Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Shocking Doctrines, Shocking Short Shrift

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 02:16 PM
Original message
Shocking Doctrines, Shocking Short Shrift
I recently had the opportunity to view a lecture by Michael Parenti whom I consider a foremost expert on imperialism. Parenti began his lecture with the use of the word “stochasticism” which essentially means random, non-deterministic, based on conjecture or guess. A simpler way of summarizing it is, “stuff happens.” It is, in fact, the polar opposite of “conspiratorial.” In the lecture Parenti went on to criticize those who refuse to admit that the United States is imperialistic and who explain its imperial adventures around the world as something that “just happened.” Generally, those in academia who rationalize U.S. imperialism are astute, incisive thinkers on other issues, so one is perplexed by the obtuseness they demonstrate around the topic of imperialism.



In the same way, I have been bewildered by a singular stochastic perspective of Naomi Klein in her brilliant, exhaustive, superbly-documented book The Shock Doctrine. In it Klein builds an intricate and convincing case for the use of various techniques of trauma applied to societies and individuals during the twentieth century and continuing into the current moment for the purpose of perpetrating what has become one of her hallmark phrases, “disaster capitalism” Yet two pages in the book left me aghast. The first is Pages 11-12 which refer to September 11, 2001 and state:



The Bush team seized the moment of collective vertigo with chilling speed-not, as some have claimed, because the administration deviously plotted the crisis but because the key figures of the administration, veterans of earlier disaster capitalism experiments in Latin America and Eastern Europe, were part of a movement that prays for crisis the way drought-struck farmers pray for rain, and the way Christian-Zionist end-timers pray for the Rapture.

After hearing endless interviews of Klein and reading numerous articles about the book when it first hit the stores in September, and being very familiar with the disaster capitalism thesis, the above quote from the book’s first pages were astonishing in their inconsistency with nearly every other page of the book.



If you’re wondering about that second quote that left me aghast, please bear with me. I will address it, but first things first.



Disaster Capitalism-Microcosm and Macrocosm

Disaster capitalism is according to Klein “…orchestrated raids on the public sphere in the wake of catastrophic events, combined with the treatment of disasters as exciting market opportunities.” (6) It has its origins in the “Chicago School” of economics made famous and perpetuated for decades by University of Chicago economics professor, Milton Friedman, who actually coined the phrase “shock treatment” to describe the psychological pummeling of societies and individuals who might stand in the way of or could be made more useful to the advancement of corporate goals. One recent example was the dramatic use of shock and awe, including using those very words to describe it, against the nation of Iraq during the invasion by the U.S. in 2003. A more recent example to which Klein devotes a great deal of attention is the devastation of New Orleans during and after Hurricane Katrina.

The endgame of disaster capitalism is the total privatization of what have throughout American history been state services. Not surprisingly, the ultimate outcome of unbridled disaster capitalism will be the supplanting of government by corporations.



While these are examples of societal decimation, the book’s first chapter focuses on the origins of the current forms of torture used by the U.S. in the incipient, CIA-funded experiments of Ewen Cameron, a Canadian psychiatrist who “believed that by inflicting an array of shocks to the human brain, he could unmake and erase faulty minds, then rebuild new personalities” on what he believed would be a “clean slate.” (29) I was quite familiar with Cameron as a result of a History Channel documentary called “Mind Control: America’s Secret War” which I frequently show in my classes, but for the most part, progressives have been loath to discuss many of the CIA’s early torture escapades and have minimized them as perhaps “borderline conspiratorial”-until Klein published Shock Doctrine. As a result, her research is now currently quite fashionable in progressive circles, but ten years ago, it was a bit “fringy” for the left-liberal establishment as many of us were exposing the MK Ultra mind control agenda of the CIA, only to be labeled “whacky.”

http://americanargameddon.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/a-review-of-naomi-kleins-the-shock-doctrine/

I have to agree. One thing I found disappointing. Is Klein's assumption that 911 wasn't part of the conspiracy. I'm hoping she will come around..

I cannot recommend Shock Doctrine highly enough for a multi-layered understanding of the origin, evolution, and likely outcome of disaster capitalism. It offers an extraordinary economic and geopolitical map of historical and current events. Yet the book’s treatment of 9/11 is disappointingly characteristic of the progressive response to the tragedy which belies once again its intellectual armoring against venturing into the territory of conspiracy. Yet nowhere in Shock Doctrine is the most absurd, incongruous, intellectually insulting conspiracy of all, the “official” story of 9/11, challenged.



While I have been on record for years arguing that the attacks were orchestrated by the U.S. government, and while I have repeatedly supported the 9/11 truth movement, I no longer feel a sense of urgency in pursuit of 9/11 truth. The larger picture of the collapse of empire and civilization, of which 9/11 was only one piece, compel me to expand my horizon. Nevertheless, when otherwise perspicacious minds tenaciously embrace the official story, no doubt in fear of being labeled a conspiracy theorist, I feel equally compelled to challenge the contradiction.

Shock Doctrine offers us priceless documentation of the lengths to which empire has gone and will go to achieve and maintain primacy; however, its one shocking and pivotal incongruity must be illuminated. Unless we are willing to cross the line into the forbidden domain of pre-meditated mass murder that was 9/11, we are adrift in a stochastic world of “stuff happens” while surrounded by a sea of intentional, well-orchestrated holocausts.

So What Does It Matter If Progressives Can’t Go There?



With respect to a book like Shock Doctrine which plumbs the depths of malignancy that the United States has inflicted upon the world and on its own citizens, the inability of its author to allow herself to know the whole truth about 9/11 and speak it, is astounding. Not only does it reveal the intellectual constraints which the progressive movement has foisted upon itself, but it facilitates a tenacious clinging to endless layers of denial. Even worse, in so doing the liberal left perpetuates not only everyone else’s denial but the false hopes and pseudo-solutions of the American political chimera, the corruption of which is consummate and which serves no other purposes than choreographing a caricature of democracy and ensuring massive social control.



Carolyn Baker is a frequent contributor to Global Research

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. Link to original, please.
For those who want to read it all. Thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pberq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 03:56 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. here's the link - interesting article
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7290

Shocking Doctrines, Shocking Short Shrift
A Review of Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine"

by Carolyn Baker

Global Research, November 8, 2007

. . . With respect to 9/11, Klein's incisive grasp of disaster capitalism's brilliantly devised, superbly-engineered machinations alongside her stochastic insistence that the administration did not deviously plot the catastrophe defies all logic. By Page 400, the reader has digested an encyclopedia of conspiracies carried out by a series of U.S. administrations of both political parties, but on Page 426 is nevertheless asked to believe that 9/11 "just happened".

On that page comes the most breathtaking statement of all-that quote to which I promised to return. Arguing that the U.S. government did not have a hand in the attacks, Klein states:

The truth is at once less sinister and more dangerous. An economic system that requires constant growth, while bucking almost all serious attempts at environmental regulation, generates a steady stream of disasters all on its own, whether military, ecological or financial.

I could not agree with Klein more in terms of economies based on growth generating a steady stream of disasters, but 9/11 is a bit more than a few molecules in a "steady stream." It was and is the defining moment in the history of disaster capitalism.

The truth of 9/11, says Klein is "less sinister, and more dangerous"? What could be more dangerous than the U.S. government orchestrating the attacks in order to achieve all of the motivations that Klein has so incisively and painstakingly explained? After 425 pages of unrelenting recitations of bona fide conspiracy, I am asked to swallow the stochastic non-analysis of a steady stream in which 9/11 just happened to rear its ugly head?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 04:03 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. She really has to contemplate
Bush being in that Florida classroom not reacting to being told "America is under attack", not a single question, with his assistants and bodyguards not moving an inch even though they are at a public engagement with an unknown number of hijacked planes in the sky with an unknowm number of potential targets including them. Someone knew they were safe.
If she thought about that for a while the light might come on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SDuderstadt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Don't you think it's a little silly to argue that Bush was...
intitally less safe in the building, than risking more by trying to move him to a vehicle? Are you suggesting that the attackers would have less problem getting him as he's being moved outside the building??

In reality, Bush can be faulted for not stepping up and taking more effective action (I honestly think he didn't even realize he needed to do anything at all until it sunk into his peabrain that he was CIC), but that hardly proves that "someone knew they were safe". If you've ever studied Logic, do you remember the fallacy known as an "unwarranted conclusion"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. Works both ways
It hardly proves that Bush was acting in good faith.

I don't know how anyone could observe that scene and not find Bush's conduct strange as hell. Card whispered in his ear that the country was under attack and there was no follow up???? Are you kidding? We are told Bush didn't want to disturb the children yet evidently the guy who makes such a big deal out of being Commander in Chief didn't feel like taking on those duties at the very moment they were needed...ie...NORAD chain of command responsibilities. AFAIK, CiC duty during a national crisis trumps not upsetting children. It doesn't even make sense as an excuse. Are we to believe the only way to excuse himself from the classroom would be by telling the children that a plane may crash into the school? That is insane, yet it seems that is what Bush is suggesting he would have had to do to leave the classroom.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
balantz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. No argument there n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 02:00 AM
Response to Reply #4
12. Why move Cheny then and evacuate the Whitehouse and Pentagon?
Edited on Sun Jun-08-08 02:10 AM by Bassman66
Sorry, they knew they were safe, that whole Florida classroom scene just plain stinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 11:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. The Secret Service could not know that there was not an ambush
waiting on the way to Air Force One.

I struggle to understand what people expect that Bush should have done. If the Secret Service felt he was in danger, they would have dragged him out of there kicking and screaming.

If, as you claim, they somehow knew he was not in danger, then they must have been in on it, which I do not believe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
10. What about Bush's lack of curiosity?
A surprise attack and Bush doesn't want more than a five second briefing? Meanwhile at the Pentagon Rumsfeld decided he could best help by assisting the emergency response workers as his SoD responsibilities evidently weren't that important at the time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #10
26. Just a guess... the man is an idiot?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 01:14 AM
Response to Reply #7
11. The SS whisks Cheney away but leaves georgie sit there
Edited on Sun Jun-08-08 01:14 AM by seemslikeadream
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 02:05 AM
Response to Reply #7
13. Well that's your opinion.
Edited on Sun Jun-08-08 02:06 AM by Bassman66
My opinion, based on the evidence in the film is that someone knew they were safe.
An unknown number of planes were in the sky as potential hijacks. Bush is at a known location, he doesn't ask a single question when told "America is under attack" and Card doesn't wait for a response!!
I'm sorry that looks real bad for the Bush team, that likes like foreknowledge, yes I do believe the team already know what was happening, it's the only explanation so far that makes any sense and believe me I've heard a lot of them trying to pass over this incident including the amazing "don't frighten the children" which did the rounds for a while.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noise Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 02:34 AM
Response to Reply #13
15. Some will say
Edited on Sun Jun-08-08 02:37 AM by noise
"Why would Bush act in an incriminating manner if he knew? That doesn't make sense!"

It's a good point. I don't know the answer. Conspiracy or not, Bush's conduct was (IMO) bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. That is a good point.
But did they ever think that unedited footage filmed in that classroom would ever surface? First I ever saw of it was in Fahrenheit 9/11, where was it before then and how did Michael Moore get it?
Ultimately it doesn't matter really because of what it shows. Bushes actions might, just might, be excused because he is supposedly an idiot (I don't believe this however), but Andrew Card does not wait for a response of any kind from Bush, that's the kicker.
Plus as I said before, we have the President at a public engagement with any number of hijacked planes over his head and nobody moves. That stinks. That's says "foreknowledge".

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. Bush was in Florida. Where were the hijacked planes again?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 01:26 AM
Response to Reply #17
20. The hijacked planes
Nobody knew how many planes were hijacked or where they were (alledgedly) or how may were about to be hijacked and what their targets were. That's the point!

But perhaps they did, and that also is the point.

To me it looks like they knew they were safe. The interaction of Bush and Card also looks like they knew what was happening, Cards whisper was merely an update.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 01:38 AM
Response to Reply #7
21. Yet they let Air Force One take off and fly to Barksdale without military escort
then from Barksdale to Nebraska...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #21
22. They knew they were safe.
They knew the full extent of what was happening.
I have yet to see a good explanation from anyone who believes the official story about Bush's actions that day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 01:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
23. Oh, you don't have to convince me, I fully believe 9-11 was an inside job..
Welcome to DU, Bassman66...

See my post here:
"The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today." George W Bush, 9-11-01"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x206401

I find it telling that the PNAC doctrine said they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" in their "Rebuilding America's Defenses", then the chimp uttered those words on the day it happened.

9-11 = MIHOP

I've always been firmly in the LIHOP camp, with strong leanings toward the MIHOP camp... finding this quote pushed me over the line...

PEACE!

Ghost

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 08:57 AM
Response to Reply #21
25. Do you know for a fact that AF-1 did not have the protection of fighters?
Edited on Mon Jun-09-08 09:07 AM by Flatulo
I believe F-15s follow AF-1 everywhere.

Edited to make sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. Not this time
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ghost in the Machine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 09:34 AM
Response to Reply #25
29. Looking over it this morning, I could be mistaken... but I don't think so..
What I was reading actually says "with no extra protection".
There's a link at the bottom with video of Bush arriving at Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, and the take-off of Air Force One, but I don't have the 2 hours it would take me on dialup to download it..


http://www.911timeline.net/
108) 9:59 a.m.: Air Force One Departs Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, Sarasota, Florida bound for Washington D.C. Air Force One departed with no extra military protection, even though 2 of the 7 military air stations we had on full alert to protect the continental United States that day were based in Florida. Homestead Air Station in Homestead is 185 miles and the Tyndall Air Station in Panama City is 235 miles from Sarasota.

These two air stations should have been ordered to scramble their fighters at 8:20 or 8:40 or 8:43 or 8:46:26 or 9:02:54 or at the very least, at 9:24. Flying at top speed, both of these air stations fighters could have been in Sarasota in about 20 minutes to protect Air Force One. Where were the fighters from both of these air stations? Did both of these air stations have something better to do that day than protect Air Force One? Please, this just does not happen.

Also, is the place to be in the air when there are still hundreds of airliners in the air, and who knew then how many of them were hostile or not?

We have captured and saved the video of Bush as he arrives at Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport, and the take-off of Air Force One.
Go to: http://www.AttackOnAmerica.net/AirForceOneLeavingSarasota.ra


Also, from the same link above:

131) 10:32 a.m.: Cheney called Bush on Air Force One, on its way from Florida to Washington, to say the White House had just received a threat against the plane. The caller had used its code word, "Angel," suggesting terrorists had inside information. Card was told it would take between 40 minutes and 90 minutes to get a protective fighter escort up to Air Force One.
http://www.911timeline.net/#102831




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 11:28 PM
Response to Reply #3
8. Does anyone know what Roosevelt did when he heard about
the attack on Pearl Harbor?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
seemslikeadream Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jun-07-08 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Had lunch with Warren Buffett
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 02:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
14. That's irrelevant
Totally irrelevant, Roosevelt didn't have an unknown number of planes being hijacked above his head and crashed into public buildings.
But thanks for trying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jun-08-08 10:44 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. I wasn't 'trying' anything. I was asking an honest question.
...one that you obviously do not have the answer to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 01:22 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I do know the answer actually but as I said it's irrelevant.
Roosevelt was not in danger of being crashed into by by hijacked plane over his head.

Now do you have any good answers as to what was happening in that classroom?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. No, I do not. My theory is just as meaningless as yours, unless
Edited on Mon Jun-09-08 08:55 AM by Flatulo
you can read minds.

On edit:

I would think that a more likely threat would have been an ambush on his convoy to Air Force One, which you have not addressed. In this case, it would have been more prudent to keep him at the school until the routw could be secured.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 09:27 AM
Response to Reply #24
27. The convoy could have gone north south east or west
Edited on Mon Jun-09-08 09:27 AM by Bassman66
as soon as it left the school gates.

Some of the security team did want to leave immediately, however they were overuled - by who? Who knew that the President was safe, who knew that Airforce One didn't need air cover from fighter jets 5 minutes away?

My question is relevant, your Roosevelt comment is not for the reasons stated. Interesting that you chose that as a "defence" though, it was a weak very very argument.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 09:39 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. You may know more about Secret Service protocols than I do...
I have no idea what their tactics are when there is a perceived threat to the POTUS. My guess is that you don't either. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

From what I've read (and there are dozens of contradicting accounts) the decision was made to get Air Force One aloft and as high as possible. I can think of several reasons for this:

1. It was known that the threat was commercial aircraft, not Soviet fighters or other foreign threat
2. The likeliehood of getting rammed while airborne was nil
3. At crusing altitude the threat from Stingers is eliminated

Why was Bush not immediately whisked away? I have no idea.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bassman66 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #30
31. How many aircraft did the SS think were above
their heads being hijacked at that very moment over a Florida sky? Bush's position at that time had been public knowledge for days.
Why did Card not wait for a response from the President? Not even a glance? Why didn't the President have any questions?
Why did Bush delay leaving the classroom, letting all the reporters go first, having his photo taken then shaking hands with people?

Bush knew.

Card just updated him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Flatulo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jun-09-08 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. I can understand why you would think that. However ...
I can also see that there is a rather huge matrix of other possible explanations for every behavior that morning.

Ultimately such exercises amount to conjecture.

The Truth movement needs a credible whistleblower to come forward with documented proof of criminal intent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 04:27 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC