BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

9/11 Cultwatch To Speak At Anarchist Studies Network Conference

Thursday, July 10th, 2008

This September Loughborough University hosts the Anarchist Studies Network conference.

Joining in the debates and discussions, to be held between Thursday 4th and Saturday 6th September, will be 9/11 Cultwatch’s Larry O’Hara and Paul Stott.

Source

For more information visit http://www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in America, a worldwide movement has developed. Its activists run thousands of websites, have produced hundreds of books, DVDs and articles, and attend events as diverse as the Notting Hill carnival, the 2005 Anarchist Bookfair, Green Party conferences and Universities and colleges across the UK. Their influence, particularly amongst young people and many British Muslims, appears to be growing.

This movement denies any link between Islamist ideology and violence, and doesn’t prioritise opposing the ‘war’ on terror. Instead the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement denies the existence of Al-Qaeda, argues American and/or Israeli ‘inside’ involvement in 9/11, and regards conventional leftist and anarchist commentators on such events (e.g. Chomsky) as ‘gatekeepers’, protecting the guilty parties from the wider public.

The 9/11 ‘truth’ movement massively distracts from the issues facing all those struggling for a better world. Surely we need to criticise the US/UK governments for what they have actually done (bad enough) rather than imaginary crimes? By seeing all contemporary (and past) political events through their skewed view of 9/11, the ‘truth’ movement takes progressive forces down a cul-de-sac. We must resist their influence.

Paul Stott has been involved in the anarchist movement since the early 1990s, and is one of the editors of Class War. He graduated from the University of East London in October 2007 with a Masters degree in Terrorism Studies. Visit his blog here http://www.paulstott.typepad.com/

Dr Larry O’Hara edits the parapolitical magazine Notes From The Borderland and holds a PhD in Contemporary British Fascism from Birkbeck. He and Paul Stott are currently working on a book “Half Truth Movement – How The 9/11 Cult Falsifies History”. Visit Notes From The Borderland here http://www.borderland.co.uk/

Source http://www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/Half_Truth_Movement_–_The_Dangers_of_the_9/11_‘Truth’_Cult

About the ASN

What constitutes “anarchist studies,” and where did it come from?

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and with it, of an entire world order based on the tension between American and Soviet power, a number of intellectuals announced (once again) that the age of “ideologies” had ended; liberal democracy and capitalism had won, and no other political or economic options remained credible as contenders for the future. Energy had drained from most of the “New Social Movements” that had come to such prominence in the sixties and seventies; having since been institutionalized, accommodated within the system, environmentalism and the various forms of “identity politics” were no longer to be seen as radical challenges to the status quo, much less as forming part of a revolutionary “Movement.”

Two decades later, this cozy perception of the world is in shambles. Nearly a third of the world’s population lives in “failed states”; international systems of law and order are in serious disarray; strains on the planetary ecosystem are increasingly hard to ignore; the global marketplace lurches between “irrational exuberance” and crisis. The institutional managers of this world order now cannot meet without major police and military protection; everywhere they go, angry crowds appear. Many in these crowds speak not of a Movement, but of a “movement of movements,” that cannot be accommodated within the present order. It has become a common observation that, notwithstanding the novelty of this force, it cannot be understood without reference to another, older political tradition, one that had gone into an historical eclipse around the time of the Russian Revolution and the first victories of the women’s suffrage movement, that had long since become something less than a memory, a mere epithet: anarchism.

It is deeply ironic that there are now arguably more people outside of the academy than inside it who possess any intellectual context for this tradition; one is hard pressed to find a few scattered, often uninformed references to anarchism in the most advanced realms of scholarly discourse. Nonetheless, over the last two decades, academics have slowly begun to rediscover the historical significance of anarchism, which, as Benedict Anderson recently had to remind his fellow historians, was for a time “the main vehicle of global opposition to industrial capitalism, autocracy, latifundism, and imperialism.” Scholars have started to study the influence of anarchism on early Korean and Filipino national liberation struggles, movements for birth control from Barcelona to Boston, Latin American labor history, Jewish immigrant life, the development of modern sociology and geography, the French Resistance, debates over eugenics and Social Darwinism, modern art and Modern Schools, avant-garde film and popular music, revolutions from Mexico to China to Russia itself.

There has even been some interest in revisiting the theoretical documents left in the wake of anarchist movements, dusting off the old ideas in search of new perspectives. Far from having been anti-intellectual “primitive rebels,” anarchists produced a rich critical discourse on every facet of life and knowledge, from economics to linguistics, from social history to aesthetic theory, from urban planning to ontology — a counter-institutional archive that has barely begun to be investigated. Amid a widespread increase in doctoral theses and academic publications directly engaged with the anarchist archive, some researchers have begun to draw inspiration from it, to see their work as an extension of anarchist theory and practice. For a number of us, what we are calling “anarchist studies” no longer necessarily takes anarchism as its object of study but as a standpoint from which to study the world. Anarchist contributions to thought are making a reappearance in a number of fields, challenging established orthodoxies. Perhaps, against all odds, we are witnessing the emergence of a new anarchist paradigm in academia.

It is unlikely that this paradigm has a future unless steps are taken to foster its growth, to maintain a space for it within the existing institutional structures it inhabits while preventing it from being simply absorbed by those structures. Therefore, the Anarchist Studies Network seeks

1.) to build on the renewed interest in anarchist and anarchistic thought by facilitating and promoting the study of anarchism as modern political theory and practice, across scholarly disciplines, both within and outside the official academic sphere;

2.) to provide an interdisciplinary institutional forum bringing together graduate students, professional academics, and independent scholars across the world; and

3.) to provide a platform for the promotion of anarchism as a vital and viable analytical, conceptual, and pedagogical paradigm for the 21st century.

To these ends, the group has four specific aims and objectives:

a.) We plan to organise a seminar series to allow academics and graduate students to present their work to a more specialist audience.

b.) We also plan to organise an annual two-day conference on the legacy and work of individual anarchists, or on aspects of anarchist history, contemporary anarchist practice, or anarchism’s potential to contribute to ongoing political and economic change.

c.) This will clearly demand the coordination of broader and more long-term research projects and funding applications.

d.) Our basic aim is to reinvigorate the study of anarchism within academia by building links across subject areas, and to this end we will actively seek close relationships with other interested specialist groups in the PSA, BISA, APSA and ISA, as well as groups located outside the official sphere of academia, including those formed for activism and public intellectual life.

Source http://www.anarchist-studies-network.org.uk/SGSA

Have Your Say: 9/11 Cultwatch To Speak At Anarchist Studies Network Conference
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

22 Responses to “9/11 Cultwatch To Speak At Anarchist Studies Network Conference”

Mark
Posted: Jul 10th, 2008 at 9:17 pm

“The 9/11 ‘truth’ movement massively distracts from the issues facing all those struggling for a better world.”

You people are pitiful.
9/11 is the issue that affects the whole world.
The war on terror is a fraud. Lets just let millions of unknown immigrants come into our country and then tell me there is a war on terror(BIG JOKE).
If you know any history Al-Ciada was created by the CIA to fight the Russians. We gave them money to radicalize the muslims against the Russians.
The Bush family has been in bed with the Bin Ladens for over 30 years.
The 911 commission report is full of lies and omissions.
Please watch 9/11 Press For Truth, Improbable collapse - The demolition of our Republic, Loose Change Final Cut, 911 mysteries, 9/11: The Myth and Reality by David Ray Griffin and 9/11: Blueprint for the Truth by Richard Gage. Then please come back here and tell me what is wrong with there analysis?
You 9/11 deniers ignore facts, evidence and history to allow yourself to believe your living in a world where the only evil people wear head scarfs.
GET REAL! GET AWARE! Before you drag the whole world into oppresive world government.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

3 year old kid
Posted: Jul 10th, 2008 at 9:19 pm

Whatever.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Java
Posted: Jul 10th, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Mark everything you mention here has been massively debunked. Calling people names is weak and you know it.

Toofers fail to acknowledge evidence, counter evidence and scientific laws. Troofers have their own dogma and will attack those who don’t believe them. Cultish? Oh yes.

This is why the 911 troof movement is dead.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Bob411
Posted: Jul 10th, 2008 at 11:16 pm

Bush said, not once, but twice that he watched the first plane hit the towers on a TV before entering that classroom. Everyone else had to watch the “only” known video of the plane crash when it surfaced over the next day.

On 9-10-2001 Rumsfeld admited that 2.3 TRILLION dollars went missing from the PentaCon. Interestingly an “airplane” destroyed the financial data when it hit the PentaCon the following day…. while Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD.

Do the math. We were lied to.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Mark
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 12:13 am

I am sorry but I have read all the debunkers nonsense.
All the debunkers do use is personal attacks ignoring all the laws of physics.
NIST still after 6 years has not yet released an official explanation on how WTC 7 collapsed.
I think it is easy for you to say it was all debunked when none of it was debunked. All you debunkers were debunked thats how the story goes.
There are at least 10 characteristics of a controlled demolition and WTC 1, 2, and 7 all have these characteristics and cannot be explained away by saying I have been debunked(AE911truth.org).
Lets just throw away everything are scientists and academics say and go with what the government says.
If you cannot see that explosives were used in these building I suggest watching the videos again without your bias attitude.
I did not become a 9/11 truth activist on 9/11/01. I became one last year after months and months of heavy research. Do you think I wanted to believe my government could play a hand is such a devilsh deed?
You would be wrong if you said yes.
I am sorry you are willing to sit by and watch are Constitution be shredded on a Myth and Lies.
Just a little fact, you are more likely to drown in the bathtub than to be killed by a so called terrorist.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

3 year old kid
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 1:37 am

Greetings fellow Government Sceptics.

I am a qualified Physicists, and I can honestly tell you good people that on 911 the official conspiracy theory defies just about every known law of physics.

I only wish that I was incorrect, but to a physicist it is so easy to identify the government 911 story as total hogwash.

My son is just waiting for his A level results so I want to remain covert for now, but I am prepared to answer any physics related questions from anyone who has an interest in 911 regardless of what political position.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

David Smith
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 3:10 am

I am very disappointed that RINF would publish such blatant government official story propaganda — but also somewhat happy that RINF felt the need to take a stand on this growing movement. Too bad RINF has taken the wrong stand.

go to google or youtube and search for the video
7-7 RIPPLE EFFECT and watch the documentary that makes it absolutley clear that these terror attacks are DONE BY GOVERNMENTS. The case of the 7-7-2005 London bombings is plain as day. Don’;t be fooled. Watch the video. Check the facts if you want. GOVERNMENTS do terrorism — not “islamic terrorists.”

I would like RINF to put up the REAL truth.

As for 9-11, just search “911 truth.” There’s so much out there I wouldn’t know where to begin.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

the big bopper
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 3:16 am

all day long you put up articles about lost freedoms based on 9/11 and you dont know that 911 was done by the government?????

rinf = rofl

9/11 truth is being exposed

bbc reported building 7 collapsed before it did then said they lost the tapes for that day
the tapes turned up at archive.org but bbc still cant find them
bbc doenst even admit that the tapes are available or that they even made the report

rinf = rofl

this is mass murder going on by powerful people in govt not some terrorists

did you read pnac??????

rinf = supporting murders

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Mick Meaney
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 8:54 am

What some people here seem to miss is that 9/11 Cultwatch criticise the behaviour and conduct of the 9/11 truth movement, i.e. the truth movement will attack/smear anyone who does not agree with them. This cannot be denied.

Indeed comments here show this perfectly. The 9/11 truth movement is intolerant of those with opposing views and will often become personal in their attacks and accusations.

RINF has one of the largest 9/11 archives on the internet, this has and will remain on the site but presenting only one side of the story is bias. All sides need to be presented.

Besides, if you don’t like what you see on the newswire, there’s a forum where you can post pretty much anything you like (apart from racist, hate or no plane bullshit).

I’m guessing that most of you haven’t read Notes From The Borderland, I suggest you subscribe. The amount of work and research that goes into each of their articles is abundantly clear and something the truth movement could learn a thing or two from.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Searcher
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 12:03 pm

“Instead the 9/11 ‘truth’ movement denies the existence of Al-Qaeda”

This is a tipical strawman arguement. The 911 truth movement does not deny the existance of Al-Qaeda, but denies Al-Qaeda’s involvement in the terrorist attacks. It is interesting to note that no Islamic group claimed responcibility for the attack, and the accused groups all denied involvement. This is not tipical of Islamic terrorists, who are always eager to claim credit for their handy work.

Yes, there are some crackpots that have some way out ideas like this, but they represent a very small minority of the truth movement, if they are, in fact, part of the truth movement. The truth movement do not spin grand conspiracy theories, but they ask questions about evidence which those who call them “crack-pot” choose to ignore.

I will continue reading the article, but we’re off to a bad start, and I don’t think it will get any better.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Searcher
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 12:25 pm

I must say that Mick Meaney is right. I can understand the outrage of the truth movement. Many of its founders had lost people in 9/11 or its aftermath, they see all the flaws in the official story, and yet no one seems to cares. Who would not become emotional?

Unfortunately, it is also true that someone who states his case calmly and factually has a lot more credit, than someone going out on an emotional rampage. I’ve seen this in the Intelligent Design/Darwinism debate as well. Darwinism is loosing, because their awnsers to ID are emotional, dishonnest and insufficient. While ID is calmly pointing out the evidence and stating their case, Darwinists become emotional, gives false portrayals of the arguement, and then “debunk” it. They use smear tactics against those who believe the evidence point to ID, and they also ignore evidence that does not correspond with Darwinism. I have yet to read a Darwinist accurately describing what intelligent design actually state, and I doubt I ever will, because to do so would be to reveal their inability to debunk it.

I would suggest that the 911 truth movement learn from the Discovery Institute how to state your case. After more than 10 years, the Darwinists still couldn’t get rid of them.

The truth can not be hidden forever.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

bruise
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 3:29 pm

Yes Mick you are correct.

I have been virbally abused and called names because I don’t believe in the conspiracy.

They blame a Jewish Illuminati for 911 and refuse to accept this is racism.

big bopper didn’t watch BBC2 last Sunday night? If he had then he would surely see that most of his argument is a non starter.

Mick you’re doing good. Don’t let the sheep drag you down.

Yes the 911 truth movement are the real sheep.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Bob411
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 9:21 pm

Mick, you’re wrong (distraction tactic?). But thank you for attempting to group ever “truther” into a nice litte box. Anyway, back to the issue at hand:

Does anyone remember the people being interviewed on the news on 9-11, explaining what they saw? I remember seeing Gary Welz a couple of different times on the news wearing different costumes pretending to be different people. He’s an actor. Same thing with John Albenese.

Has anybody “debunked” why we saw actors explaining what they witnessed on 9-11?

I’m really not interested in debating “aliens did it” or “there were no planes” theories. I believe these people are either lunatics or disinformation agents.

In September Clues they point out a plethera of problems with regard to what was shown to us on the news. It’s amazing that the fact that the video in the Faux archives has been modified, edited, and altered compared to what they showed us that day and it isn’t raising any eyebrows.

But, as BBC has demonstrated (through amnesia and missing tapes from the archives), the MSM will go to great lengths to cover their own butts.

If anybody could provide some explanation about “Gary Welz”, I’d appreciate it.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Mick Meaney
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 9:30 pm

Quote:

Mick, you’re wrong (distraction tactic?).

Another example of a paranoid slur with no supporting evidence. Cheers.

Quote:

But thank you for attempting to group ever “truther” into a nice litte box.

Tell me that the UK truth movement does not support racists. Tell me it does not have a cult like mentality. Tell me it is not aggressive. Tell me it does not endorse borderline thug type behaviour.

When you look at the conduct of the UK truth movement over the last 3 years there can only be one conclusion.

Of course I’m not saying everyone in the UK truth movement is like this, I’ve always said there’s some very decent people in it. It does not change the fact that a highly questionable approach has been tolerated and in some cases adopted as a blueprint for “activism”.

And if you start promoting any more of that no planer bullshit on here and you’ll soon out stay your welcome.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Bob411
Posted: Jul 11th, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Obviously you didn’t bother reading my comment. I don’t support any theories only asking questions. So many inconsistencies and about that day and you’re more interested in trying to pick fights with truthers. This seems counterproductive. Maybe it’s just the “angle” of this site?

Anyway, as I stated before:

Why were actors telling us about what they witnessed?

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Ashley
Posted: Jul 12th, 2008 at 12:05 am

I posted the following questions to a debunker on another thread, if any debunkers here want to take a stab at them help yourselves: -

Name me one other steel framed skyscraper that has totally collapsed due to fire damage. (clue - there aren’t any)

Do you agree that bin Laden writes a note in the responsibility video with his right hand? (clue - yes he does)

Do you agree the FBI website says he is left handed? (clue - yes it does)

Do you agree that bin Laden can be seen wearing a gold ring and gold or gold plated watch in the responsibility video? (clue - he can)

Do you agree that it is almost definite that a devout Muslim like bin Laden wouldn’t wear anything gold as it is forbidden by his faith like wearing silk? (clue - this is correct)

Do you agree that the bin Laden in the reponsibility video looks more like Les Dennis than bin Laden? (clue - Les Dennis is stretching it a bit, but I have never seen a picture of Bin Laden looking quite so chubby around the face, especially considering he was supposed to be very ill at this time. His beard is the wrong colour too)

Please explain how asymetrical damage and chaotic fires could have such a perfectly uniform effect when collapsing WTC7 (by explain I mean tell me how the laws of physics I have quoted are not applicable(Law of increasing entropy, law of conservation of momentum and objects taking the path of least resistance)). (clue - not possible but I can’t wait to see you try)

Please give some indication of how the spherical pieces of iron came in to existance, being as they need steel/iron to melt in order to be generated and the official reports say that the temperatures were not hot enough for this. (clue - if the fires didn’t get hot enough to melt the steel then the spherical particles cannot exist, but they do)

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Mick Meaney
Posted: Jul 12th, 2008 at 12:08 am

Quote:

don’t support any theories only asking questions.

Why attack those who disagree with you if you’re just asking questions and not making claims to what actually happened. What other movement behaves like that?

Quote:

So many inconsistencies and about that day and you’re more interested in trying to pick fights with truthers.

The inconsistencies are listed in the archives on this site. It’s all here, both sides of the debate. Posting a difference of option is NOT picking a fight.

You know, even talking about this is detracting us from issues that actually need to be addressed, you know the ones that cause real problems for people all over the world.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Maasanova
Posted: Jul 12th, 2008 at 12:43 am

9/11 Cultwatch’s view on the 9/11 Truth Movement echo the same views as the Simon Wiesenthall Center’s views on the 9/11 Truth Movement: that they hold closed, an potentially dangerous views of social issues, particularly those pertaning to the government.

They do this by smearing of course, and by presenting the movement as being on the fringe of society (cult-like, racist or radicals), when in actuality based on current polls, the views of the movement appear to be those of the mainstream (in varying degrees of course). This is just a common form of disinformation and truth suppression and I’m surprised that after all these years, this technique still works to the degree it does.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Ringo
Posted: Jul 16th, 2008 at 2:45 pm

What a stupid conclusion. I don’t belong to any organizations or groups in reference to 9/11 because any idiot can discern 9/11 was an inside job. It’s so obvious that only an ignorant jackass (or a bought off one) could deny American and Israeli involvement.

When are people finally going to wise up?

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

ROBinDALLAS
Posted: Jul 21st, 2008 at 3:07 pm

It is ironic that one of Chomsky’s most renown books is
“MANUFACTURING CONSENT”, yet he resists the overwhelming evidence that 911 was a “false flag” event designed to do just that. 911 was the neocon way of manufacturing consent of the masses of the US to invade Afghanistan and subsequently they used it to justify the invasion of Iraq. The evidence is clear that the events of 911 do not match the “official conspiracy theory”. History is replete with “false flag” events being perpetrated to instill consent for military invasions and wars. Exposing this “false flag” methodology will go a long way toward reducing it’s effectiveness as a tool of manipulation.

It is true that there are many who understandably detest American policies of imperialism. The 911 events being an inside job don’t nullify this fact.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Kate
Posted: Jul 22nd, 2008 at 3:09 am

I only looked into the events of 9-11 recently, at the request of a sibling. The 9-11 truth movement is certainly not monolithic. After a while I realized that not only did I have to weed out the well-intentioned but unreasonable, or insignificant, arguments, but those by people who are very likely government agents. Noam Chomsky’s criticism of the name-calling within the movement is valid, and it’s understandable that to an anti-war activist of the 60s the main focus should be on protesting the war.

But, on the other hand, there is staggering evidence supporting the argument that Bush’s so-called “War on Terror” is based on a false premise, i.e. the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan was defensive because Al-Qaeda attacked the US on 9-11-01. Also, our country is in a greater crisis today than it was 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. It is imperative that Americans hear about and understand the fallacies of the official story of 9-11 and the evidence that not only counters it but implicates our own government and other entities working in concert with it. Only then will citizens understand that it’s more patriotic to stop sending their sons and daughers to fight in wars based on false premises and to stay home and fight for our eroding rights, to demand an end to the “War on Terror,” whose name and the laws supporting it are acts of terror against the US public.

It’s no doubt uncomfortable for some people to hear it repeated over and over how Pearl Harbor was provoked and allowed to happen. Had the public been wiser the government wouldn’t have been able to gain its support for entering that war when it did, and remaining for its duration. Had anti-war activists known the truth 40 years ago about the Bay of Tonkin, or at least questioned more the reason for going to Vietnam, it certainly would have given us a better footing. And if people realized that governments didn’t start lying to the public in the 20th century, but that Lincoln lied about the Civil War being about the abolition slavery in order to recruit blacks and abolitionists to diminshed Union ranks, they might realize that there has rarely if ever been a righteous war.

It is often said that the first casualty of war is truth, but actually “neutralizing” truth is the main prerequisite for a nation to start a war, and pursuing the truth is the primary prerequisite for citizens to end an unjust war.

I applaud all the people who have struggled thus far to demand a new hearing on 9-11, and to persuade the rest of us who were slow to come around. You’re heroes, one and all.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

Dave
Posted: Jul 26th, 2008 at 2:43 pm

The “War on Terror” is BECAUSE OF 9/11. 9/11 is a blatant lie, disprovable in literally hundreds on different areas. & thus anyone promoting the government’s account of it & attack those who expose it are pro-war by default. These ‘anarchist’ anti-truth groups are childish & silly, & they reveal it espescially when they use ridiculous insults like “toofer” to describe real researchers.

Reply | Quote selected text | Link to this

SexyComments by BorkWeb

RSS TrackBack URL

Related News

This entry was posted on Thursday, July 10th, 2008 at 6:54 pm and is filed under Contributions & Guests . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: