Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA
Subscribe to TNRA

Mike Rudin (BBC Conspiracy Files) on the defensive again

24 October 2008 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

Mike Rudin

21 Oct 08, 11:54 AM

I've just been sent a video on the net which accuses me of being "Eurotrash" and of producing a "hit piece" about 9/11.

World Trade Center

Almost inevitably I've been enmeshed in the ever growing net of the conspiracy theory. They've added my name to a long list of imagined conspirators - the secret services, police, people who worked in the building, first responders, the fire service, city officials...and also those who they think have deliberately set out to cover up this huge conspiracy - the official investigators, the world's media...

Last month we were in New York to film the seventh anniversary of 9/11 at Ground Zero for a new programme about the allegation of a conspiracy to deliberately destroy the three skyscrapers at the World Trade Centre. "The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Truth Behind The Third Tower" is to be broadcast at 9pm on BBC Two on Sunday 26th October 2008.

We also filmed self-styled truthers who think 9/11 was an inside job, either carried out or allowed by the US government; and they needed to destroy a third tower at the World Trade Center, Tower 7, which they think contained the plans for the plot.

It is a fact that Tower 7 had some interesting tenants - the CIA, the Secret Service, the Department of Defense and the Office of Emergency Management - the very office which was intended to co-ordinate a response to a disaster or terrorist attack.

When we were filming we were surprised that some of the truthers seemed particularly keen to interview us on camera about the last programme we made about this third tower at 9/11. They think we have deliberately set out to conceal the truth. As one said to me "You already know the truth."

The group who made the video are called "We are change". They claim we misrepresented the chronology involving one important witness who we interviewed in our last programme about 9/11.

The first responder Barry Jennings was trapped inside the building for several hours along with another New York City official. They were crucial witnesses to what was going on inside Tower 7 after everyone had been evacuated shortly after the Twin Towers were hit by the two planes.

As I tried to explain to them at the time, we recorded a long interview with Barry Jennings. We also carefully considered other information and came to our own view based on all of that.

As the two men tried to get out of the skyscraper they were suddenly thrown into darkness. Barry Jennings said he heard explosions. We think it is likely that this was when Tower 1 collapsed, showering debris onto Tower 7.

We have also recently recorded an interview with the other man there, Michael Hess.

Michael Hess was Mayor Rudolf Giuliani's chief lawyer, in charge of 800 New York City lawyers. In his first interview since 9/11 he confirms our timeline. Hess says all the lights went out and he felt the building shake like an earthquake and he adds that he did not hear explosions.

In his mind he thought there might have been an explosion. In the only interview he did on 9/11 he told a reporter he had "walked down to the eighth floor where there was an explosion."

But as our interview with him shows, he is now certain that he did not hear an explosion. He just assumed on the day it could have been an explosion because he had witnessed the lights going out, the staircase filling with smoke and the building shaking vigorously.

We now know, courtesy of the final official report on 9/11 [pdf link] by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, that the official investigators think that two areas of Tower 7 were badly hit when the 1,350 foot Tower 1 collapsed. Seven columns were severed on the southwest corner and they suggest debris also hit the top centre face of Tower 7.

The lead investigator of NIST told me that "it's likely that all of those huge failures and damage really caused noises that were incredibly loud."

If our timeline is wrong then why didn't Barry Jennings and Michael Hess see and hear the moment of impact when Tower 1 fell. It must have been very loud.

The group also criticizes us for not including one sentence from an interview with the owner Larry Silverstein. Apologies now because this gets very complicated. However, some people think hidden in this is a vital clue that can unravel the biggest conspiracy in modern times.

The theory is that the owner Larry Silverstein is meant to have implicated himself in a conspiracy to destroy the buildings he owned and leased at the World Trade Center. And what exactly did he say that supposedly gave it all away?

He said "pull it" which some people interpret as an order to demolish the building.

The interview was conducted the year after 9/11 and Larry Silverstein said:

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it."

"We are change" activists think there is something sinister in the fact that we did not include an extra sentence when Larry Silverstein said:

"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

I don't have a problem talking about it. And just for the avoidance of any doubt we included it in the Worldwide version and we will include it in the new programme for BBC Two.

However, I do not understand how that implicates the owner in any wrongdoing. Interestingly one prominent website, 9/11 Research which is highly critical of the official explanation, is not convinced either and thinks it might even be "bait" to discredit the truth movement.

The crucial words seem to be "pull it" and Larry Silverstein's spokesman provides an explanation:

"Mr Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those fire fighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building."

I talked to the man who assumed command of the New York Fire Department that day. Chief Daniel Nigro told me that it was his decision to decide what to do about Tower 7.

In other words there is no way Larry Silverstein could have ordered the fire department to leave the building and wait for it to be demolished. As Chief Nigro told me the fire service was not part of conspiracy, they were doing their job:

"When we are in charge of a building, we are in charge and that decision will be the fire chiefs and his alone...That's why I know there is no conspiracy, because for me to be part of that would be obscene and it disgusts me to even think of it."

For good measure the truthers at Ground Zero added one final criticism, saying that the BBC is funded by General Electric. I'm not sure what that's based on, but I can say with absolute, yes absolute certainty, it isn't...nor have I ever been part of a conspiracy to cover up what really went on 9/11.

Mike Rudin is series producer, The Conspiracy Files


Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Listen Live

Recent Comments

Global March against chemtrails. April 25 2015


“Solar Geoengineering is the idea that you could in principle reduce the rate or climate change or reverse it by making the earth more reflective, by reflecting away more sunlight, for example by putting reflective particles “AEROSOL POLLUTION” if you like in the upper atmosphere” - Dr. David Keith Dr. David Keith is a Gordon McKay Professor of Applied Physics, School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) and Professor of Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University.

By htyeje on 2015 04 18 - 10:31:43
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

fenton feckwit

By srthjh on 2015 04 18 - 10:25:44
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

fenton says a plane hit the pentagon… well dopshit.. wheres the bloody plane then?

your lies are so simple to disprove

By lygfoytf on 2015 04 16 - 12:49:37
From the entry 'David Chandler weighs in on 9/11 Pentagon questions'.

Great analysis! I think Pilger was right when he said the mainstream media have “sold their souls to the devil…” I sometimes wonder why they even bother going to Uni to learn “journalism” when all they do is reiterate whatever they are told. They’d learn more by watching the antics of a cocky in a cage. 

I’ve affixed an article I wrote some time ago, entitled “Why I’m not a Marxist” may find it of interest or you may not. I know its not “on topic,” but I think, broadly speaking, it is. Feel free to scrub it if you like. Its an attempt by me to define my position as a libertarian anarchist, in relation to Marxism. Which I think is extremely important. Any opposition to Marxism or the left, these days is often construed as reactionary, but as we both know, in terms of libertarianism, that is definitely not the case. I think its up to us to expose the underbelly of Marxist thought and action, and to show what a fascist, racist, reactionary ideology it really is. In the following article I’ve attempted to do that. Don’t know if I’ve been successful, but I guess its a start…

Why I’m Not A Marxist
                              (A libertarian anarchist perspective)
Mass Murder Et Cetera      

Marxism is a theoretical system created by Karl Marx and others, in which all of society, all economics and all politics are combined into a perfect, classless, government-less system based on common ownership of all economic means of production. In pursuit of this preposterous ideal, Marx and Engels wrote the Manifesto to inspire violent revolution everywhere: The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of bourgeois supremacy and conquest of political power by the proletariat.  The Manifesto of the Communist Party (first published on February 21, 1848). Marxist theory requires an intermediary stage of socialism called the dictatorship of (not by) the proletariat (the working class): Every provisional state setup after a revolution requires a dictatorship, and an energetic dictatorship at that (Part 11).

Built into this theory and demonstrated by history is an attitude of intolerance for the other - the hallmark of all totalitarian thinking and action - be they class, culture, race, political party or individual, who may be opposed to or disagree with Communist Party methodology on the road to Utopia - which is the raison d’être of the whole movement, an end which justifies the means, no matter how cruel and murderous. In the Rheinische Zeitung (May 19, 1849) Marx wrote: We have no compassion and we ask no compassion from you. When our turn comes, we shall not make excuses for the terror. Some years later, Leon Trotsky, one of the primary architects of the Russian revolution wrote in the same spirit: Repression for the attainment of economic ends is a necessary weapon of the socialist dictatorship. L. Trotsky. Terrorism and Communism: A Reply to Karl Kautsky (New Park Publications, 1975).

Several dictatorships and three centuries later, the question needs to be asked: what benefits have these dictatorships bestowed on humanity? The fact is, they have produced nothing but misery, the loss of individual and collective freedom, genocide and mass murder. To date, well over 110 million, mostly working-class men, women and children have been butchered by these regimes. Courtois, Stephane, Le Livre Noir du Communism (The Black Book of Communism) 1997). Stephen Wheatcroft. The Scale and Nature of German and Soviet Repression and Mass Killings, 1930–45. Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 48, No. 8 (Dec., 1996).

As R.J. Rummel, Harvard professor emeritus of political science and Nobel Peace Prize finalist, observed: The irony is that in practice, even after decades of total control, Marxism did not improve the lot of the average person, but usually made living conditions worse than before the revolution. It is not by chance that the world’s greatest famines have happened within the Soviet Union (about 5 million dead from 1921-23 and 7 million from 1932-3, including 2 million outside Ukraine) and communist China (about 30 million dead from 1959-61). Overall, in the last century almost 55 million people died in various Marxist famines and associated epidemics - a little over 10 million of them were intentionally starved to death, and the rest died as an unintended result of Marxist collectivization and agricultural policies.R.J.Rummel. Death by Government. (New Brunswick.N.J. Transaction Publishers 1994). Rummel’s primary concern is democide: his word for politically and ethnically motivated mass murder by governments. His other principle books are: China’s Bloody Century: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900 (1991), in which he calculates the lives lost in 20th Century China and Lethal Politics : Soviet Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1917 (1990).

Marxism And Corporate Capitalism:

As most Marxist inspired revolutions have demonstrated, the dictatorships that follow have never been in the hands of the proletariat, but rather, military and corporate elites and the educated off-springs of the upper-bourgeoisie, which, in the case of Marxism, started with Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky. Marx was born into a wealthy family in Trier, what is today known as the Rhineland-Palatinate. Engels was born in Wupperal, the eldest son of a wealthy cotton manufacturer. Lenin’s father, Ilya, was elevated into the nobility for his work in the government bureaucracy. Trotsky was the son of an extremely wealthy kulak family who were an integral part of the rural bourgeois nobility. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. First published Tuesday 26 August 2003.

In his scholarly work, Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, (1981 by Arlington House Publishers, New Rochelle, New York) Professor Anthony Sutton demonstrates conclusively how pervasive not only banking support was for the Russian revolution, but also corporate industrial support. He observed that:

...both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society. While monopoly control of industries was once the objective of J. P. Morgan and J. D. Rockefeller, by the late nineteenth century the inner sanctums of Wall Street understood that the most efficient way to gain an unchallenged monopoly was to “go political” and make society go to work for the monopolists — under the name of the public good and the public interest. This strategy was detailed in 1906 by Frederick C. Howe in his “Confessions of a Monopolist”. Howe, by the way, is a figure in the story of the Bolshevik Revolution…” (Chapter 1).

And also:

Consequently, one barrier to mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense. There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit. This alliance has gone unobserved largely because historians — with a few notable exceptions — have an unconscious Marxian bias and are thus locked into the impossibility of any such alliance existing. The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers (Chapter IV).

After the Bolsheviks seized power, the International Barnsdale Corporation and Standard Oil got drilling rights; Stuart, James and Cook, Inc. reorganized the coal mines; General Electric sold them electrical equipment; and other major firms like Westinghouse Dupont and RCA also aided the Communists. (Chapter VIII and IX). Add to this list The American International Corporation, Chase National Bank, Equitable Trust Company, National City Bank, Sinclair Consolidated Oil Co., White Engineering Co., (Appendix 1) and we have some idea of the scope and measure of support. Sutton’s book is chock-a-block with primary source documentation including reports, letters and newspaper accounts of the period. The extent of corporate capitalist support for the Marxists is examined in detail in his three volume epic work: Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development , Stanford, Calif. Hoover Institution, 1968, 1971, 1973. See also his National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (New York: Arlington House, 1973).

In Wall Street And The Bolshevik Revolution, Sutton highlights the role played by Leon Trotsky in securing finance and industrial support for the revolution, and how his mission was assisted every step of the way by men in the highest echelons of bourgeois governments and business, including the president of the United States:

Trotsky traveled from New York to Petrograd on a passport supplied by the intervention of Woodrow Wilson, and with the declared intention to “carry forward” the revolution. The British government was the immediate source of Trotsky’s release from Canadian custody in April 1917, but there may well have been “pressures.” Lincoln Steffens, an American Communist, acted as a link between Wilson and Charles R. Crane and between Crane and Trotsky. Further, while Crane had no official position, his son Richard was confidential assistant to Secretary of State Robert Lansing, and Crane senior was provided with prompt and detailed reports on the progress of the Bolshevik Revolution. Moreover, Ambassador William Dodd (U.S. Ambassador to Germany in the Hitler era) said that Crane had an active role in the Kerensky phase of the revolution; the Steffens letters confirm that Crane saw the Kerensky phase as only one step in a continuing revolution. The interesting point, however, is not so much the communication among dissimilar persons like Crane, Steffens, Trotsky, and Woodrow Wilson as the existence of at least a measure of agreement on the procedure to be followed — that is, the Provisional Government was seen as “provisional,” and the “re-revolution” was to follow. (Chapter 1 and 11).


Sutton also demonstrates, how, contrary to the mindless claims made by anti-Semites and conspiracy theorists, the Russian revolution was not a Jewish conspiracy. He offers proof by naming the CEOs and individuals on the boards of major banks and corporations during the time when massive injections of gold and technology had been secured by Trotsky (Appendix 1). He writes: The persistence with which the Jewish-conspiracy myth has been pushed suggests that it may well be a deliberate device to divert attention from the real issues and the real causes. The evidence provided in this book suggests that the New York bankers who were also Jewish had relatively minor roles in supporting the Bolsheviks, while the New York bankers who were also Gentiles (Morgan, Rockefeller, Thompson) had major roles. What better way to divert attention from the real operators than by the medieval bogeyman of anti-Semitism? (Appendix 11).

Marxism, Utopia and Monotheism:

In the history of political and religious thought, Marxism and the utopianistic ideal upon which it is based, long predates the rise of the so-called communist movement of the late nineteenth century. In The Republic, Plato’s plan was also totalitarian: fully controlled lives void of individuality, with no more rights, only duties, the state being everything, the individual, nothing. In his book Open Society and its Enemies, (Volume 1: The Spell of Plato, Princeton University Press, Fifth Edition) Popper singled out Plato’s state as a utopia which was argued by Plato to be the destiny of all humankind. In particular, Popper thought Plato’s envisioned state had totalitarian features as it advocated a government not elected by its citizens.

In More’s Utopia (Ringwood, Victoria: Penguin Books, 1965), he describes a communist city-state governed by reason: In Utopia, where every man has a right to everything, they all know that if care is taken to keep the public stores full, no private man can want anything; for among them there is no unequal distribution, so that no man is poor, none in necessity; and though no man has anything, yet they are all rich; what can make a man so rich as to lead a serene and cheerful life, free from anxieties. Reasonably speaking, this statement is idealistic to the point of naivety! In The Undiscovered Self: (Chapter IV. Mentor Book, 1958) Jung presents us with a more sober, realistic view: In the power of the many there lies the power to snatch wish-fulfillments by force; sweetest of all, however, is that gentle and painless slipping back into the kingdoms of childhood, into the paradise of parental care, into happy-go-luckyness and irresponsibility. All the thinking and looking after are done from the top; to all the questions there is an answer; and for all needs the necessary provision is made. The infantile dream state of the mass man is so unrealistic, that he never thinks to ask - who is paying for this paradise?

In The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (Second Edition, 2008) Mangel wrote that ...the term communism spread rapidly so that Karl Marx could entitle one of his first political articles of 16 October 1842, Der Kommunismus und die Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung. He noted that communism was already an international movement, manifesting itself in Britain and Germany besides France, and traced its origin to Plato.  He could have mentioned ancient Jewish sects and early Christian monasteries too. The first attempts to arrive at a communist society leaving aside early, medieval and more modern Christian communities. Whilst in Socialism In Historical Christianity: VI Communism and Religion. Books\For Libraries Press. New York, 1972). Lewis, Polanyi and Kitchin observed: It was left to Marx to complete the process of restating the sentimental religious ideal of Christianity in the West in the form of a practical materialistic humanism. Thus, the Marxist sociology which forms the essential background to the special economic theories of modern communism is the end product of an historical process in which the essential human content of Christianity is maintained through a change of form. Or as Engels, one of the cofounders of 19th century Marxism noted: le Christianisme c’est le Communisme! ( The New Moral World: The Progress of Social Reform On the Continent. Pt. 1: France (3rd Series, Nos. 19 and 21, Nov. 4 and 18, 1843. Transcribed in 2000 for by Andy Blunden).

But it was Nietzsche, more than any other philosopher, who clearly grasped the inward nature of Marxism, (preparing the ground for writers such as Orwell, Huxley and Arendt) describing it as: The visionary younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, whose heir it wants to be; thus its efforts are reactionary in the deepest sense. For it desires an abundance of executive power, as only despotism has ever had; indeed, it outdoes everything in the past by striving for the downright destruction of the individual, who it sees as an unauthorized luxury of nature, and who it intends to improve into a useful organ of the community… Therefore, it secretly prepares for reigns of terror, and drives the word justice like a nail into the heads of the half-educated masses, to rob them completely of their reason. (Menschliches, Allzumenschliches: Justice vs. Power. German Publication. Translation H. Zimmern, Published 1909-1913. Aphorism 473 ) He understood the spirit of communism was in fact the old Christian ideal dressed up in new clothes which most freethinkers in the West falsely claimed to have rejected: Who among us would be a freethinker if not for the Church? It’s the church which offends us, not its poison…Apart from the Church, we too, like its poison. (Zur Genealogie der Moral: First Essay, Aphorism ix. Doubleday Anchor Books. New York 1956).

What Nietzsche succeeded in demonstrating, perhaps more than any other philosopher, is that Marxism is a product and outgrowth of a tradition which is monotheistic (a belief in the existence of only one god) and tied to the conviction that there is only one truth (Nietzsche’s poison), a truth single and unique, which postulates the idea of a single authority. The birth of Christianity, as Ehrman noted, brought with it an intolerance for the other: No one, that is, thought it was contradictory, or even problematic, to worship Jupiter and Venus and Mars and others of the great gods, along with local gods of your city and the lesser divine beings who looked over your crops, your daily affairs, your wife in childbirth, your daughter in sickness, and your son in his love life. Multiplicity bred respect and, for the most part, plurality bred tolerance. No one had the sense that if they were right to worship their gods by the means appropriate to them, you were therefore wrong to worship your gods. But then came Christianity. (D.Ehrman. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture & the Faiths We Never Knew. Oxford University Press, 2005).

Thus were joined the conditions necessary to justify an absolute intolerance, directed against those who, not holding to the truth, have fallen into error - an error which is absolute, and against which, if need be, every form of constraint, exclusion and barbarism may be used. A belief that one holds a monopoly on truth, opens the door to inquisitions, show trials and massacres: occurrences, as history has demonstrated, over and over, common to the practitioners of applied Christianity - and Marxism. The roots of monotheism and monotheistic thinking and intolerance can be found in the Bible.

The Ten Commandments are often cited by religious Jews and Christians as the moral rock upon which their faith is built. But the First and Second Commandments have nothing whatsoever to do with morality, but are merely subserviant propaganda devises designed to illicit fear and obedience: Thou shalt have no other gods before me (Exodus 20:1-3) and the Second: You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them; for I The Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate Me, but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love Me and keep My Commandments (Exodus 20:4-6 RSV). And was it not god in the Bible who set the example by unleashing a deluge on a humanity that did not repair its wrongs against him and abide by his law? Did not David engage in mass murder when he lived with the king of the Philistines, Achish? (1. Samuel 27:9) And Moses organize the extermination of the Midianite people? (Numbers 31:7) And Joshua massacre the Anakims? (Joshua 11:12, 21:22) In your goodness destroy my enemies says Jeremiah to Jehovah (Pslams 138: 19). In Deuteronomy we read: but of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy god doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth. (20:16)

But the massacres sanctioned and blessed by the church, from the Inquisition to the Conquistadors, pale into insignificance against massacres perpetrated by Marxist regimes against their own populations and anyone else who opposed the methodology of their bloody march towards utopia. To quote Professor Rummel again: The Khmer Rouge – (Cambodian communists) who ruled Cambodia for four years – provide insight into why Marxists believed it necessary and moral to massacre so many of their fellow humans. Their Marxism was married to absolute power. They believed without a shred of doubt that they knew the truth, that they would bring about the greatest human welfare and happiness, and that to realize this utopia, they had to mercilessly tear down the old feudal or capitalist order and Buddhist culture, and then totally rebuild a communist society. Nothing could be allowed to stand in the way of this achievement. Government – the Communist Party – was above any law. All other institutions, religions, cultural norms, traditions and sentiments were expendable. R.J.Rummel. Death by Government.

In the name of one truth and the equality of all men before God, Christian missionaries - backed up by the bible and loaded guns - went out and wanted to baptise the inferior races making them into the sons of Abraham. And if their propaganda failed, they sent in the soldiers. The monotheistic ideology of Marxism does not proceed any differently, as it exports, in the name of some absolute truth, a set of universal laws (dialectical materialism). This Marxian interpretation of reality views matter as the sole subject of change and all change as the product of a constant conflict between opposites arising from the internal contradictions inherent in all events, ideas, and movements, to which it claims the whole of human history, in fact, the universe, is bound and that it is only a matter of time before humanity is converted to this truth, by argument, propaganda - or repression and violence.

The Machine Requires a Maker:

The missionaries of the past believed they were bringing realization of the one true God and the promise of his kingdom, to the natives. The Marxists bring the same promise in the form of some abstract, utopianistic dreamtime, for which they have been and are prepared to go to any length. Apart from the goal of Marxism being metaphysical, the way forward, dialectical materialism (its methodology) is also metaphysical and mechanistic (machine-like).

Materialism in enlightenment thought was inherently mechanistic. It followed from the metaphor that the universe might be this gigantic machine and that its inner affairs - like those of a machine - follow a determined path. Machines are deterministic simply because we make them to be so. When we press a button, we expect the machine to function in a certain predictable way. Similarly, to Newton, the Universe was this machine and the one that had pressed the initial button was God. This monotheistic philosophical blunder existed since the inception of the kind of materialism Marx was raised with and is implicit in the underlying assumptions of Marxist doctrine.

But such ontological assumptions are pure apriorism. They demand someone to step outside the world and take a peek at it. But we cannot step outside the world, both physically and/or linguistically, so every ontological assumption is synthetic a priori and thus nonsense. Ontological assumptions are not something that can be proven true or false. In this realm you can say anything. Its like arguing about the existence of God - and requires someone to step outside the world to make such a judgement. So, when one is talking in these ontological terms he or she is not saying anything.  Arguments about the existence or non-existence of God, or arguments about everything being material or immaterial, about invisible pink unicorns - are completely nonsensical. Second, the only way the metaphor of a corpuscular, mechanical universe would work (which is more or less what Marx’s materialism is - matter is determined by other matter ad infinitum) like a machine is if there was a God. Because if the universe is this orderly machine, rationally architectured for a certain purpose, then it MUST have been determined by a Mind.

Equality, The Other, One’s Self and the End of History:

In Marxist/totalitarian thinking, the other (the enemy, the bourgeoisie or whatever) are perceived as objects - abstractions which consciousness must interpret, or instrumentalize, working from data from an inanimate, subjective source (the doctrine). This leads to the interpretation of the other through a projection of one’s self - through the group or party one may belong to - which usually leads to the desire to eliminate everything that does not conform to the projection. The other is considered, most superficially, despite their genius, benevolence, individuality, compassion, loyalty, family, race, culture and so on, as a class - an evil driven by base intent, against which the good (the party, the doctrine) are mercilessly opposed. Only when all men are materially and culturally equal the propaganda goes, will humankind be free, happy and secure. This tendency of going through one’s self to interpret others is all the more absurd, when we consider that it makes impossible not only an understanding of the other but of one’s self, especially when we consider that one can only be fully conscious of ones own identity/class/religion/culture by contrasting it with the variation found everywhere outside it. We need the other in order to know how we are different from them. Rejection of the other is also a rejection of the process which allows self-building and self-transformation by a positive interaction with them.

This is why, in Marxist thinking, races and cultures amount to nothing - or are simply means to an end (e.g their support for ethnic minorities) – which are in real terms seen as impediments that stand in the way of the revolution and its goal, which, today, amounts to a one world government ruled by a military-industrial technocracy, where the mixing of races and cultures would be encouraged, and adherence to cultural norms discouraged, and in many cases, punishable by imprisonment and/or death. It is at this stage that the racist nature of Marxism becomes evident, in that it would destroy the particularities of cultures and races - and that these particularities must be destroyed if humankind is to achieve the ideal of cultural, social, political and economic equality, which again, in real terms, can and only begin, be maintained and end, in a red-fascist, totalitarian state, beyond which, as history has demonstrated, their can be no dialectical evolution leading to utopia, only repression, bloodshed and mass murder.

If one begins with a sufficient degree of ignorance of others, then one’s God, beliefs, doctrine, law, class, tribe will be the only true one - the only observable point of reference. And this is why monotheistic doctrines such as Marxism, at the same time as leading to a negation of the identity of others, also gives rise - in those who put them forward – to ignorance or unawareness of their own particular identity, one simply belongs to the party, to the class, to the state, to the struggle. Refusal to recognise the other, goes along with what would follow from such recognition: the evolution of peoples, tribes, nations and individuals, instead of which we have been given by the Abrahamic religions and their heir, Marxism, a narrow-minded, antiquated, fairy-tale theory proclaiming the end of history and the ushering in of utopia, the kingdom of heaven or whatever, which postulates the leveling effects of temporal and spatial homogeneity and an end of the movement of things set off by humankind’s diversity, a kind of obsession with purity that can be polluted by inferior elements; an obsession which sees impurity as a violation of the natural order, conformity to which is a condition of salvation.

Stagnation And Economic Irrationality:

In the old Soviet Union and in all communist countries, where the dictatorship owned/owns everything what sets in is not a zest for life and the future, but stagnation. As William Boyes Michael Melvin, Professor of Economics and a Dean’s Council Distinguished Scholar pointed out in Microeconomics (The Rights of Ownership). Seventh Edition. Houghton and Mifflin, 2008): If no one owns something no one takes care of it. Also it’s private property rights that count not public property rights. Incentive is the operative word here: In the former Soviet Union the government owned virtually everything. No one had an incentive to take care of anything. As a result, housing was decrepit and dingy, industries were inefficient and run down and the standard of living was very low…(Chapter 3).

In ideal terms, even after the state has withered away, how would such a society function, in terms of trade, manufacturing, distribution and government? When one considers these questions, the irrationality of the Marxist utopia is apparent. For example, how could there be any trade in goods if everybody owned everything, equally? Who would produce these goods? Who would sell them? Would they be given away? Who would decide who has what, and why? If a family required a bed or a house, would it be there for them to take? How would the concept of value be applied? How would the laws of society be framed? To quote Jung again: the infantile dream state of the mass man is so unrealistic, that he never thinks to ask - who is paying for this paradise?

The Brave New World (Marxism and the Corporate State):

Modern Marxists, unlike their classical predecessors, live in a different world. A world where capitalism hasn’t been superceded by socialism, where all the communist revolutions, have, in real time, failed, and failed spectacularly; where capitalism, not communism, has, if you like, dialectically progressed, from free enterprise to corporate, with the power to influence governments of both left and right-wing persuasions, between which today, there is little diference.

The reason for communist China’s success in both the commercial and industrial world, has little to do with Marxism and almost everything to do with corporate capitalism, which the Chinese party machine have embraced whilst still maintaining a stranglehold over the majority of its population, with little regard for human rights, democracy and freedom.

This is an extremely important development which illustrates that capitalism can function in cohabitation with the state and the party, an arrangement, thanks to Trotsky’s efforts, which first manifest prior to the Bolshevik Revolution and made the victory of such a revolution possible. As Huxley wrote in his Brave New World: The state or government of Brave New World is a mixture, a synthesis of capitalism and communism. Today, this is happening not only in China, but in the West, where the suppression of freedom, total survellance, higher taxes, extensive welfare and co-operation between government and corporate capitalist institutions (public-private partnerships) are at unpreidented levels and increasing, along with the steady erosion of democratic principles and forms of government. This development has brought with it a means whereby the political, military, media, bureaucratic and corporate elites - now have the technology, control the organs of propaganda and know how to stay in power, indefinitely. But that’s another story…

Opposed to this kind of monotheistic thinking, is an open, clear awareness of the diversity of humankind and the relativity of norms found in different groups/cultures/belief systems. The great thing about western democracy, and why, with all its dreadful faults, it has produced the greatest advances in human creativity and knowledge, are because the diversity of humankind and individuals was considered self-evident.

Yes, all men are considered equal, but not in the crass, ignorant ways depicted by monotheistic religions and ideologies, but equal in their rights as human beings, to grow and develop in a free society with others, regardless of their culture, race or creed - ideas all antithetical to Marxism, in theory and practice. If humankind is to survive, evolve and confront the very great problems it faces, it must do so in the spirit of democracy and freedom. If our leaders, in their wisdom, do away with democracy, freedom will follow, as history has demonstrated, like night follows day. If this is what they are planning, they do so at their own peril, and the peril of us all…

Eugene Donnini (2015)



By Eugene Donnini on 2015 04 16 - 11:51:54
From the entry 'The myth of metadata'.

with absolutely zero credible evidence to support his case, fenton tells anyone who will listen that a plane hit the pentagon. why anyone would chose to believe a word this pathetic liar says is beyond me.

By kityufityf on 2015 04 16 - 10:38:26
From the entry 'David Chandler weighs in on 9/11 Pentagon questions'.

Trust the truth for a nation all the best now citizens.

By OZE on 2015 04 15 - 16:41:47
From the entry 'Interview: Craig Isherwood of the CEC'.

Travesti Ankara Travestileri Travesti Zuhal Hosdere Ayranci Ankara TravestileriTravesti Ankara Travestileri Travesti Zuhal Hosdere Ayranci Ankara TravestileriTravesti Ankara Travestileri Travesti Zuhal Hosdere Ayranci Ankara Travestileri

By Ankara Travestileri on 2015 04 15 - 08:52:36
From the entry '911oz Policies'.

Travesti Ankara Travestileri Travesti Zuhal Hosdere Ayranci Ankara TravestileriTravesti Ankara Travestileri Travesti Zuhal Hosdere Ayranci Ankara TravestileriTravesti Ankara Travestileri Travesti Zuhal Hosdere Ayranci Ankara Travestileri

By Ankara Travestileri on 2015 04 15 - 08:51:33
From the entry 'A heart to heart talk with Fair Dinkum Leon'.

While rockets from Gaza aren’t failnlg close to CNN offices in Haifa, they will kill a Jew, Christian or Moslem just as dead.I’m personally outraged that the stagnant main streaming press ignores the fact that those killed by the rockets, especially the Israelis, are indeed martyred by these princes of Allah.  I’ll guess that Tehran, perversely, loves the non-Mohammedan world so much that they are willing to martyr us all so that we all may enjoy the 70 virgins… the poor murdering schmucks on the other hand.

By Betty on 2015 04 12 - 16:42:32
From the entry 'Israel's act of piracy is examined and condemned'.

AI fost macar acolo ? Lasa tu ce a distrus Ceasca , ca macar el a cotrusnit foarte multe , mai multe cladire istorice au fost distruse in noua democratie dar nimeni nu zice nimic de ele .Acuma si pelesul , castelul bran si o sumedenie de conace si palate de patrimoniu nici macar nu mai tin de stat , ci au fost retrocedate , cu toate ca au fost pastrate cu fonduri publice .

By Dalal on 2015 04 12 - 14:16:38
From the entry 'David Chandler weighs in on 9/11 Pentagon questions'.