BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine

Subject: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 16 Oct 07 - 10:44 PM

I think this article and video are worth checking out for some perspective on the state of the world and the direction in which it's headed...

http://www.democruptcy.com/disaster-capitalism/

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

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Amos
Date: 17 Oct 07 - 01:02 AM

The Shock Doctrine is a really interesting notion. Thanks for pointing it out.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Oct 07 - 08:26 AM

Disaster capitalism seems to work in theory, but it also assumes somebody is pulling the strings. It's a pretty big step to make that assumption, though not totally improbable.

                The video is really interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Oct 07 - 11:30 AM

Somebody is pulling the strings, Riginslinger. Watch the videos in this thread...


http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=105261

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Oct 07 - 01:59 PM

Carol - I'm at work now; will have to view the items later. I think I've heard this guy before, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Oct 07 - 09:59 PM

Okay, I listened to the tape. I even listened to part of the 2nd one. I agree with the principle, and I agree that corporate structures are at the root of a lot of misery.

                  I believe Kennedy and Johnson started the Vietnam war, and I believe Kennedy was murdered because he didn't want to continue it.

                  But I'm not ready to buy-off on everything this guy says.

                  I'm thinking...

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 17 Oct 07 - 10:21 PM

Thinking is good...

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: GUEST,petr
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 12:47 PM

I heard Naomi Klein being interviewed on this a couple months ago..
- this idea of pushing for change when people are disoriented by a crisis-- its not necessarily radical capitalism, it can be any ideology
although certainly the crew in washington has been doing it..

they brought Yegor Gaidar to Iraq, shortly after the invasion.
(hes the architect of the major economic changes in Yeltsins Russia, when they gave away the state industry for a pittance - that PUtin has been working on recovering lately)
Gaidars suggestion was that it be done even faster in Iraq, ie. sell off the oil industry, eliminate oil & food subsidies for the people - before they realize whats going on..

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 18 Oct 07 - 11:43 PM

Sounds like war crimes to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Oct 07 - 07:04 AM

Crimes, period. The Shock Doctrine has indeed been used by many autocratic systems, probably since time immemorial, but it's really getting use bigtime lately by the New World Order. Every new crisis provides another opportunity to tighten the screws on the ordinary public. The only question is, do you wait for a crisis to conveniently come along...or do you arrange one? Doing the latter is riskier, because you might get caught, but the temptation to do it probably outweighs the fear of being exposed most of the time...and if you control the mainstream media, well, who's to worry?

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 10:38 AM

Here's a good video of Naomi Klien talking about this subject...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki227rUFf_k


For those who say the government had no motive for wanting to engineer the events on 9/11, I think this is more than ample motive.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:26 AM

*sigh* ...Obviously, exploiting disaster for corporate gain is nothing new. It's practically an automated response in some circles, and under this administration, it has been given far greater latitude by Bush, Cheney & crowd.

Like "Future Shock" many years ago, "Shock Doctrine" is a concept that deserved a book to lay out the trend and suggest remedies...and I am glad to see it getting attention.....but....(You suspected there was a 'but' coming, didn't you?)....the name is misleading. It is not like "The Monroe Doctrine", which was a policy within the government; it is only a description of a set of business attitudes which need to be closely monitored and restricted.

   But, as Little Hawk notes, it is one thing to try to manipulate commerce, laws, military policy and media through cronyism after the fact of a disaster..(the Republicans should be required to put that in their platform!)...it is quite another to suggest, as Carol is again doing, that disasters were **arranged** in order to facilitate business interests!
   Once you buy into that notion, which is FAR from proven, you will be seeing conspiracies behind every door and under every rock, and spend time turning over rocks to look for more....very much like 'seeing' images of the Virgin Mary in tree bark and rust patterns on old water towers! "It's all there if you just look hard enough."

Let's just finish the election...hopefully with a larger Democratic majority...then press Congress to start clamping down on corporate practices.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: pdq
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:37 AM

Bill D,

Perhaps you and your friends, the reformers, will investigate Diane Feinstein. Her husband bought two companies who had defence contracts with the US government. This was done with insider information of coming military actions.

As head of military appropriations, she sent these companies 12 billion dollars in business. One company's stock went through the roof due to the huge contracts she (mis)directed. Her hubby sold that company for a cool 1/2 billion profit.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:46 AM

pdq.. *I* am not in the business of investigating....nor do I have any 'friends' who are.

IF anyone has conducted business in an improper way, I hope they WILL be investigated....but it seems to me that you are just trying to whitewash Republican sins by suggesting that you can find some Democrats that 'might' also be implicated.

Greed is not restricted to Republicans....but I am NOT going to debate individual cases with you. *I* cannot do that much research...did you? Or did you just hear it somewhere?

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: pdq
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:59 AM

"...a larger Democratic majority...then press Congress to start clamping down on corporate practices"

Note, "your friends" refers to the new super-majority of Democrats that you see coming to Congress. Your friends Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid spent most of the last two years starting over 360 investigations of Republicans. This is an act of governmental terrorism. It also explains why we have a very difficult time getting "the best and brightest" interested in government.

Yep, a Republican is investigated for having too long a Christmas card list and therfore using too many government stamps. DiFi has a 12 billion dollar conflict of interest and gets a free pass.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:04 PM

"This is an act of governmental terrorism." What if they're guilty?

Gee....which Republicans had those 'long Christmas card lists'? The ones with all the lobbyist friends?

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:33 PM

Bill, I was shooting down one argument made by some people about 9/11 when I said what I did about motive. I am not going to comment about any other of the arguments made by people who don't think the government could have been responsible for 9/11 here in this thread. But that one argument, that there is no motive for the government to have arranged it, is, in my opinion, quite successfully shot down with the knowledge that we now have of the government's practices of disaster capitalism. And that's all I care to say about it here in this thread.

pdq, I agree. Diane Feinstein should be investigated. And so should everyone in the government who has profited in any way from US acts of aggression against other countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:42 PM

But I do note that, once again, you are resorting to ad hominem arguments to support your position, Bill, rather than using logic and reasoned arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:54 PM

It is not ad hominem to recap your post:

"For those who say the government had no motive for wanting to engineer the events on 9/11, I think this is more than ample motive."

You have suggested similar things before. Ad hominem is connecting your argument with irrelevant ..and possibly untrue...facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 12:56 PM

Ad hominem is connecting your argument with irrelevant ..and possibly untrue...facts.

A perfect description of the following, although I wouldn't go so far as to call anything in it 'fact'...

Once you buy into that notion, which is FAR from proven, you will be seeing conspiracies behind every door and under every rock, and spend time turning over rocks to look for more....very much like 'seeing' images of the Virgin Mary in tree bark and rust patterns on old water towers! "It's all there if you just look hard enough."

Do you ever read the stuff you post before posting, Bill?

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 01:05 PM

Why, no....I just go into a trance and start typing.

I suppose I should have clarified the general 'YOU' to refer to anyone who gets into the downward spiral of interlocking conspiracy theories...but I doubt it would have helped.

I am serious in my metaphor about 'seeing' images, though...I thought it made the point.
It IS far from proven that 9/11 was 'engineered'...hence my criticism of suggestions that IT is supported by...or supports...other theories.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 01:14 PM

*trying to find another way to explain it*

Ad hominem is much more than referring to an individual or their position and disagreeing with it...it requires certain specific illogical connections between them and their positions.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 01:22 PM

Bill....

All undertakings that involve planning by two or more people, and which planning is not openly publicized ARE conspiracies, by definition.

The 911 attacks were unquestionably the results of a conspiracy. The only question is, "a conspiracy on the part of whom?".

A 47-story modern steel frame building does not fall in the fashion that Building 7 did on account of a few small, scattered fires in a few scattered locations on some of its lower floors. It falls in that fashion only by controlled demolition. A controlled demolition of that sort takes several weeks for demolition experts to plan and set up, not a few hours.

That suggests a conspiracy, and not by Al Queda, needless to say.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: pdq
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 01:35 PM

"Why, no....I just go into a trance and start typing."    ~    Bill D


Honesty is so refreshing.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 02:41 PM

"A 47-story modern steel frame building does not fall in the fashion that Building 7 did on account of a few small, scattered fires in a few scattered locations on some of its lower floors."

I take it you somehow missed the lengthy explanation by various fire officials and building designers that it was MUCH more than that...along with pictures from different angles showing very BIG fires....and detailed examination of some ususual construction in the atrium of WTC7 where the failure of a specific type of truss caused failure of support structures. (A similar situation to what happened in the Towers)

You want to go read those, or do I have to find them again?


(Why, thank you, pdq...isn't it fortunate that my trances are more lucid than some folks are when awake!)

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 02:43 PM

I suppose I should have clarified the general 'YOU' to refer to anyone who gets into the downward spiral of interlocking conspiracy theories...but I doubt it would have helped.

Would you use this argument to refer to anyone who tried to bring attention to what the US government was doing with regard to Iran Contra before the media started reporting it and it was proven? This is the illogic of what you are doing, Bill. It presupposes that I am doing this thing you call, "the downward spiral of interlocking conspiracy theories". But when I pointed this out to you on the last thread in which you and I had a go round on this subject, you denied doing the very thing you have just now admitted to doing.

Ad hominem is much more than referring to an individual or their position and disagreeing with it...it requires certain specific illogical connections between them and their positions.

As I said, a perfect description of what you have been doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 02:58 PM

Bill, I think that when a major government wishes people not to look further into something it never has any shortage of official "explanations" from experts on the payroll.

I remain 100% unconvinced by such facile attempts to cover up what is clearly, and in my opinion could only be: a planned demolition of Building 7. Note that the penthouse on the top is the first part to move...it dips in. Interesting. There was no damage up there to cause the penthouse to do that. The building then implodes upon itself and collapses in a perfectly symmetrical fashion, falling at freefall speed into its own footprint.

Assymetrical and minor damage to the building from outer causes....causing perfectly symmetrical implosion of entire building? Assymetrical damage does not cause total symmetrical collapse in a steel frame building.

Planned demolition, Bill. No other way possible to bring that building down in that fashion.

Your clinging to the official government explanations is akin to a religious person's alleigance to the latest Papal pronouncement on original sin. It's based on faith. Faith in your own previous assumptions about the matter. Faith in certain official spokespeople.

I know you pretty well, Bill. You're highly intelligent and have excellent reasoning powers, but I think you'd rather be drawn and quartered and burnt at the stake than reverse your position on anything like this. That's quite common in people. Nothing really all that unusual about it, so in saying this about you I am not implying that you're some kind of goof. Not at all. Like I say, it's very common.

My original belief was that the things that happened on 911 were caused exclusively by 4 hijacked airplanes and 19 guys with boxcutters. I gradually changed my mind about that. It's simply not holding up under the available evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: pdq
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 03:08 PM

Why, you are most welcome, Bill D. (out pf personal respect, I shall refrain from calling you in-trance-a-gent)

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 05:37 PM

LOLOL! I guess I deserved that one, pdq!

But I didn't deserve YOUR suggestion, Little Hawk..

so...if I don't "reverse my position", it shows that I am simply stubborn and blind to reality? It couldn't possibly mean that I interpret data and rate the analyses of it differently than you?

You complement me and my reasoning powers, then dismiss my attempts to use them.

1) " The building then implodes upon itself and collapses in a perfectly symmetrical fashion, falling at freefall speed into its own footprint." That is simply not accurate. It did not 'fall over', but it did tilt and fall at a slight angle.

2)There WAS fire up high...photos and eyewitness accounts from firemen show that debris from the towers caused extensive fire & damage so that by the time it fell, there was heavy damage throughout the building!

from this site

"...We were told to go to Greenwich and Vesey and see what's going on. So we go there and on the north and east side of 7 it didn't look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn't look good."

more..."...Eerily, the north face is on the debris pile as if a shroud were laid gently over the dead building. It fell over after the majority of the building fell. This indicates that the south side of the building fell before the north."

read the page...look at ALL the images and watch the videos....read the DIRECT contradictions of your ideas by veteran firefighters...then tell me again how **I** refuse to come to terms with obvious facts. My "excellent reasoning powers" tell me that these accounts are more compelling than those of folks who watched a couple of selected videos, then announced that "buildings can't collapse like that" ...The guys who KNOW explain that certain types of buildings MUST fall like that under the stresses described.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 05:47 PM

Carol...re: "Would you use this argument to refer to anyone who tried to bring attention to what the US government was doing with regard to Iran Contra before the media started reporting it and it was proven?"

No...why do you ask? Entirely different situation.

Remember, extraordinary claims and accusations require extraordinary proof. You (and others) are arguing for the relevance of these suppositions, and drawing lines between obvious truths and pure speculation that boggle the mind.

I can see where the government did certain stupid things, and even see other things that verge on impeachable offenses, but I refuse to assume that this shows I ought to believe that almost ANY accusation about them is probably true.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 05:55 PM

Hmmmmmm???

I just tried to watch these videos but the film is no longer available... Musta hit a nerve...

Normal...

The corporatists will stop at nuthing in their appitite to not only own, but control, everything there is to oan and control...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 06:04 PM

Which ones, Bobert? All the ones I tried were still working.

ESPECIALLY the pdf file about the trusses in WT7!

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 06:07 PM

The two in the initail post, Bill... Try them...

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 06:13 PM

Anyone want to read a technical account of 757 engine debris at the Pentagon?

I got more...but...

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 06:38 PM

I'll try to find another video for you, Bobert.

Remember, extraordinary claims and accusations require extraordinary proof. You (and others) are arguing for the relevance of these suppositions, and drawing lines between obvious truths and pure speculation that boggle the mind.

I would use this very argument do refute your arguments, Bill. The government has not offered any proof at all, much less extraordinary proof of the validity of their own conspiracy theory. All they have offered is speculation, most of which isn't even based on any physical evidence whatever. I showed you an example of this in that other thread, and instead of providing a counter argument (you couldn't because there isn't one), you just said something along the lines of "you people will never learn, and I give up", and that's it.

And yet you are willing to accept the government's versions (and I use the plural of that word intentionally) of events uncritically, and without any skepticism whatever. All you have is theory and opinion, which means that you have no more evidence than I have. So for you to make these kinds of accusations against those who accept a different version of events than you do is gross hypocrisy.

No...why do you ask? Entirely different situation.

I ask because to make the kinds of accusations you are making is no different than if someone made such accusations against people calling for an investigation into Iran Contra. Prior to proof surfacing about that criminal conspiracy, had I said that the US government was selling weapons to Iran so that it could give money to terrorists in Nicaragua, people like you would be making insulting and patronizing accusations against me and calling me a "conspiracy theorist". But the thing is, I would have been right. Until you can prove me wrong (and you cannot do that, because the physical evidence has been destroyed), all you have to go on is theories yourself. That doesn't give you any more high ground to occupy in these discussion than me. We know the US government engages in criminal conspiracies (Iran Contra being only one example), and we know that they lie to us all the time (reasons for going to war against Iraq being only one example). So you are not in a position to say that you are right and everyone who disagrees with you is wrong. All you've got to go on is theory and opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 06:44 PM

All of the links work for me, Bobert. Sorry you're having problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 06:50 PM

Bill, there are eyewitness accounts from people who were there when the thing hit the Pentagon who say that there was no debris at all. None whatever. So it's quite possible that the 757 debris your link refers to was planted after the fact. There is no way to prove otherwise. Actually, there might be a way to prove it, if the government was willing to release the video tapes made by the many security cameras that ring the Pentagon and the video tapes made by businesses across the road from the Pentagon (that were confiscated by the FBI). But the government doesn't want to do that. Concealing evidence is in itself evidence.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 07:14 PM

"So it's quite possible that the 757 debris your link refers to was planted after the fact."

What?? How? These photos were taken both during the chaos and deep inside the building in the midst of the rubble! Who could drag fake evidence into that mess?
There ARE photos..on the lawn...of plane parts, while rescue personnel are still there. Where are the pics of the area with NO 757 debris? Any set of images of the general area has 757 debris in them. Some of the 757 debris was identifed by people who KNOW plane parts...at the scene. Most of the parts were small...but not all were. The heavier parts were mostly inside...

*I* am taking about evidence...you are talking speculation which even requires an imaginative story about where that plane went...(and ignores the messages from people on the plane who described where they were headed.)

As to Iran-Contra, I have no idea what I 'might' have said if told about it early on...that's known as a "counter-factual conditional". Using it to cast aspersions on my belief system just ain't fair.

I keep saying I won't be baited...I keep saying I won't be baited...I keep........

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Feb 08 - 11:27 PM

There are eyewitnesses who were there immediately after the Pentagon was hit, and before any rescue personnel arrived who say that there was no debris. This is evidence and not speculation. As evidence, it has to go into the total mix of evidences. This evidence has to be weighed and balanced against all of the other evidences. If it was possible for someone to bring in and plant debris parts, we can't say that that the presence of such debris is proof. And you haven't shown me any proof that the parts could not possibly have been planted.

I didn't say that you would necessarily have made those kinds of accusations against me with regard to Iran Contra. I said that people like you would have. And they would have. And they would have been wrong. Just as it is entirely possible that you are wrong in this instance.

Nobody's baiting you, Bill. You keep jumping into these conversations with both feet, even though some of us who would like to be able to discuss this issue without being attacked by you and a few others would probably find these discussions a lot more satisfying if you would find it within yourself to resist the temptation. So just don't read this stuff - just pass it on by, and you and we will all be a lot happier.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 12:03 AM

It works this way, Bill...

Everyone forms an opinion about something. They then become very emotionally attached to defending their opinion. They then look up all the stuff they can find that supports their opinion and they repeat it to others. They only trust the authoritative sources who say stuff that supports their opinion. They ignore or deny the authoritative sources who say stuff that doesn't support their opinion.

I too can quote New York firefighters and all kinds of other eyewitnesses who were there on that day and who heard and saw all kinds of stuff that doesn't in the least support your opinion...but supports mine. There are lots of them on old TV footage, and you can see it for yourself...but I don't think you would want to.

But you know what? I don't really care. ;-) (shrug) Cos it wouldn't do any good arguing about it, and I know that. Nothing I say will have any effect but to spur a counterattack on your part, as predictable as Pavlov's dog, because you're got to defend your opinion.

You will listen to whoever supports the opinion you already have, and so will I, and I know that. It's pre-ordained. It's what all people normally do.

So, I just shrug, I note that human nature remains consistent and predictable, and I don't waste my time digging up a ton of reference material in a totally futile effort to change your mind about something.

It wouldn't make any difference to anything even if I did change your mind about something. I would not win a prize for doing so. I would not experience an epiphany.   No one would ever care. It wouldn't have any appreciable effect on what's going on in the USA or anywhere else in the world. It isn't important.

So just go on believing whatever makes you feel good, okay? And so will I. And it won't make a smidgin of difference to what happens about 911. Nada. Zip. It's just a lot of noise, frankly.

If I hadn't gotten drawn innocently into posting on this forum about 10 years ago by some musician friends, and then gotten into the habit of doing so every day, I wouldn't even be spending any time here arguing about 911 with anyone. I certainly never argue about 911 with anyone in my 3-D life here. Nope, I find other things to do, like play music, work, attend to real stuff that is part of my real life.

This place (at times) is like a mental black hole.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: TIA
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 01:13 AM

Forget 911.

There are enough other historical examples (thoroughy documented) of disasters specifically wrought by agents of the US (and other) government agencies in order to foment disasters that would make people amenable (or at least non-resistant) to economic/societal/political upheavals which they would ordinarily oppose.

No one should tie Ms. Klein's disater capitalism too closley to 911. It stands quite well without that specific, controversial, overly emotional, and frankly nuttiness-prone example.

Don't think 911. Instead, think:

Chile
Indonesia
Argentina
Tiananmen
Solidarity
Russia
New Orleans
the Falklands
the Christmas Earthquake
Iraq Reconstruction

Don't even mention 911 and conspiracies. Examine the list above, and there is irrefutable evidence for secret government (not just US) complicity in shocking occurences.

Read the damn book.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 28 Feb 08 - 01:43 AM

The difference between most of those examples and 9/11 though, TIA, is that with them, most voters in the US won't identify with the victims of those events, and so appealing to them to try to make the government of the US stop doing those kinds of things won't work for most of them. But if they can see that it's also people like themselves who are being victimized by this kind of criminal behavior, they're a lot more likely to try to do something about it. Like for instance, demand that it be stopped.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 03:03 AM

Here's a new video of Naomi discussing more recent events, how the disaster capitalists are using/will use them to try to further their agenda, and some of the things we can do to take back our country from these insane and pathologically greedy people. One of the things she is suggesting is to begin pressuring Obama immediately after the election (if he gets elected) to respond to the majority of voters and what we want rather than to narrow special interests. One of the things she recommends is that we all put pressure on Obama to name Joseph Stiglitz as his treasury secretary and for us to make Robert Rubin, one of Obama's top economic advisors, as much of a political liability for Obama as the Reverend Wright (throw him under the bus, she says, and I agree)...

http://fora.tv/2008/10/16/Naomi_Klein_Disaster_Capitalisma

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 03:41 AM

Bravo!!!! It's what I've been saying, on here for quite some time!!!!
..and I'M crazy??????????..guess what folks....you're the ones(not all), who have been asleep at the wheel!

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 04:41 AM

I started this thread a little over a year ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 04:46 AM

Like I've said several times, the Guest above is making some hefty assumptions about people here, which a perusal of my posting history and those of a few others would help to dispel.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 05:29 AM

From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 04:46 AM

Like I've said several times, the Guest above is making some hefty assumptions about people here,.......

If you are referring to me, as 'the guest above'...if you look at my post, in parenthesis, I said '(not all)'....If you are referring to yet another, well..ok

Being a psychologist, not only did I find your post, interesting, I could expound on it as well! As I've posted, before, we, as a nation are in deep, and serious trouble!
Regards, GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 05:46 AM

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you.

"Sometimes paranoia's just having all the facts."   ~William S. Burroughs


...And you do the hokey pokey and you turn yourself around
That's what it's all about!

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 04:13 PM

I read the thread again...I said all I needed to the first time.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 04:16 PM

From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 01:28 PM

We've been offered "jaw-dropping" psychoanalysis before.

You should have taken up the offer!!!...Mr.'Won't sign his/her name!!

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 04:21 PM

It wasn't reading the thread that I had in mind for people. What I had in mind was for people to watch the video I posted at 26 Oct 08 - 03:03 AM, and I will post again here. I'm beginning to get the impression that the sniper in this thread hasn't watched either of the videos I posted in it. And if that's the case, I don't think that person is in a position to comment at all...


Here's a new video of Naomi discussing more recent events, how the disaster capitalists are using/will use them to try to further their agenda, and some of the things we can do to take back our country from these insane and pathologically greedy people. One of the things she is suggesting is to begin pressuring Obama immediately after the election (if he gets elected) to respond to the majority of voters and what we want rather than to narrow special interests. One of the things she recommends is that we all put pressure on Obama to name Joseph Stiglitz as his treasury secretary and for us to make Robert Rubin, one of Obama's top economic advisors, as much of a political liability for Obama as the Reverend Wright (throw him under the bus, she says, and I agree)...

http://fora.tv/2008/10/16/Naomi_Klein_Disaster_Capitalism

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 08:03 PM

Well, *I*...(if I be the 'sniper'...not an image I try to cultivate...but..) have indeed watched the videos...and read some of the commentaries about the book and the video itself.

My comments, should I be inspired to type 12 pages, would be similar to some others I have made on similar topics......briefly, that it is easy to take some obvious truths, embroider with some dubious premises, take some threads from highly emotional events, and weave an elaborate tapestry of 'almost' compelling concepts by assuming that everything you don't like supports your thesis.

(you see, it WOULD take 12 pages to flesh out my defense of that little comment)

It's hard to disagree with an obviously intelligent author who is basically on MY side in the political arena, but she takes it so far into speculation that it is as embarassing to me as some right-wing diatribes must be to moderate conservatives.

It IS clear that many business interests have little shame in exploiting bad news to further their message when possible, but Naomi finds demons in every unfilled pothole ...or rather, in the fault-finding about road-repair scandals.

It is actually too bad, because she could really do some serious good if she limited herself to clearly definable dangers, but it's harder to get a full book and lecture series out of simple recounting of errors and greed, hmmm? A full-blown conspiracy with a memorable name is easier to sell...(wait...am I suggesting that she is using similar tactics to those she is decrying? I hadn't thought about it....but....No, *smile*, I won't go that far, lest I contradict myself).

One important point...many issues are 'pushed' along by the more extreme views. Civil Rights, Women's Liberation, Environmental Awareness, Anti-War activism...etc... all had "shock troops" willing to risk accusations of exaggeration in order to focus attention on certain aspects of a problem...and most of them needed to really 'believe' their own message in order to say what they needed, whether "in the trenches" or on the book circuit.

   I do feel fortunate that we can have a system that allows Naomi Klein to advocate her theories freely...and for Carol C. to link to them in this forum....and for me to offer my critiques advocating restraint, even if there ARE 11 pages missing.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 08:23 PM

I'm not seeing any specific items that Naomi mentions being refuted. Just broad sweeping generalizations about her general demeanor. That's not an argument. However, I didn't post either of the two videos to get people's opinions about them. I didn't post them in order to provoke discussion, either. I only posted them so people could watch them if they wanted to. Personally, I don't really care what other people's opinions are on the videos.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Oct 08 - 09:43 PM

Ok, fine...but obviously, if a forum like this you do GET opinions.

I, too, hope others will watch them and read about the issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 02:46 AM

Just finished it. Most of it, I thought was pretty good. She, I thought could have expounded more on Rubin, Greenspan,Gingrich and Paulsen. Newt, in the 90's(don't know about now) was on the board of Goldman Sachs, as was Paulsen. Matter of Fact, it was Paulsen who negotiated lending policies, with out back up equity. Rubin is a scoundrel, through and through!

She was absolutely correct about when congress voted 'No' on the first 'bailout'(read:ransom).....but, well, you know politicians..how it got spun to be a good thing, instead of holding a line of integrity.

There was a radio show during the early and mid 90's called "We the People', with Chuck Harder, who explained all this in detail, and named names, of who is who in the Zoo. A lot of people thought he was too radical, but so far, he was right, dead on target!..including forecasting this whole economic fiasco going on now. According to him, this is going to snowball to unbelievable proportions, get bloody, and result in a totalitarian state, the likes of which will be devastating globally.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 03:44 AM

But I like what Naomi says about how we can try to prevent the worst from happening. I like what she says about the rest of us making sure there are some better ideas lying around during the crisis situation so that the ideas that the crisis capitalists want to foist upon us won't be the only ones that get considered. I like that she sees possibilities for making things turn out the way the majority of people want them to be rather than the way the disaster capitalists want them to be.

She gives examples of countries where the machinations of the disaster capitalists didn't turn out the way they intended - Argentina, for instance.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Barry Finn
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 09:58 AM

Maybe it's time that the "blood flows & the heads roll". Somewhere there's a song in there.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Oct 08 - 01:57 PM

Putting a populist president in the White House right when all the shock doctrines have been turned on full,
would be a great disappointment to those who wish to move into the final phase of total control.


The annonymous players of the ultimate Risk game need trillions to get into the game with egos to match.

I believe that it is not so much a love of a totalatarian fascist regieme that appeals to the monied players as it is
a system where the control of power does not change for generations instead of decades. They are "playing"
for their children.


isn't that just precious?

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 01:05 PM

There's nothing like the sense of entitlement that a powerful and wealthy family gets after several generations (or centuries) of life at the very top of the societal food chain....it becomes a self-perpetuating imperative.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 01:24 PM

well, Little Hawk...it is nice to agree totally with you on a point.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Cluin
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 01:38 PM

I'm glad you don't have to argue anymore, Bill and Hawk.

That sexual tension thing was getting us all down. ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 01:43 PM

Yeah, it was wearing on me too... ;-) I prefer sexual tension vis-a-vis myself and Winona Ryder.

(I've given up on my recent infatuation with Sarah Palin. That last speech of hers was just a bit too stupid.)

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 01:45 PM

*grin*.. You can't fool me, Cluin, you fed off it for your own pleasure.

Hawk & I will choose our issues and continue forever...and If I'm lucky, I'll get to go visit him and have a beer and do it LIVE someday.

Subject: RE: BS: Disaster Capitalism & The Shock Doctrine
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Oct 08 - 01:47 PM

That would be great. Orillia awaits you, Bill.