Mikas blogg

Demonstration mot kriget i Irak, Helsingfors mars 2003
Börja med END!

25 February

The World Social Forum and the Open Conspiracy

[World Social Forum] 

The World Social Forum is an embodiment of the phenomenon which H.G. Wells called the Open Conspiracy. There have been other instances of it earlier, and more of it is most probably coming, even  should the WSF utterly fail.

The first broad principle of the Open Conspiration is "the complete assertion, practical as well as theoretical, of the provisional nature of existing governments and of our acquiescence in them".

The second principle: "The resolve to minimize by all available means the conflicts of these governments, their militant use of individuals and property, and their interferences with the establishment of a world economic system".
The second principle compels us to do what H.G. Wells saw as groundwork, namely,  to  "systematize resistance to militant and competitive imperialism and nationalism".

The World Social Forum has resolved to do some of that groundwork, even it does not pass any resolutions. An oft cited example is the role of the WSF in the coordination of the great demonstrations against the war in Iraq on February 15, 2003.  

I only wish that we would have achieved something similar, or an even stronger coordination, for March 2006! Because, there is now an imminent risk for a military attack against Iran by the USA and its allies. During the last months, the imperialists and their mainstream media have done everything to create the political climate in which such an attack, possibly with nuclear weapons, can be carried out. That is their conspiracy.  And, needless to say, their conspiracy is not an open conspiracy.

The events of the 11 September 2001 where also the result of a conspiracy, but not of the alleged conspiracy of Osama Bin Laden and his twenty Islamistic terrorists. That official story cannot be true. That is why I fear that a nuclear attack against Iran is not unthinkable at all.

The knowledge that 9/11 was an inside job is almost as hard to stand as the knowledge that the Nazis used people as raw material for soap must have been for those who lived at that time. A journalist told me that she prefers not to think about it, because otherwise it would fill all her thoughts and make it impossible to concentrate on her job.  

Our balance of thoughts and peace of mind is being challenged!

Why cannot the official story be true? This has been explained  by David Ray Griffin, an old American professor of the philosophy of religion. The relevant books by Griffin are not on the philosophy of religion, though. They are called "The New Pearl Harbour. Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" (2004), and "The 9/11 Commission Report. Omissions and Distortions" (2005).

The inconsistency of the story we have been and are being told (the basic story of what is happening in today's world, if you like) is also being demonstrated by physics professor Steven Jones, and by other Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

I enclose the most recent press release ofrom Scholars for 9/11 Truth at the end of this message. Please  consult their website http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

Now back to H.G Wells and the Open Conspiracy - let it become a common reference among those who participate in the process of the World Social Forum. Heikki Patomäki and Teivo Teivainen indirectly refer to Wells's pamphlet in their sketch of research on global political parties:

"From the frontiers of science fiction and social analysis, the possibility of a world party has been most powerfully imagined and analyzed by Warren W. Wagar, inspired by the earlier ideas of H. G. Wells." (see http://www.nigd.org/globalparties/articles)

Although I have not yet seen the book by Warren Wagar, I should like to make an objection here:  the Open Conspiracy is not a (global) party. Wells is actually envisioning a  (world) government.  I agree that a clear
distinction between party and government can be difficult to make, because a party can be seen (and it often sees itself) as a government in the making.

Yet it is necessary to make that distinction if we are talking about world government, or even about "global governanance",  which is sofar only a myth whereby we are being lulled into the belief that a government already exists on the international scale.

The first observation to make about world goverment is that  it is nowhere and has never been. The second - if we are Open Conspirators: that it is coming.  

H.G.Wells is an inspiring author on the subject because he realizes   that a world government must be very different from our present governments. So he does not actually describe a "world government"; he even very rarely uses the term (searching his  text by  computer I only found one single instance of the phrase "world government").

Wells, for instance, notes that:
"The fundamental organization of contemporary states is plainly still military, and that is exactly what a world organization cannot be."
Some parts of H.G.Wells thinking are clearly antiquated, but this does not not mean that they are obsolete. The text of the Open Conspiracy (1928), or of What Are We To Do With Our Lives?, as he preferred to call its second revised edition (1930) is easily found on the internet, see for instance:

By the way, H.G. Wells who so clearly anticipated many of its features, would certainly have loved the internet!

PS  Try to think of M.K Gandhi as an Open Conspirator, and consider federalism as an alternative to imperialism.


Scholars for 9/11 Truth call for verification and publication by an international consortium.
Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

They have joined with others in common cause as members of "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), because they are convinced, based on their own research, that the administration has been deceiving the nation about
critical events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts suggest these events may have been orchestrated by elements within the administration to manipulate Americans into supporting policies
at home and abroad they would never have condoned absent "another Pearl Harbor."

They believe that this White House is incapable of investigating itself and hope the possibility that Congress might hold an unaccountable administration accountable is not merely naive or wishful thinking.

They are encouraging news services around the world to secure scientific advice by taking advantage of university resources to verify or to falsify their discoveries. Extraordinary situations, they believe, require
extraordinary measures.

If this were done, they contend, one of the great hoaxes of history would stand naked before the eyes of the world and its perpetrators would be clearly exposed, which may be the only hope for saving this nation from ever greater abuse.

They hope this might include The New York Times, which, in their opinion, has repeatedly failed to exercise the leadership expected from our nation's newspaper of record by a series of inexplicable lapses. It has failed to vigorously investigate tainted elections, lies leading to the war in Iraq, or illegal NSA spying on the American people, major
unconstitutional events. In their view, The Times might compensate for its loss of stature by helping to reveal the truth about one of the great turning-point events of modern history.

Stunning as it may be to acknowledge, they observe, the government has brought but one indictment against anyone and, to the best of their knowledge, has not even reprimanded anyone for incompetence or dereliction of duty. The official conspiracy theory -- that nineteen Arab hijackers under control of one man in the wilds of Afghanistan brought this
about -- is unsupportable by the evidential data, which they have studied.
They even believe there are good reasons for suspecting that video tapes officially attributed to Osama bin Laden are not genuine.

They have found the government's own investigation to be severely flawed.
The 9/11 Commission, designated to investigate the attack, was directed by Philip Zelikow, part of the Bush transition team in the NSA sector and the co-author of a book with Condoleezza Rice. A Bush supporter and director
of national security affairs, he could hardly be expected to conduct an objective and impartial investigation.

They have discovered that The 9/11 Commission Report is replete with omissions, distortions, and factual errors, which David Ray Griffin has documented in his book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. The official report, for example, entirely ignores the collapse of WTC7, a 47-story building, which was hit by no airplanes, was only damaged by a few small fires, and fell seven hours after the attack.

Here are some of the kinds of considerations that these experts and scholars find profoundly troubling:

In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

 The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?
Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700°F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800°F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000°F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?
Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?
Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

 Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the
orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

 A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

 The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever
imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Their own physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into theirown footprints.

These experts and scholars have found themselves obliged to conclude that the 9/11 atrocity represents an instance of the approach--which has been identified by Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser--of "creating our own reality."

Tiden är inte mogen för ett nytt politiskt parti| Paradsidan | Någonting att hänga upp sig på
(Kommentarer saknas.)

Posta en kommentar

Skriv ordet du ser på bilden i textfältet: refresh

>> Mikas hemsida

Powered by COREBlog

laskuri alkaen-påbörjad-started 2014-01-23