reprehensor
Minor Poster
Joined: 28 Feb 2007
Posts: 36
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hopefully these excerpts from MacGregor's other essays on 9/11 and "Machiavellian State Terror" will lead to a clearer interpretation of what he's trying to get at.
I think MacGregor is trying to show that the Neoconservatives particularly, and other players in the American political playground ARE apt to use "The Prince" as the beginning and end of Machiavellian political science.
But he does note that there are historical parallels to the blood-soaked era chronicled by Machiavelli in the "The Prince", and our recent history;
| Quote: | | Notoriously, Machiavelli insisted on the prominence of conspiracy and assassination in politics. “More princes have lost their lives and positions through them than through open war.” Contemporary resistance to theorizing assassinations and other forms of irrationality, arises from underestimation of human agency in the hyperstructural political science model of politics. Dealey Plaza is hardly an exceptional case. Recent history is studded with high profile political killings reminiscent of the tumultuous Roman experience chronicled by the Italian political theorist. The 1960s assassinations (Ben Barka, Martin Luther King, Medger Evers, Malcolm X, Bobby Kennedy, and many others) offer a sensational epic of blood. Many political murders followed, including (to name only a few) Chilean President Salvadore Allende’s death on September 11, 1973; the brutal 1977 killing of South African political activist Steve Biko; Indira Ghandi’s 1984 execution by her Sikh bodyguards; the murder in 1986 of Swedish Prime Minister Olaf Palme; the twin 1992 Mafia bombings that killed Giovanni Falcone and Paolo Borsellino; the shooting of Israeli leader Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 and the 1994 killing of Luis Donaldo Colosio, presidential candidate of Mexico’s then-ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI). - Elsevier, Research in Political Economy Vol. 20, 2002 |
MacGregor's research is open-ended, he encompasses Peter Dale Scott's notions of Deep Politics into his repetoire, and also applies Hegel and Marx where appropriate. Machiavelli's "The Prince" is obviously a favorite at the White House and Number 10;
| Quote: | ‘‘[A] wise prince,’’ advises Machiavelli, ‘‘must, whenever he has the occasion, foster with cunning some hostility so that in stamping it out his greatness will increase as a result.’’ I introduce a theory of terrorism inspired by Machiavelli’s observation. September 11 may be an example of expedient destruction ordered from within the state, a macabre instance of a state protection racket. What I call, Machiavellian state terrorism is terror/assassination performed for reasons different from the publicized ones; often initiated by persons or groups other than those suspected of the act; and – most important – secretly perpetrated by, or on behalf, of the violated state itself. Machiavellian state terror advances the ruling agenda while disguising itself as the work of individuals or groups opposed to the state’s fundamental principles...
...September 11, 2001 likely belongs to a long history of terrorist attacks and assassinations secretly ordered by powerful individuals at the centre of the state in order to destroy domestic opposition, or to make possible and/or justify already planned government policy. I call this Machiavellian state terrorism. ... It is secretly and deliberately confected to provide an excuse for achieving certain state objectives; and it is designed to implicate a particular group or individual other than the real perpetrators. Although the U.S.- inspired Pinochet coup in Chile conforms somewhat to this definition, given its initial secrecy and covert methods, the Chilean dictatorship – relying on support from elites and a significant proportion of Chilean citizens – openly acknowledged that it was the source of terror visited upon opponents of the regime.
By contrast, secrecy is paramount in Machiavellian state terrorism. Much evidence indicates, for example, that Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, which severely damaged the U.S. civil rights movement, was a government hit, successfully disguised as the action of a deranged white racist acting alone (Pepper, 2003). Similarly, Stalin probably ordered the assassination of Kirov, leading member of the Soviet politburo and a possible competitor. Stalin used the December 1934 murder as an excuse to unleash the purges against his erstwhile Bolshevik comrades. Almost 2 years earlier, in February 1933, Hitler took advantage of the Reichstag Fire, which the Nazis started themselves, to promulgate the first exceptional laws against German civil rights. ...
... I use the term Machiavellian state terrorism to differentiate it from other forms of terrorism connected with government. To summarize, Machiavellian state terrorism is terror/assassination performed for reasons different from the publicized ones; often initiated by persons or groups other than those suspected of the act; and – most important – secretly perpetrated by, or on behalf, of the violated state itself. - Elsevier, Research in Political Economy, Vol. 23, 2006
|
Webster Griffin Tarpley uses a broader, more positive interpretation of Machiavellian thought processes as he formulates his thesis for Synthetic Terror;
| Quote: | This book has therefore been constructed along the following conceptual lines:
1. Mass gullibility about the events of 9/11 is based on unmediated sense certainty re-enforced by merciless and repetitious media bombardment. Receptivity to the 9/11 myth is correlated with a Hollywood-style, sense-impressionist naïve epistemology, complicated by the schizophrenic and autistic elements present in Anglo-American culture. Belief in the 9/11 myth is agreeable to a way of thinking in the tradition of John Locke’s empiricism, which is here formally rejected and repudiated. I do not offer information so much as a method, and the method used here is that of Plato, Machiavelli, and Leibniz. I join Plato in refusing the illusions of the cave in favor of dialectical reason. I assert that understanding 9/11 requires a conceptual framework; my approach is therefore conceptual and empirical, but not empiricist. The framework here is that of patsies, moles, and expert professionals discussed below.
2. This book stresses those aspects of 9/11 which indicate state sponsorship by a rogue network or invisible government operating inside the US government and military. Other aspects are given less consideration or omitted entirely.
3. This book stresses those aspects of the official version which are physically impossible. Many dubious aspects and contradictions of the official story are not treated if they can be construed as a matter of opinion, rather than being susceptible to rigorous physical proof. The same goes for physical evidence, such as pictorial evidence, where individual interpretations of what is seen may diverge. At the same time, I urge researchers interested in these aspects of the problem to continue their efforts so that the catalogue of physical impossibilities can be expanded as it doubtless deserves to be.
4. I have sought to be guided by Machiavellian political realism, rather than by the irrational appeals of propaganda. - Introduction, 9/11: Synthetic Terrorism.
9/11 Synthetic Terrorism is a brilliant book. |
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
