From: John Holloway (johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX)
Date: Fri Jul 29 2005 - 08:28:35 EDT
I don't go for conspiracy theories any more than Michael, but I find Phil's contributions very refreshing, just because they break through the terrible stench of suffocating news manipulation and oppressive silence that emanates from Britain at the moment - at least viewed from a distance. John > Hi Jerry > > Update on the London situation: > > 1. 7/7 complete closure. The police have no-one alive, not even plausible > links. > There is no available evidence against the four. > > 2. The Stockwell killing. It looks as though the police were expecting > something on the Victoria line (Stockwell, Vauxhall) and were keyed up. > It could very well be untrue that the block of flats where Jean Charles de > Menezes lived was under surveillance, that he was followed from Tulse Hill to > Stockwell, that he was challenged in the street, that he jumped the barriers, > that he was wearing a bulky coat. It is untrue that he had any immigration > problems. It was just cop mass hysteria, I think. They were expecting > something and JCM triggered them, perhaps running to catch a train knowing he > was late for a job. > > 3. 21/7. Nobody has any conspiracy theories! There is the copycat theory. > Otherwise, it is very strange. The bombs did not go off. One backpacker was > reported as looking astonished -- the question is: was he astonished not to > be > dead or astonished that his backpack had gone pop. A drugs mule theory is > possible, but there is no evidence. > > Still no idea of what explosives were used. Strange that photos of the Russell > Square train surfaced on ABC. > > There was a big showing of police at Tube stations today (Thursday), but not > yesterday. > > Good links: > > http://wagnews.blogspot.com/ > > http://www.kurtnimmo.com/blog/ > > > > Quoting glevy@PRATT.EDU: > >> Hi Phil and Michael W: >> >> No, I'm not going to talk about the London bombings here. >> >> I'm not really in a position to expand on this subject at the >> present time (I am in a public library in Boothbay Harbor) >> but I find that the _general_ question of how Marxists have >> historically reacted to charges of conspiracy (by the state, >> especially) to be of interest. The prevailing attitude seems to >> have been: >> >> a) "show me the proof!" I.e. scepticism. Underlying this >> attitude may be the liberal bourgeois conception: "innocent >> until proven guilty". But, is this a proper stance to take >> towards the state, especially in the context of so many historical >> experiences where the state has launched various intrigues and >> conspiracies for war, repression, etc.? >> >> b) in general, historical events occur for necessary reasons >> tied to the "logic of capital". I.e. there is a stance that >> wishes to eliminate the accidental and subjective factors in >> order to show that capitalism is by its very nature exploitive, etc.. >> That is, the intuition seems to be that conspiracies have no >> basic and systemic role in reproducing capitalism. Yet, >> even if this were true, isn't it important to differentiate >> between what we believe happens _in general_ from what happens >> in a _particular_ case? I.e. particular conspiracies could be >> important in grasping conjunctural developments. >> >> If one were to compare anarchist thought to Marxian, then I >> think that the former is much more receptive to charges of conspiracy >> by the state and capital. Yet, shouldn't we recognize that >> conspiracies can and have played important roles in >> triggering actions by the state? >> >> In solidarity, Jerry >> > > > Philip Dunn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 31 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT