest private derivatives player, have bought a carbon credits firm. Along similar lines they are even subsidising the production of low-energy stoves to be distributed in Africa, on the face of it a noble and benevolent scheme. However, because the stoves use less energy (and thus produce less carbon dioxide), they generate carbon credits. NM Rothschild's Australian branch is also looking to lead the way in the new economy with their Carbon Ring Consortium. Similarly, Barclays launched the first index for the developing carbon trading market in December 2007, following JPMorgan Chase's creation in February 2007 of the world's first bond index designed to address the risks of climate change. Unsurprisingly, at the heart of Barclays, Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, and JP Morgan Chase are the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. To say that the world's leaders are denying the reality of peak oil and/or climate change so they can keep making money is simple ignorance.

Beyond that, there is the possibility of Peak Oil being an outright lie. Lindsay Williams and others have spoken of vast reserves in Northern Alaska around Prudhoe Bay and Gull Island. The largest untapped field in the world, and fifth largest ever discovered is Kashagan in Kazakhstan, only discovered in 2000. Carioca, an offshore field near Brazil, has recently been estimated to be the third largest ever discovered. In February 2009 Permex, the Mexican oil company, announced that the world's biggest oil field had been found but that due to technological constraints it couldn't expect to access most of it until 2040. Obviously these estimates will have to be proven and the extraction of that oil is subject to geological, technological, economic and political constraints but that's exactly the issue at stake, that the amount of oil available to us at what point in time and at what price is dependent on a great many factors outside the statistical estimates of peak oil experts.

At the Veterans for Peace convention in 2006, when asked whether Peak Oil was an 'oil company conspiracy', author and former economic hit man John Perkins replied:

"Peak Oil is not only an oil company conspiracy, it's a misconception in economics. Peak Oil, any kind of a calculation like that, is based on assumptions. The old Peak Oil assumption was on the basis of I think 30 or 40 dollars a barrel, and under that assumption the analysis was pretty accurate. But today oil is priced at over 70 dollars a barrel so the old Peak Oil conclusions are totally off the wall...

...So, Peak Oil, our measurements of that whole theory of Peak Oil and when it comes to an end, is dependent on what price of oil you put. As you increase the price of oil, you increase the places you can get it from." - John Perkins, VFP Convention

The speech and Q and A session is in three parts, here, here and here. Pointing out the profits made by Exxon Mobil, Perkins went on to say how the fact that supply is restricted because of the wars in the Middle East is actually to the oil companies' advantage. Canada's reserves are said to be second only to Saudi Arabia's, and in the midst of the global recession Shell and Exxon are looking to buy up Canadian firms and therefore a stake in those fields, and again they're not letting a good crisis go to waste.

This hints at one distinct possibility, which implies Obama's talk about ending America's dependence on foreign oil is actually a real policy, not just election talk. Only this week there has been discussion in the news of the Roan Plateau in Colorado, previously considered a reserve in case of extra demands in wartime. When America put its currency on the Saudi Oil standard in the 1970s, it essentially pinned the value of its currency on continuing supplies of oil from Saudi Arabia, and them denominating their oil trades in dollars. The price of a barrel of oil is almost always quoted in dollars as a result of this deal. However, much as there's reason for scepticism about global Peak Oil, there's a real possibility that the Saudis are running out.

At Ghawar, the world's largest oil field until recent developments suggested otherwise, they are injecting millions of barrels a day of sea water into the wells to sustain oil pressure. This is nothing new, injections of water are quite common. But the proportion of water coming back out in the oil is up to 30%, which means they're pumping millions of barrels of oil out of the ground that's 30% sea water because they've had to pump in so much water to keep the oil flowing. This is where the North American Union comes in. Canada and Mexico have vast oil reserves, Canada also has a lot of wood and water, and Mexico has a massive labour force.

If the US stops importing oil from the Saudis then the Saudis no longer have vast revenues with which they can buy the US debt. Without the ability to borrow money, the very real bankruptcy of the US government would become obvious. By combining the US, Canada and Mexico economically, they not only have a much larger tax base to service the debt, making it more appealing to China and India and Japan, but also control of significant oil reserves to replace the Saudi imports. However, this would probably lead to the collapse of the Saudi royal family and regional civil war, so they need an excuse to cover the area in military bases so that they can maintain a certain grip on the region.

Also this week, Hillary Clinton (Bilderberg) declared that Pakistan poses a 'global threat' because they're letting the Taleban control parts of the country. In the fallout from the release without charge of every person involved in what the authorities told us was a 'very big plot', Pakistani officials have expressed their anger at constantly being associated with terrorism and blamed for it. They have a point, in that since the attack on Iran was shelved, Pakistan has taken their place as the country most often associated with the threat from terrorism. On the other hand, the Pakistanis have a long history of collaborating with paramilitary groups that are in effect indistinguishable from terrorists in the rather broad sense that we tend to use the word. The Pakistani ISI was critically involved in Operation Cyclone, the decade-long funding, arming and training of Arabs to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. I doubt the Americans will launch a military invasion of Pakistan, though it is possible, but given the influence of Kissinger and Brzezinski I think a less direct approach is planned.

Of course, all this constitutes a conspiracy theory, but one in keeping with the sorts of plans executed by a globalist superclass over the last decades and centuries. Nonetheless, the future is never set in stone and the potential for change is always here. Peak Oil may prove to be the reason, or the excuse, for mass depopulation. In an e-mail discussing the debate on the possible abiotic origin of oil, Michael Ruppert admitted:

"I advocate an immediate convening of political, economic, spiritual and scientific leaders from all nations to address the issue of Peak Oil (and Gas) and its immediate implications for economic collapse, massive famine and climate destruction (partially as a result of reversion to coal plants which accelerate global warming).

This would, scientifically speaking, include immediate steps to arrive at a crash program - agreed to by all nations and in accordance with the highest spiritual and ethical principles - to stop global population growth and to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction as a painful choice made by all of humanity." - Ruppert

Ruppert advocates the convening of leaders to develop a program of population reduction but somehow has the gall to call this a 'painful choice made by all of humanity'. No genocidal plan developed by groups of world leaders is even approximate to a choice made by all. It is ludicrous that Ruppert, a man who prides himself on blowing the whistle and critically dissecting propaganda would subscribe to such a horrific view of the world and advance it in such deceptive terms.

Once again we see people abusing their positions of authority, sometimes due to professional or social context and sometimes due to loyalty to a private network. By advancing such a view, Ruppert is allying himself more with the likes of the Bilderberg Group and the Club of Rome than he is with similar critics and theorists. As noted by Dave McGowan (to whom Ruppert's above e-mail was sent), Fletcher Prouty, a former Air Force Colonel and longtime whistleblower and Kennedy assassination theorist, advances not only that Peak Oil is a myth but that oil is abiotic in origin. Though Ruppert's From the Wilderness site is part of the independent media that discusses such theories, it consistently ignores such articles from similarly independent websites which contradict the desired view. As Chris Bennett describes on the excellent WorldNetDaily, there is an inorganic theory of oil production worthy of consideration:

The theory is simple: Crude oil forms as a natural inorganic process which occurs between the mantle and the crust, somewhere between 5 and 20 miles deep. The proposed mechanism is as follows:

• Methane (CH4) is a common molecule found in quantity throughout our solar system – huge concentrations exist at great depth in the Earth.
• At the mantle-crust interface, roughly 20,000 feet beneath the surface, rapidly rising streams of compressed methane-based gasses hit pockets of high temperature causing the condensation of heavier hydrocarbons. The product of this condensation is commonly known as crude oil.
• Some compressed methane-based gasses migrate into pockets and reservoirs we extract as "natural gas."
• In the geologically "cooler," more tectonically stable regions around the globe, the crude oil pools into reservoirs.
• In the "hotter," more volcanic and tectonically active areas, the oil and natural gas continue to condense and eventually to oxidize, producing carbon dioxide and steam, which exits from active volcanoes.
• Periodically, depending on variations of geology and Earth movement, oil seeps to the surface in quantity, creating the vast oil-sand deposits of Canada and Venezuela, or the continual seeps found beneath the Gulf of Mexico and Uzbekistan.
• Periodically, depending on variations of geology, the vast, deep pools of oil break free and replenish existing known reserves of oil...
  

...Could this be true?

In August 2002, in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (US)," Dr. Kenney published a paper, which had a partial title of "The genesis of hydrocarbons and the origin of petroleum." Dr. Kenney and three Russian coauthors conclude:

The Hydrogen-Carbon system does not spontaneously evolve hydrocarbons at pressures less than 30 Kbar, even in the most favorable environment. The H-C system evolves hydrocarbons under pressures found in the mantle of the Earth and at temperatures consistent with that environment.

He was quoted as stating that "competent physicists, chemists, chemical engineers and men knowledgeable of thermodynamics have known that natural petroleum does not evolve from biological materials since the last quarter of the 19th century." - Chris Bennett, WorldNetDaily

Perhaps it is a lack of willingness to discuss this possibility that leads Peak Oil commentators to so nakedly ignore the question of how much oil is produced, by whatever process, over the timescales discussed for various Peak Oil scenarios. In the absence of certainty over where oil actually comes from all we're left with is speculation and conspiracy theories about what knowledge is reliable bearing in mind the vested interests of the authorities involved. Curiously, a point similar to this is made in a Channel 4 documentary on conspiracy theories by Nafeez Ahmed, himself a Peak Oil theorist who has suggested a cover-up on the part of the oil industry. Ahmed, who is an excellent writer and researcher in many respects, has said he believes we have already passed the peak of oil production, and mostly advances the theory that the US military and/or government were complicit in 9/11.

Ahmed's comment in the show, titled Who Really Runs the World? and narrated by an extra from a cockney gangster movie, is probably ripped out of context because it is presented as a criticism of conspiracy theories in general, and having studied his work for some time I don't believe Ahmed is capable of such immense hypocrisy.







The show itself is marginal improvement on the BBC's Conspiracy Files, though not as good as Jon Ronson's series for Channel 4 some years ago, The Secret Rulers of the World. Indeed, only Ronson's tries to break away from the established mainstream media line, that all conspiracy theories are wrong and that all conspiracy theorists are fantasists, loners, idiots and so on. Having interviewed a total of three conspiracy theorists (including crackpot doyen David Icke), they dedicate most of the second half of the show to one of the most laughable, unscientific experiments I've ever seen on a television programme.

A professor and a doctor, portrayed as experts on 'conspiracy thinking', are shown conducting a psychological exercise which, while superficially confirming their conclusions actually proves them to be false at closer examination. As they are introduced, they admit that they aren't interested in whether a particular conspiracy theory is true, but from a 'psychological perspective' why some people believe in them and some don't. The suggestion that people might actually believe in conspiracy theories on the basis of evidence is evidently not part of the discussion.

30 students were given a rudimentary psychological evaluation, a paper questionnaire, aimed to assess three 'factors' - low levels of trust, feelings of alienation from society, and propensity to make assumptions. The experts predict those who score highly for these factors will be more prone to believing in conspiracy theories. From the results of these tests, two groups of six, the highest scoring and lowest scoring, are drawn. They are then sat down as groups as asked what they think of a 'brand new' conspiracy theory created by the two doctors. The theory? That the government is using mobile phones to track everyone all the time.

Herein lies one problem, these two men claim to be experts in conspiracy thinking, and so you'd think they'd have some familiarity with conspiracy theories, if just to get a sense of the range of opinions and views, in which case they'd realise this theory is far from new. Indeed, similar techniques have been depicted in popular spy shows like Spooks for years before the making of this documentary. Furthermore, as psychologists they must have realised that by putting this theory to them as groups instead of individually that their responses would be more likely to develop via what is called 'groupthink', essentially where opinions are voiced more due to them being obviously acceptable in the specific social context rather than on the basis of a rational or impassioned process.

So they discuss the theory for a bit, kick some ideas around about it's possible limits, and are then asked to vote in the hands up in a crowd way that they used to hold general elections until people pointed out it made it difficult for anyone to dissent. That's why we have secret ballots today, and in some countries have for the better part of two centuries. It's hardly a radical standard to expect of people aspiring to get to people's real opinions. Throughout the discussion and voting in the show, people in the groups are shown looking to others for validation and confirmation of their opinions. When the group predicted to be conspiracy theorists are asked to vote on if they think it is 'very likely or quite likely' to be true, all six voted yes, it was quite likely. When the other group were asked to vote on if they thought it was 'certainly not' true, five of the six voted yes.

However, given that the original test was meant to assess how prone the students were to making assumptions and leaping to conclusions and that the group who were meant to be sceptical were more certain in their beliefs, that the theory definitely wasn't true, it renders the whole experiment meaningless. Likewise, the group predicted to be more likely to believe in conspiracy theories were discussing the theory not literally in the sense of tracking everyone all the time, but the possibility of tracking people in that way, they weren't really voting on the original statement. Similarly, a dozen middle class students being asked about one poorly articulated conspiracy theory doesn't test anything on a wider scale. Despite this setbacks, or possibly in total ignorance of them, the show declares the experiment's results 'conclusive'.

Taking the results off to meet David Icke, one of the experts asks for his opinion on a 'large scale survey' they carried out. Responding to the allegation that people believe in conspiracies because it serves a psychological purpose, Icke responds by saying that people have looked at the evidence and realised they're being lied to. The expert responds by saying that for some of Icke's claims there is next to no evidence, but when prompted admits he hasn't actually read Icke's work, only read about it. This invalidates the entire process and the claim to expertise, because one cannot expect to be able to reasonably comment on work which one hasn't actually seen or read, and to seek to assess such beliefs solely through the framework of psychology is a waste of time.

No doubt, some people's experience and predilections will inform what they believe, perhaps everyone. But belief in conspiracy is as common as eating bread. Banks conspire to award huge bonuses to irresponsible directors, people conspire to murder out of jealousy or revenge, families conspire to keep secrets in the closet - the mainstream press is full of such stories, particularly 'real life story' magazines. However, by defining certain conspiracy theories as such and referring to other conspiracy theories via a different name, one can maintain a false distinction and design fraudulent, circular experiments to try to justify a means of classifying not only beliefs but also the people who believe in them.

Like the Peak Oil calculations, the aim is not a rigorous and careful investigation of the facts and the use of that information to develop sound policies, but to classify beliefs in ways conducive to political purposes. By tagging anyone who suspects the governmental and corporate elite as a conspiracy theorist they can discourage dissent and suspicion, as well as manipulate discussion of issues so that science and logic are made subservient to political demands. Just about any belief on the subject of Peak Oil, short of flat out denial of it being worthy of discussion, involves a conspiracy theory, in part because of what Nafeez Ahmed identifies, the lack of certainty requires some speculation in order to have a specific view of the world. Anyone who wants to be seen by the mainstream as an expert, or even just an authority, cannot explicitly endorse a conspiratorial worldview, at least not without calling it something else.

Dirty Wars

This week the UK government launched its new counterterrorism strategy, called Contest Two, though it was leaked weeks ago to the BBC who covered the story in their programme 'Muslim First, British Second'. The central policy is to target those Muslims, called 'conservatives', who speak out against democracy or homosexuality, or in favour of misogyny and so on. A central aspect to this strategy is the question of how the four homegrown suicide bombers of 7/7 were motivated to commit acts of mass murder, as noted in the opening paragraph of the BBC article above. The fact that the government's narrative cannot even plausibly explain how the four alleged suicide bombers got to London is totally ignored. Perhaps the press were intimidated by the policy of targeting anyone who disagrees with what the government define as 'British values'. After all, one of the targeted groups are those who fail to speak out against the killing of coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, the implication being one not only has to accept democracy, capitalism, a specific sexual spectrum and an extremely limited notion of gender equality, but also the paradigm that is the 'war on terror'.

The BBC Panorama show is a textbook example of how disinformation is used to justify a government agenda, as well as why the policies employed by the government fail to confront the very real associations between our defence institutions and militant Islamic fundamentalists, and hence fail to confront what actually poses a risk to national security. The show's presenter, Richard Watson, essentially tells the same story in this BBC article.

First up 'we haven't had a major terrorist attack since July 7th 2005'. How easy it is to ignore the fact that accounts of what happened vary tremendously and not even dedicated researchers have come up with a comprehensive version, let alone the police or the Home Office. The show goes on to cite the case of Nicky Reilly, who was sentenced to life imprisonment in January 2009. While the show notes that Reilly had a low IQ, and Aspergers Syndrome, and that his apparent terrorist attack was a total failure, injuring him as he prepared a bomb in a restaurant toilet in Exeter, it fails to discuss the nature of the bomb. Kerosene, caustic soda and nails is not a particular potent combination in bomb-making terms, as it contains no explosive material. Such a combination could theoretically be fatal, but given one-third of the bomb only caused relatively minor injuries to Reilly himself this indicates this wasn't designed or built by a 'professional' terrorist. Nonetheless, the BBC show and much of the press coverage say that Reilly must have been influenced and radicalised by some local Al Qaeda member. However, no one seems to have a clue who this person might be, so whether they were indeed a militant fundamentalist or something else, a provocateur for example, is anyone's guess.

The show then goes on to spend a few minutes with Watson pouring congratulation on himself and trying to build up his credentials with images of him at meetings of Muslim 'extremists' and 'conservatives'. Eventually, he is confronted by a man who'd evidently seen some of Watson's prior shows on the same subject who denounces the BBC man as an 'enemy of Islam', a 'liar and a fabricator'. Watson responds saying this is 'total paranoia' and that 'we report the facts'. As we've already seen, the case of Nicky Reilly is treated by Watson (and many others) in a partial manner that without evidence attributes responsibility to Islam and Muslims.

Watson shows similar partiality and bias in his depiction of Omar Bakri. Entirely focussing on Bakri's role as a fundamentalist preacher the show ignores that Al-Muhajiroun, the organisation Bakri was deeply involved with, was itself a tool of recruitment by western intelligence services for mujahideen to fight in the dirty wars in the Balkans. Similarly, no mention is made of Bakri's longstanding association with MI5. Lies of omission, perhaps, but lies nonetheless and therefore far from credible journalism. Likewise, when discussing the lack of trust Muslims have for British institutions the show includes an interview with a man who doesn't believe that Khan, Tanweer, Lindsey and Hussain were responsible for 7/7, to which Watson incredulously responds 'come on'. If the Panorama man was willing to do even the slightest earnest research he'd discover that the case against Khan et al. is extremely slim and circumstantial. This is the entire BBC show, which continues in this misleading vein to its conclusion.



The policy itself is a nonsense. One aspect of it was discussed in a BBC article titled 'Thousands getting terror training'. The title is ironic as it cleverly implies that thousands of terrorists are getting trained when in fact it refers to 60,000 UK workers who have or will receive training which, in the BBC's words, will make them 'able to deal with an incident'. Presumably the remaining 60 million or so citizens of the UK will just have to make do without. As noted by shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling, the training is a voluntary 3-hour seminar, which is less than half the length of a cycling proficiency course. Though it's probably fair to point out that you're more likely to die on the roads than you are in a terrorist attack, so maybe this is an indication that the government finally realises the disproportionate attention paid to the threat of terrorist attack.

Maybe not, since the newly updated and enhanced Contest Two strategy was announced with a declaration that, as ever, we're facing an increasing risk of terrorist attack. The International Herald Tribune, CNN, Al Jazeera and others ran stories headlining the growing risk. In particular the press discussed the threat of a dirty bomb, something that has lapsed in coverage in the last couple of years in favour of ludicrous plots about making liquid chemical explosives in airliner toilets. As covered in The Power of Nightmares, the threat from a radiological dirty bomb is minimal.



The reformed dirty bomb threat shows at least some awareness of this, in that they're now talking about a chemical or biological attack. The Contest Two strategy says:

"Changing technology and the theft and smuggling of chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear and explosive (CBRNE) materials make this aspiration more realistic than it may have been in the recent past." - Skynews

When asked about whether this sort of attack was now more likely, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith offered a perplexing response.

"There is the potential, given the international situation, what we believe to be the aspirations of some international terrorists, that it could be." - Jacqui Smith, Skynews

There is the potential that it could be? Not just the ambiguous 'it could be', but even more speculative, 'there is the potential... that it could be'. Top marks to Jacqui Smith for the most meaningless opinion on the terrorist threat that I've read in months. It's almost insulting to (sic) hardoworking advertisers to call this a PR campaign but needless to say it's no coincidence that the same day the govt. rolls out a 'new' anti-terrorism strategy that the news is full of stories about the threat of a dirty bomb. However, Jacqui did stop to praise the work done in the war so far, saying 200 people had been 'brought to justice' for 'terrorism related offences.' As previously discussed on this blog, those 200 people were far from hardened terrorists committed to devilish conspiracies, but largely consist of dreamers, incompetents and the outright innocent. Still, it helps make it look like there's a need for what they want to do. In a truly bizarre footnote to this PR, Richard Watson's article on his own Panorama programme would claim:

Judging by the number of terrorist plots under investigation by MI5 - more than 200 - there is no shortage of young Muslims who are learning to view Britain with hatred. - BBC

There's no way in hell the government is monitoring 200 terrorist plots, even its own figures (apparently unaffected by imprisoning terrorists or by the rising threat) consistently repeat the numbers of 2000 people, 200 networks and 30 plots. That Watson is either too stupid or ignorant to be able to distinguish between a network and a plot, or is knowingly confusing the two, should disqualify him from being paid for his opinion on such issues. Alas, the BBC is likewise either so incompetently run that people like Watson continue to peddle their crap or is actively involved in precisely these sorts of deceptions that make people like Watson useful.

The flagship aspect of this policy is that the enemy in this war is redefined not only as terrorists and those who speak or write in favour of violence but those who don't believe in particular versions of sexual and gender equality, or don't recognise the authority of the police and state. I invite you to recall George HW Bush's words at the Jerusalem Conference of '79:

"Lest we blunt our own devotion to individual freedom, we must not close our eyes to the existence of terror in any form anywhere in the world, for such tolerance makes us vulnerable to the cancer of international terrorism by weakening our confidence and our resolve...

...Above all, as free men, we must assiduously cultivate the habit of fierce and merciless resentment towards all those who disrupt public tranquility; this habit will make us safe and keep us free." - Bush, International Terrorism

'Terror in any form' now includes not believing in the right of homosexuals to live, love and marry according to their desires, according to the Home Office. However, consider that California, with its long-established gay communities and generally progressive politics only allowed gay marriage without a court order in 2005, and that the vote was 21-15, hardly a glowing endorsement of the policy. Indeed, since 1996 the Defence of Marriage Act has been in force in the USA, which prevents federal treatment of same-sex marriages as valid. The conclusion implied by all this is that the enemy now includes the federal govt. of the USA.

Also implied by this policy is that targets will also include essentially anarchist groups like the Socialist Party of Great Britain, who oppose the state, including the police and armed forces and therefore the rule of law in its most naked form, at least so long as it continues to 'serve the monopoly of the capitalist class'. Likewise, those demanding culpability for any of the 30+ cases of British police officers fatally shooting people in the last couple of decades, who have so far seen not a single prosecution, could be seen as refusing to respect the rule of law. There is the odd exception, as recently shown in the remarkable case of the Cardiff Three when 13 police officers were charged with perverting the course of justice. However, trying to hold the police to account remains very difficult, and this sort of government strategy will only make it more so.

There has also been considerable criticism from those most likely to be targeted, ordinary Muslims. The Muslim Council of Britain and the Islamic Human Rights Commission have both warned that it will be counterproductive to the stated aim of producing community cohesion.

MCB expressed serious alarm that the government may be in “danger of adopting misguided notions of extremism as dictated by xenophobic commentators who profit from creating a hostile atmosphere from which bigots of all shades can draw.”

“A definition of ‘extremism’ that would classify the overwhelming majority of loyal and law abiding British citizens as extremists would be of no value in our common fight against terrorism,” the umbrella organisation warned after over 200 prominent Muslim civic and religious leaders held a meeting in Birmingham last Saturday...

...Contest-2 cannot be viewed in isolation but is just the latest chapter in a trend of creating, promoting and funding Muslim institutions which will promote the government’s version of acceptable Islam, under the guise of community cohesion, said IHRC chair Massoud Shadjareh. - Globalsecurity.org

It seems that for all the freedom, multiculturalism and diversity we're fighting to protect, it's only the freedom and diversity defined by the state that will be supported, everything else will be opposed. You don't have to actually do anything to manifest your views, just holding the opinion that, for example, homosexuality is immoral is enough to get you targeted by 'community led intelligence efforts'. If someone tries to petrol bomb a gay bar or throw paint at lesbians then it is entirely consistent with laws common to most countries that they be treated as criminals and punished proportionally. But if they merely hold derogatory opinions about people, maybe wave the odd placard or publish the odd article then they're actually just claiming a right that is meant to be one of the foundations of this country - the right to hold opinions and express them, regardless of if they are informed, valid, or true.

The critical thing missing from this new counter-terrorist strategy, not that I for one moment thought it would actually be included, is the confrontation of the ongoing policy of making use of Islamic militants to further the imperial aims of the Anglo-American axis of evil. One of the more recent examples is that the group whose training camps were allegedly visited by members of the liquid bomb plot conspiracy, Jundullah, has been a US proxy in the Middle East, running raids across the border in Iran since 2005. This sponsorship of such militant groups in the Middle East extends to hundreds of millions of dollars. Following a bombing in Iran in February 2007, several members of Jundullah were arrested.

IRNA quoted an unnamed "responsible official" late Friday as saying that one of those arrested on charges of involvement in Wednesday's bombing, identified as Nasrollah Shanbe Zehi, has confessed that the attacks were part of alleged U.S. plans to provoke ethnic and religious violence in Iran. - CBS

While this policy continues any efforts to discourage radicalisation through community cohesion, or to train everyday shopkeepers in what to do if they hear a bomb go off is, frankly, pissing in the wind. Naturally, government policy isn't actually aimed at putting an end to terrorism because it's such a useful brand, as well as such a useful instrument to destabilise target countries. Plus it's big money, one figure widely quoted in the announcement of the new policy/increasing threat from dirty bombs is that by 2011 the government will be spending £3.5 billion a year on counterterrorism. To help put that in perspective, the total revenue of the English football Premiership this season is estimated by Deloitte Consulting to be in excess of $3.6 billion, which makes fighting terror bigger business than getting your salary from Roman Abramovich's overdraft.


(Government propaganda follows)