Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Naomi Klein's 'Shock Doctrine' (8 posts)

  1. Victronix
    Member

    DNow! had Naomi Klein on today to discuss her new book, the Shock Doctrine -- wow! As far as I know she's still of the viewpoint that Bush Admin simply capitalized on the attacks, but she has apparently created an amazing documentation of the context here for some of the policies which could be a powerful override to the NWO camp.

    The important point is that she has the documentation of the thoughts of these people and those statements need to be exposed. Her books are not easy reading for the masses, so the film is important. She's made a short film with Alfonso Cuarón (Children of Men). Klein says, "I was hoping he would send me a quote for the book jacket and instead he pulled together this amazing team of artists -- including Jonás Cuarón who directed and edited -- to make The Shock Doctrine short film."

    Watch the film here -

    http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/short-fil...

    Excerpts from a 9/10/07 interview with Klein -

    So you have these economists advocating for this pure form of capitalism -- what is the attraction of disasters to these people?

    Well, disasters are moments where people are blasted out of the way, where they are in a state of shock, whether they're scattered -- as after a hurricane hits in New Orleans -- or just picking up the pieces after having been bombed, or their entire world view has just been shattered -- as after Sept. 11. These are malleable political moments. And there is an awareness that disasters create these opportunities, so you have a whole movement -- much of it standing at the ready within the think-tank infrastructure. I think of these think tanks as sort of idea-warmers -- they keep the ideas ready for when the disaster hits. Milton Friedman said that only a crisis, real or perceived, produces real change, and when that crisis hits, the change that occurs depends on the ideas that are lying around.

    Let's talk about Chile. This is a country that ... when was it, about 1970, Allende was elected. He was a social democrat, socialist, comes into power but doesn't get along with the United States, is seen to be friendly to Castro and the Soviet Union, and successive American presidents are highly suspicious of him.

    It was Nixon and Kissinger together. I end the book with a quote from a declassified letter from Kissinger to Nixon where he says that the threat of Allende was not about any of the things they were publicly saying at the time -- that he was cozying up to the Soviet Union, that he was only pretending to be a democrat and that he was going to turn Chile into a totalitarian system. Kissinger writes the real threat is the problem of social democracy spreading. The Soviet Union was a convenient bogeyman. It was easy to hate Stalin, but what was always more of a threat was the idea of democratic socialism, a third way between totalitarian Communism and capitalism. http://www.macleans.ca/culture/lifestyle/article.j...

    Posted 17 years ago #
  2. christs4sale
    Administrator

    Naomi Klein is actually in New York on a book tour right now. She is at the New York Society for Ethical Culture tonight and at the Chelsea Barnes and Noble tomorrow. According to her website, she will be back on the 24th of September. It could be a good situation to talk to other similar minded people and, if the opportunity arises, to ask reasonable and as undivisive-as-possible questions.

    http://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/tour

    Posted 17 years ago #
  3. It's as if social engineering through the manufacturing of disasters is on the tip of everybody's brain. I suggest that a vast majority, maybe ninety something percent, of the American population knows that 9/11 is an inside job, but everybody has a different way of dealing with it, and just going ahead and saying it was an inside job is still not the most viable one. This is complete speculation, I know, but it is meant more as revision of our views of the public. That they are not idiots and hopefully will not be treated as such. I gauge this through the unending severity of the denials, the hit and run insults and spin. They are not stupid as much as scared, well, terrified. Many of the denials of 9/11 as an inside job are more about denying their public fate if they would choose to represent the thought to others. They don't want to feel the shame they most likely would in the social position of truther, especially if they have an established reputation to defend.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  4. Victronix
    Member

    Yes, I always see someone on the left speak out a little and then cringe at the thought of how they will be slammed by people trying to force a comment out of them on 'inside job' they can plaster everywhere. Is this the way to do things? There must be a better way. I just hate to think of people who are reasonable being subjected to the bullhorns and demands in public.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  5. truthmover
    Administrator

    Yeah, Bill Maher got fed up, and look what we got.

    He says in his little tantrum that he gets slammed with people demanding that he cover this issue. I understand his frustration. And that's because he has made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions in the past that he thinks we are all nuts. Total dismissal, no hope for conversion. He'll have to figure it out some day on his own. Anyone paying attention would not waste their time trying to convert him. And so for all that letter writing we get what many would have guessed might be his response. Crap.

    Unfortunately I suspect that some of our disinfo outfits are working overtime to spam everyone who might be a potential ally with unreasonable speculation.

    Naomi Klien? She's doing a great job getting an urgent and logical message through to mainstream people who might be able to do something about it. Openly embracing our movement would jeopardize her credibility in the eyes of those people, which would only mean that fewer of them would read her book. Right now, that's not going to happen. But I would like to hear her speak about her book.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  6. Victronix
    Member

    A friend of mine posted something about an article written by Naomi Klein -

    April 26, 2002 Sharon’s Best Weapon The left must confront anti-Semitism head-on. By Naomi Klein http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/1460/

    He's critical of her positions, such as this statement -

    "And yet I couldn’t help thinking about all the recent events I’ve been to where anti-Muslim violence was rightly condemned, but no mention was made of attacks on Jewish synagogues, cemeteries and community centers."

    But he also notes this statement:

    "Or about the fact that every time I log onto activist news sites like indymedia.org, which practice 'open publishing,' I’m confronted with a string of Jewish conspiracy theories about September 11 and excerpts from The Protocols of the Elders of Zion."

    Then, today I see a news story on my google alerts for this:

    10/03/07
    9-11 Cover-Up: The Italian Gangsters and Their Jewish Bosses Christopher Bollyn http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voice...

    What BS. When I confronted him once about having been a guest on David Duke he was suddenly quiet. People need to stop supporting anything Bollyn does. Some excerpts -

    Chertoff has always been positioned to serve as the Zionist crime network's key agent managing the criminal cover-up of 9-11 and the first WTC bombing.

    . . . . . .

    But was the criminal history of Giuliani's family a shock to Michael Mukasey, the Orthodox Jew who was chief judge of the district court in Manhattan? It's hard to imagine that the mayor's family history of involvement in organized crime was not well known to the clerks and judges in the district court of Manhattan. Was this news to Alvin K. Hellerstein, another Orthodox Jew who served as a district judge across the street from City Hall? Was it a surprise to Michael Chertoff, the Orthodox Jew who worked closely with Giuliani as an assistant prosecutor in the 1980s? I seriously doubt if this news was a surprise to any of them.

    . . . . . .

    The three men named above: Michael B. Mukasey, Alvin K. Hellerstein, and Michael Chertoff are all Zionist Jews. That is to say that they are dedicated and devoted to the State of Israel. They are also closely connected in more ways than I can explain in this short article. Their Zionist identity needs to be understood. These men are acting as agents of a foreign state: Israel - and the international Zionist network that supports it.

    . . . . . .

    This network also controls the national spheres of finance and media.

    etc.

    Posted 17 years ago #
  7. mark
    Member

    There's no way "90%" of any demographic in the US think inside job.

    Lots of liberal, anti-Bush people still dismiss it.

    I had a chat with a very well informed Sociologist who is 1000% against Bush this evening, who still thinks Nader was more important than vote fraud in the 2000 election. I mentioned 9/11 foreknowledge to him, and he claimed to be unaware of it - even though (or because?) he's had six years of emails and in person comments from me (and many others). It is obviously too disturbing to the embedded world view (hey, the other side isn't playing fair!) When I mentioned the list of countries known to have warned the Bush regime that 9/11 was coming, he acted surprised but then tried to belittle it as irrelevant.

    Lots of people understand it was allowed (and assisted). At least an equal number, probably much more, refuse to touch the topic at all.

    The people pushing fake plane crashes and worse stuff help ensure it will never become a majority point of view.

    "Deep politics" is difficult for someone who still believes the grade school rhetoric about democracy, even if they don't like Bush and are liberal / radical / etc. in their political allegiance. It's a psychological issue more than a political point of view.

    As for the anti-semites trying to hijack these issues, I hope at least some of them are secretly on the payroll of the Mossad, since the presence of these racists is beloved by those trying to quiet criticism of Israeli militarism. If they're not deliberately trying to discredit, then their mental health would be questionable.

    It's another example of the "two front war for truth" ...

    http://www.oilempire.us/fake-debate.html http://www.oilempire.us/disinfo.html

    Posted 17 years ago #
  8. mark
    Member

    more on "American Free Press / Barnes Review" (which had Mr. Bollyn as their 9/11 truthiness reporter).

    Interesting that American Free Press was on an early "Deception Dollar" and the "Muslim Jewish Christian Alliance" is on the most recent Deception Dollar that I've seen (summer 2007). I'd be very surprised if any Jews were involved in this alleged alliance (MUJCA), since even the most radical, left wing, agnostic Jew is still horrified by those pretending the Holocaust was greatly exaggerated, and few people support threatening media figures and then asking them to sign books written by virulent anti-semites!

    Armenians are similarly pissed at those who claim the Turkish genocide of their people did not happen or was exaggerated. I'm sure the Iraqis who realize the death toll from the US invasion is at least many hundreds of thousands (if not over a million) are annoyed by western media claims that the true figure is in the tens of thousands, only.

    The full article linked below (about American Free Press / Barnes) is worth reading -- the attacks on 9/11 "truth" and the attacks on the JFK investigation are remarkably similar. Some other parallels at http://www.oilempire.us/jfktruth.html

    DiEugenio was co-editor of an excellent anthology called THE ASSASSINATIONS about JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X. The best single book on these issues I've read.


    http://www.ctka.net/djm.html (Citizens for Truth about the Kennedy Assassination)

    Beware: The Douglas/Janney/Simkin Silver Bullets By James DiEugenio

    [excerpt]

    ... Carto ran a small media conglomerate called the Liberty Lobby for a number of years. But there was a split in the ranks and the dissidents founded the IHR, while Carto's main publication was The Barnes Review. This is important because the TRB in TRB News, stands for The Barnes Review. As one commentator has noted about the site, although its archives contain some Holocaust revisionist material, a lot of the other stuff comes off as anti-Bush liberalism. But here is the problem. A lot of the material appears to be about as genuine as Regicide. Further, as that book was aimed at a target audience, and the Muller book also appeared aimed at a target audience, some of the "stories" on the site seem aimed at the growing resentment towards President Bush. To the point of making up false stories which are picked up by legitimate outlets but are later discredited. For instance, there was a story there saying that the Pentagon is grossly underreporting the number of casualties in Iraq. The story's by-line was by one Brian Harring who was supposed to have found a PDF file with the real numbers on them. And this story then spread to places like the liberal Huffington Post. Well, there is a Brian Harring, but as one can see by reading this entry (scroll down to the section entitled "Riots in the Streets"), he had nothing to do with this story and it appears that Stahl/Douglas is using his name against his will.

    I could continue in this vein , but the point is that not only does Stahl/Storch/Douglas partake in what seem to be fraudulent books and stories, but -- like a classic confidence man -- he seems to aim them at certain audiences he knows will be predisposed to accept them. The latter stories I mentioned seem to be targeted at left/liberal sites in order to fool and then discredit them by the eventual exposure of false information. To stretch a parallel, in intelligence realms, this concept is called "blowback".


    http://cuban-exile.com/doc_001-025/doc0019b.html The Last Investigation, by Gaeton Fonzi

    "The first question I tried to get approved was the one by experience in investigating the case had dictated as a priority: Was there an intelligence agency connection through anti-Castro Cubans and Oswald to the Kennedy assassination? That, I knew, would never pass muster because of the investigative approach and effort it would require. By the nature of its operations, an intelligence agency doesn't leave authentic tracks. One had to look for patterns. The issue I wanted to pursue involved the patterns of verified misinformation -- almost all linking Oswald to Castro -- which were born in Miami immediately after the assassination."

    Posted 17 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.