West Yorkshire Truth Campaign

Ten minutes web research does away with all the 9-11 conspiracy theories:
 http://www.911myths.com/index.html

Since 9/11 has been used for almost 5 years to justify an imperial grab for the oil resources in the middle east which has left hundreds of thousands dead and countless curtailment of civil liberties it's worth spending more than 10mins looking into it.

If you haven't questioned the official story before why don't you give it 2 hours?

The key issue for me is the physics of the structural failure of the 3 buildings, so I'd suggest spending the first hour watching 911 Revisited, it's free to watch if you have broadband, it covers the collapse of the buildings:

 http://911revisited.com.

Then, for more info on Building 7 look at these two sites:

 http://11syyskuu.blogspot.com/

 http://wtc7.net/

And for the physics of the failure twin towers these two sites:

 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Look I'm no structural engineer so I just have to look for bad and inconsistent arguments or falsehoods and then way up the evidence as best I can.

But doesn't it make you wonder why there isn't a single structural engineer in the whole world, that is not a single one, not any, that believes the towers weren't simply brought down by the impact of the planes and the subsequent fire which weakened the steel supports until the building failed. I mean not even one dissident structural engineer, the experts in this field, in the entire world, not even one disgruntled chip on his shoulder ex-structural engineer has emerged out of the woodwork that thinks that exposives were needed to bring down the towers. Doesn't that make you think? I mean are they all in on the conspiracy? That's one hell of a conspiracy, it must involve quite literally tens of thousands of people, I mean with a conspiracy that size someone will talk, right?

Perhaps it's just that you have a better grasp on "the physics of the structural failure of the 3 buildings" than every single structural engineer in the whole world. That's pretty amazing, you must be very smart. What training have you had in the field that makes you so confident?

Seeing as your whole world view rests on this grasp of physics you will have read all the various sites that have sprung up to de-bunk the conspiracy theories. I've seen point by point analysis of all the 9/11 conspiracy claims the website above is a good place to start. Will you show us to some websites that point by point de-bunk the de-bunkings?

I agree that it's rather pathetic that no Structural Engineers have come forward, though I expect this will change in time.

I'm an architect.

People should make their own minds up, newtonian physics is the basis of structural engineering, a GCSE / A level understanding is enough to read the articles.

These two articles have never been "debunked" as far as I'm aware.

 http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

 http://janedoe0911.tripod.com/BilliardBalls.html

Every major event is followed by conspiracy theories. As soon as the events on September 11th happened there was no possibility that conspiracy theories wouldn't emerge to explain them. It's based on the fallacy that major events must have major causes, e.g. people found it hard to accept that such an "important" man as JFK could be killed by such an unimportant man as Lee Harvey Oswald or that the 9/11 hi-jackings could be done by "mere" Arabs (a heavy smell of racism hangs over much conspiracy theory). Conspiracy theories can be spotted because they broadly fit into the same world view or narrative structure which some have called conspiracism:

Conspiracism is a narrative form of scapegoating that portrays an enemy as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good. Conspiracism assigns tiny cabals of evildoers a superhuman power to control events, frames social conflict as part of a transcendent struggle between Good and Evil, and makes leaps of logic, such as guilt by association, in analyzing evidence. Conspiracists often employ common fallacies of logic in analyzing factual evidence to assert connections, causality, and intent that are frequently unlikely or nonexistent. As a distinct narrative form of scapegoating, conspiracism uses demonization to justify constructing the scapegoats as wholly evil while reconstructing the scapegoater as a hero.

Of course you could more or less fit George Bush's worldview into that structure and it is the structure of right wing thought generally.

These pages de-bunk the claims made in the two articles cited by "anti-capitalist":
 http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
 http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
 http://www.debunking911.com/moltensteel.htm

This stuff isn't taking very long to find why haven't you read them before?

I actually think that what's happening is that you have become committed to an interpretation and are predisposed to dismiss any information that contradicts that. We all suffer from this to some extent and it's something to constantly guard against. This is one of the reasons why we need to examine the wider structure of such beliefs and make sure we don't fall into conspiracist modes of thought.

If you think back you might recognise that some of the theories to which you were previously committed can no longer be held to. This is an uncomfortable feeling and predisposes you to look for something similar to take it's place, a period like that is one that you need to be really on your guard that you're not buying some theory on the rebound.

The other factor in play is that you get mutual reinforcement from people in your "movement", if you listen to 9/11 truth talks on the net every claim is made as if there could be no other possible explanation, it's often done with laughter at other interpretations of the events. This is a way of mutually reinforcing your views and dismissing countervailing arguments. It would be hard for you now to break with your views because of new evidence that is presented to you, as that would involve breaking with a group to which you are committed and presumabley have personal relationships with.

That there is no structural engineer in the world who agrees with you needs an explanation (and saying it is disappointing isn't one). This would make me sit up and think if my beliefs were based on an issue of structural engineering and I disagreed with every single structural engineer in the world. Have they all been got at?

Is there any evidence that could be provided that would break you from your views that the world trade towers didn't have to be brought down by a controlled explosion?

(I ask this because I think it is central to you but I imagine that you also buy all and every other conspiracy theory surrounding all the events of 9/11)

 http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html

And tell me that the Law of the Consevation of Energy is Satisfied.

 http://library.thinkquest.org/2745/data/lawce1.htm

Do you thinik that the Kean Commission report got it right then?
Do you think our leaders are incapable of this kind of deception?
Oh conspiraloons you say. Name calling and tarring humans with the same brush.
Ever heard of independent thought or do you just crow and take the piss
just like fox news
I say open your eyes and mind and judge for your self.

As for me those buildings were deliberately demolished in a controlled demolition and that's just based on looking at the collapse videos and some science. nothing else.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy

There's no way on earth those buildings collapsed without the addition of significant ammounts of kinetic energy in the form of explosives.

Just take your brain out of its complacent box and leave behind your cock-up theory of history.
and try objectively to look at the videos of the collapses
Oh and by the way you actually show some of the symptoms of conspiralloonery yourself....
Hey who started the first world war you so smart?


Just check out the videos of the collapses....

As for "debunking" don't make me larf'

You clearly have no conception of the Scientific Method

"Bebunking" my arse!

The link in my last post was to an article called "10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists" from Urban 75. Characteristic 3 is this:

"3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make."

Now go back and read the exchange in these posts. You might agree, "Nobody’s” comments defy parody. They are almost paradigmatic of the definition of a conspiracy theorist.

Dear nobody.
I'm afraid watching a couple of videos and then applying "science" is not good enough. You have to admit that thousands of structural engineers will have watched those videos and yet not one of them in the whole world has come to the conclusions that you have. Why is that?

What secret insight do you have that is denied to the rest of us. Every article I've been sent to I come back with articles that disprove them and yet you don't come back with analysis of the de-bunking just laughter, the laughter that I cited earlier as a method used to refuse debate.

You are supposed to be fearless seekers of the truth and this is the fundamental basis of your whole worldview surely you could take the time to respond to my quite simple questions.

In response to your questions:
I haven't read the Kean report, I imagine it is extremely lengthy and this subject is not what my worldview is based on. You don't need to read it to disprove the conspiracy theories. It is irrelevant to the issue here.

As to your second question: To commit a conspiracy of this magnitude would involve hundreds of people, the chances of it leaking out are fairly high. If found out the consequences for the perpetrators would be extremely serious. It's an all or nothing gamble. There is no way they would take that risk. Why would they? So they could bring in repressive measures and invade Iraq? It makes on sense at all. A conspiracy where the hi-jackers are influenced or helped to fly planes into the building would involve much fewer people and reduce the risk of detection immeasurably why would they also want to blow up the buildings?

As to the towers needing extra kinetic energy to collapse could I once again direct you to this page:  http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm
If that's not enough this paper is very detailed:  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Fundamentally it says that the billiard ball article that "anti-capitalist" links to above doesn't take the transfer of momentum into account. Like a billiard ball being hit by another on a pool table, each floor transferred its momentum to the next as represented below. The more weight, the less resistance each floor gives.

But I'm no structural engineer so it's hard for me to judge but once again I'd ask why there isn't a single structural engineer in the whole world who agrees with your interpretation?

As to the causes of World War one, well that's an interesting and complex question involving inter-imperialist rivalries and the system of alliances in Western Europe but I rather think that is not entirely relevant to 9/11, unless you think it was started by Lizards, or Free masons or Jews or something.

..... are the ones who obsessively follow them around trying to disprove whatever they say, using exactly the same kind of tactics identified in that urban75 article.

yawn

Mike, the reason I want to take them on is that conspircay theories and logic are one of the prime ways that right wing thought infiltrates our movements. I'm afraid at certain times you have to take people on at their own game. If every time they post they are confronted with the same questions they can't answer then perhaps they'll leave Indymedia alone and make it more useful for the movement.

So you think opposing 'conspiraloons' by using the very same tactics you accuse them of is useful to the movement, and likely to save Indymedia from 'right-wingers'?

That sounds like the arrogance described in the urban75 article!

I did a whois search on the debunking911.com and 911myths.com sites only to find that the owner(s) of the sites have chosen to remain anonymous. This hardly makes them a credible source.

Fuelling the very same fire you claim to be putting out is a strange tactic.

Dear Anti-Bullshit Action

OK so your incapable of independent thought and you have no idea what the scientific method might actually
be.

The education system ain't what it used to be is it?. I my day we were actually encouraged to think for ourselves!
So like our education system now teaches, you see science as some sort of multi choice question - a kind of life style choice like shopping or something.


Oooo which do you think looks the most scientific....
Ooooo well this one's got loads of equations and graphs and that....

I have spent the last 3 months answering questions like yours.

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/05/340879.html
 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/sheffield/2006/05/341703.html

So I guess i'm railing at the education system when I laugh at your stock objection to the taboo that is "Conspiracy Theory"

So when the Kean Commission comes out with the "Conspiracy Theory" that 19 men led by someone somewhere in the ME managed to fly 4 hijacked planes around the most heavily defended airspace on the planet for over an hour.
The Kean Commission is important because in it they tell deliberate lies and dismiss any inconvenient evidence. They begin on the premise that is precisely a conspiracy theory and support it with little or no evidence. It's a sign of a cover up.

So if you can be arsed to read those articles and if you have any futher questions I'll try to answer them.

As for the 1st WW it was started by one human shooting another human.

Now the bloke that did the shooting was run by a Serbian Secret Service agent (Apis) who in 1903 bumped off a couple of people who went around saying that they were royalty and were in charge and stuff.
The Serbian spy-leader had training in Switzerland, Germany and Russia in the art of terrorism, (that was terrifically popular at the time, very handy for destabilising Countries and regions and getting rid of the ruling class See Bakunin Marx et al.)
This Serbian State Spy/terrorist was financed by some crown prince of Serbia who was related to both the Tsar and Blighty's good ol' Victoria.

In 1906 the Germans had a plan to build a railway (and an Empire) to Bhagdad (mesopotamia) yep Iraq. In the way, a strip of slav nations (supported by Russia) and the old crumbling Austria-Hungarian Empire.
The German plan was to defeat France in a month (a plan also written in 1906) and rely on Tsarist Russia not mobilising quick enough so that they could punch through the slavs and through to Bulgaria to link up with the Ottomans and so control Mesopotamia (Iraq). Obviously the Brits weren't too enamoured of this plan and I'd guess the Russians had a few misgivings.

Russia itself wanted to control the area by getting rid or replacing the Ottoman Empire. Russia had taken control of Azerbijan in the 1820's in a war with the Persian Empire. They found rich deposits of Oil in Baku where among others the Rothscilds had offices
. But the energy resource wasn't as important as coal until it was refined into Kerosene, and other products some years later in the burgeoning chemical industry of the time. Add to this the work on the internal combustion engine which had by the turn of the 20th century been fully developed.

The British Empire was the No1 they had found lots of oil in Persia (Iran) controlled Egypt and the Suez canal and were prospecting in Messopotamia for oil and eventually found it. Winston Churchill at the admiralty was pushing for replacement of coal with oil as it meant the Battleships of the British Navy could be smaller (cheaper to build) faster have 40% more range and be refueled at sea. The German navy were building U-Boats with internal combustion engines.

Yes this stuff has been going on for over 100 years. The fight of Empires to control the vast oil wealth of the Middle East.

And so back to the Human shooting another Human. So how do you get one human to shoot another, this time in the name of Nationalism.
Well you pick a very oppressed person one who comes from a poor background as his tuberculosis would testify in this case . Then you tell him that the bloke who goes around thinking and telling you he's your Emperor is to blame and that he should be executed in the name of freedom - and if your choice is a psychopath (and he should be) then more than likely, if you give him a gun and tell him where to point it, he'll do the assassination thinking very noble thoughts indeed.
So why would the British and Russians be interested in funding a terrorist organisation like this lot? to start a war?

So when the Austrio-Hungarians said - How dare you assassinate a royal personage - we're going into Serbia to kick some butt - the Germans immediately said we're with you, let's roll, and then the Russians said wait a mo and mobilised and then France lept in followed by the Brits defending the "honour" of the Belgians.

Or was it more in the interests of Britain and Russia to have a go at the Ottoman Empire and control the ME and its Oil wealth. Certainly after the War this is what happened.

So yes in part it is about imperialism, but the Empire builders must have Finance and that's where the bankers and investors come in. And yes many were Jewish, but only in the Machiavellian sense of the word Jewish. i.e. in the sense that GWB is a Christian so he should be "loving his enemy" (to death in his case) "turning his other cheek" etc.

The history of the Jewish people is a long and tragic one , but it was this history that put some Jewish people in the positions they found themselves in. By a series of pogroms they eventually found themselves in Silesia in Poland and on the borders of Russia in the "Pale" and through oppression racism and discrimination found themselves only able to opperate in certain jobs. They had a policy of making sure their children could read and write - in a feudal system where very few were literate- and hence had a reputation for being cleverer than your average Joe. So they find themselves in a few cases running Kingdoms and Empires and the like, while the ruling classes hob-nobbed around. They found themselves inventing a central banking system and becoming very wealthy indeed.
War is very profitable, the production lines keep churning out weapons to be destroyed on the battlefield.
So in the years leading up to the first world war there was a drive to industrialise and there were blocks to this industrialisation especially where the Hereditary royalty and Emperors were still very much in charge.

The example of the Bourgoise revolution that took place early in Britain and the wealth of the British Empire inspired these financiers to bring about change in these old feudal systems through a rapid industrialisation and the development of the "proletariat" by centralising and controling dissent. The "proletariat" would eventually become "the ruling class" with yes you've guessed it - a central "state" bank to collect all the cash in the name of the people of course. In the west the control of dissent meant trade unions and the development of a consumer society.

Then you create a central bank for the central banks and there you have it a global financial system that knows no borders. (its in Switzerland and its called the Bank of International Settelments and its very secretive and no authority can scrutinise it without the permission of its boss who presently is some gezzer who knows this other gezzer at the world bank who's mates with this bloke who investigated all that "Nazi Gold" stuff who's great pals with most of the rulers of the world you know yer movers and shakers and what's more its operatives have full diplomatic immunity).

Oh, and as for "Mike Hunt" why don't you go and have a "mass debate" with yourself
Double yawn.

Yeah that's right Mike, activists try and do things that they think will be useful to the movements they are involved with. No shit Sherlock. If that seems mad or arrogant to you well that's your problem. However the Urban 75 article defines the arrogance of conspiracy theorists a little different:
"1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc"

In other words it's a personalised form of politics where the conspiracy theorists are pure and absolved from responsibility for the problem and anyone who disagrees with them are sheep or patsies. I'm trying to be careful not to right them off as people but to say there are patterns of thought that we can all fall into and we should guard against.

When I say take them on at their own game I mean that I'd much rather talk about how conspiracy theories follow the right wing populist form of thought where the problem is never the system as it works normally (which is left wing thought) but how the system is being corrupted by a section of society which is making the system behave abnormally (which is right wing populism). The group could be neo-cons, Freemasons, Jews. It all follows a very similar pattern. This is one of the differences between leftwing radicalism and right wing radicalism.

But conspiracy theorists won't engage with this, they will only counter with arguments about the "evidence" they have that the towers are falling down. Eventually you have put a stop to this by arguing on their turf and then trying to reintroduce a political analysis.

The anti conspiracy theory websites are citing sources which can be checked up on. The owner of the domain name isn't that relevant to their credibility

You might notice that I don't hang my argument on the anti conspiracy websites. My world view isn't based on an interpretation of a structural engineering issue. But for those who do there has to be an explanation why none of the experts in the field agree with their interpretation.

If you read "nobody's" last rant you might think that I'm making him up as a stereotype of a conspiracy theorist. Unfortunately I'm not. There are people who actually think like this.

I asked a simple question: Seeing as their worldview hinges on a structural engineering issue (whether the twin towers could collapse from the impact and fire) why isn't there one structural engineer in the whole world that agrees with them? This is a phenomenon that needs some explanation in order to make their theories plausible.

Instead of answering he uses a side step called swamping. Not answering the question but throwing in a load of stuff about something completely irrelevant to what was being talked about.

However his swamping was very revealing. It's basically a half mad rant about how the Jews control international finance and bankrolled WW1. Very Mel Gibson. In fact this is standard neo-Nazi fare. If you go back and read the other threads for which he provides the url's (just skim it, reading that shit is not healthy) you'll get a grip on what informs the 9/11 truth movement or the patriot movement as one contributor also calls it. At one point someone quotes the Protocols of Zion as part of their explanation.

Seriously they aren't just a joke these conspiracy theories and the patterns of thinking susceptible to them are the ways the right are infiltrating our movements.

Hi ABS
You're whats known in the trade as a useful idiot and very lazy you clearly are easily "swamped" its true that yer average Human can only take in small ammounts of information before they're "swamped"

You asked what the First WW had to do with this
So I pointed out using an historical analysis (my own, and not some spoon fed dogma that you seem so fond of)

That it was started by a conspiracy of Terror run buy UK and Russian intelligence in order to dominate Global Energy Supplies.

Now if you can't see the obvious parrallels with the situation post 911 in the ME today then you are indeed a useful idiot.

So some one believes through the use of their own judgment and the appliance of a little science that WTC 1,2 &7 were blown up in a false flag opperation - is right wing . Now to me that looks like Dogma

This is not a question of structural engineering its a question of Physics
Why the structural engineers are too scared to put their heads over the parapit is beyond me, but early on a couple did and one lost his job and the other very quickly decided to change his mind.

Your world view is limited to what Marx called the dialectic. You think that being left wing and identifying the right as the enemy then you're doing a good job, but what Marx didn't describe was the world view of the ruling class.
The world view of the financier who has access to 400 trillion dollars and can do what ever he likes - add to this the world view of the Empire builder and you have the tradegy that is human history.

So on the right we have neocons part of their philosophy is that the ends justify the means - Marx says that no moral scruples should get in the way of the class struggle. (a very similar idea) does this mean that Marx was infact right wing? or are the Neocons somehow left wing?.

The right in America have borrowed ideas from the "left" particularly in the world of culture.e.g. With the rise of gangster rap.

I'd suggest reading Machiavelli in order to understand the MO of the Ruling Class and not try to shoot the messenger.

While you're locked onto the dogmatic left-right debate/hate then ruling class continue to rule. Wake Up you usefull idiot.

I haven't been arguing with nobody because I hoped to convert him just to let him hang on his own petard. Well the guy is swinging for all to see and anyone attracted to the various conspiracy theories, who finds them emotionally satisfying because it absolves them of complicity in the worlds situation or whatever, stumbles across this exchange they can see for themselves where it leads to.

Conspiracy theories follow the right wing populist form of thought where the problem is never the system as it works normally (which is left wing thought) but how the system is being corrupted by a section of society which is making the system behave abnormally (which is right wing populism). The group could be neo-cons, Freemasons, Jews. It all follows a very similar pattern.

The people involved with the 9/11 truth or patriot movement in the US are from right wing religious fundamentalist and survivalist circles and as "Nobody" has shown anti-Semitic conspiracy theories keep popping up as though they're the mother load.

In fact as historian Bruce Cumings has put it:
"if conspiracies exist, they rarely move history; they make a difference at the margins from time to time, but with the unforeseen consequences of a logic outside the control of their authors: and this is what is wrong with 'conspiracy theory.' History is moved by the broad forces and large structures of human collectivities."

One final point of interest "nobody" says: "So on the right we have neocons part of their philosophy is that the ends justify the means - Marx says that no moral scruples should get in the way of the class struggle. (a very similar idea) does this mean that Marx was infact right wing? or are the Neocons somehow left wing?."

Of course Marx never says "no moral scruples should get in the way of the class struggle" (nor did he advocate terrorism, a mistake that also indicates a right wing background) but there are links between the left and the neo-cons. Several prominent neo-cons had Trotskyist backgrounds and both their practice and that of the political Islamists are informed by the practices of the authoritarian left.

This book is great on that and well worth reading: Afflicted Powers
 http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/1844670317/ref=sr_11_1/026-1033125-5841235?ie=UTF8

The Communist Manifesto by Marx

"In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.
There's more but, I havn't references here .

It's the ruling classes that use terrorism to destabilise and divide so you end up fighting "the right" and not the ruling class. It's Machiavellian Divide and conquer. Capitalism and Communism are ideoligies designed to pit one human against another and not against the ruling class. Use your imagination, imagine yourself as the ruling class see it from the world view of the ruling class. and don't cling on to the ideology that is Marxism or the opposing ideology of individual ego and self interest. These are what Marx describes as thesis and antithesis and the synthesis is a socialist means of production.

Marx describes the historical process that brings about change - Machiavelli also describes this process but from the world view of the ruling class i.e. divide and rule. So the ruling class remain in control and get what they want.
Just viewing world events through the left eye of Marx means you're only seeing half of political reality you are in effect (to stretch the analogy) a cyclops and have no perception of the 3 dimensional political world. ie The right the left and the ruling class.

Peace be with you.

To be fair mate that is just a random quote from Marx showing he's a revolutionary. You won't win a prize for that insight. It certainly doesn't say: "that no moral scruples should get in the way of the class struggle".

Anyway, essentialy what you are saying is that we need to move beyond right and left, some sort of union of right wing and left wing thought.

In fact a third position synthesising left and right, if you organised that with others from abroad that would be an International Third Position.
Hmmm now where have I heard that before...

(Note from editor - this was the name of the neo-nazi outfit that Nick Griffin was in before he joined the BNP, he also advocated moving beyond left and right through re-packaging anti-semitc conspiracy theories into an international financiers conspiracy, where the financiers happened to be Jewish)

You sir are a Nazi and I claim my prize

No prize sorry
I'm a human being!.
I believe Humans shouldn't kill other humans.
Or any thing else if they can avoid it.
What we should be doing is providing as many opportunities for life in as much diversity as possible in other words Gardening.
All we need to do is control the central bank of central banks and start redistributing!
So Global GDP/Human Population = $10,000 by CIA 2005 Numbers.
Now if you're getting more than that then you're greedy and should redistribute. I get less than half of that ammount so any donation would be gratefully recieved!
I also don't have a car, shop at supermarkets, or take foreign holidays.

So I guess if you really want to pidgeonhole people and declare them the enemy

Then I'm a Human first then I'm a gardener.

I don't believe in Government or having to have ruling classes - so that could pidgeonhole me as libertarian, but I also recon humans are social animals and not just individuals.
So politically I'm more of an human/gardening/anarchist/environmentalist who would like to see the end of wars for oil and gluttonous consumerism - that your mate Marx and the Capitalists have led the human race into.

So what happened to the proletariat in the west? they became the consumerist bourgoise . in the east, though many (Kronstat) had figured out what the "centralisation of credit" really meant were the new wage-slave communists getting totally ripped off by the "state" as is the case in present day China, Vietnam where "socialism" is being "built" today .

The point is Humans are naturally social they don't need Marx to tell them , rather like the idea of heaven to the religious , that one day and maybe one day soon they'll reach the heaven of "socialism" just by killing a few other humans.

I wasn't quoting Marx I was summerising.
So when Marx describes the obstacle to the communards in Paris being their own moral scruples he says they should have immeadiately gone and murdered the bourgoise and anyone else that happened to get in the way.
Marx also certainly supported armed struggle and only began to change his view when advances were made in democracy in some of the more Liberal states and because of the reorganisation of the bourgoise armies and "improvements" in weaponry and city architecture that meant that barricades were no longer a viable option in the face of the percussion shell.

Marx made other mistakes
He described humans as 50% beast 50% angel
Humans are over 98% Chimp

The Nazi's as far as I'm aware were a creation of the ruling class to oppose communists between the wars using the racialist tendencies of Humans especially prevelent in the white race.( I 'm against racialist thinking as it divides us.)
And to steal money from the Jewish people who they subsequently murdered in a revenge crime of hideous proportion.

This is the mechanism Machiavelli describes - you take two naturally occuring attributes of Humanity and then you oppose them so on the one hand say the individual on the other society. You then polarise and turn them into idelogical extreems and they oppose each other - this is just one of the methods used to control the seething mass of humanity and point it towards the goals of the powerfull in this case the transformation of Europe and the control of energy resources.

You misunderstand the meaning that Machiavelli ascribes to the ruling class i.e. They'll go to the temple and perform the rites but they don't actually follow the teachings of the religion in their every day powerful elitist existence.

The financiers are no more Jewish than Bush is a Christian. They and the Empire builders only use religion as a way of getting support from the religiously minded. You know old George must be a good fellow he goes to church every sunday (when he's not playing golf). They use the schism of religion to further divide us.

You confuse the libertarian right with the white race revenge brigade or at least you amalgamate them into a collective you call the right. The libertarian right actually call the ruling elite Nazi's.

So how do you synthesise the individual with the social? well there isn't any need really - the human is already synthesised quite naturally. withut any ideology involved Ha! The only problem we face is our less than 2% Human-ness that's where the work needs to be done.
So if you instead equate the right with our chimp side and the social with our Human side you can see that there still a fair way to go and I'm afraid that Marxian ideological doctrine needs to rapidly evolve and redefine the dialectic of our present epoch namely the powerless and the powerful.

They think that they are being infiltrated by rightwingers via Conspiracy theorists, CTs in The James Randi orchestrated attack scenario. What bullshit. Eyes Wide Shut. There
are right-wing conspiracy people and there are left wing, if you go by that worn-thin paradigm
I'm way past trying to persuade people of the facts
You can understand the root causes or you can reject
You can look at the evidence or you can sneer and go to your 911Myths and such sites which are basically Intelligence Agency creations
Your choice.
By trying to limit the activist organisation sin their perception of the world, you are only assisting the Establishment and the Ruling Class in achieving their objective- the one world global fascist state.- fascist as we can see by Mussolini's own definition and in every other way
The current evidence free scare and the arrest of innocents all over the place is part of the psy-ops build up to another horrendous staged terrorist attack, used to justify an attack on Iran/Syria
You are being manipulated if you accept this shite
Free yourselves
I wonder who'll arrive in the detention camps first, - the determinably leftist or the CT
See you there, Number 6

See our new website in progress
Please submit any comments to the email