Re: [OPE-L] Conspiracy theories and Marxism

From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Sat Jul 30 2005 - 04:16:10 EDT

Media silence.  On 22/7, before the Stockwell shooting (10am) there was an
incident on the Victoria line at Vauxhall, one stop north of Stockwell, timed
at about 9.10am.  By 9.30am there were at least a dozen emergency vehicles
lined up on the Albert Embankment.  The operation went on for three

There was almost no media coverage. What there was put it down to a false

A conspiracy theory would be that the gas attack had to be downplayed when the
Stockwell shooting occurred.  The acrid blue mist reported in the Tube carriage
might have been due to some electrical fault but the official story does not
mention the fumes (see below).

Below are three firsthand accounts from comments sent to the blog.

"I have asked British Transport Police for the official line on the whole
A woman saw an unattended bag, panicked, pulled the alarm which in turn caused
the other passengers to panic. The ‘fumes’ came from brakes being applied.
The problem with this account is that the alarm was raised in our carriage
because of fumes, the fumes did not come subsequently. Also it was just as we
were leaving Stockwell station - I cant imagine that the first thing the driver
did was to apply brakes, we had to make it to Vauxhall to evacuate.
Anyway, I dont want to go over too much old ground. I also wouldnt want to
hazard a guess as to why this wasn’t reported as a very significant false
alarm. In fact the only thing that I can say with total confidence is that the
fumes on my carriage were not imaginary."

"I was also on the carriage between Stockwell and vauxhall were the alarm was
raised. Just wanted to add that I too could smell fumes and see a bluish mist
that was unlike anything else I had seen or smelled on the tube. I tried to
remian sceptical for as long as possible, but it became overpowering causing
people to cough- at that point the ‘oh my god’ woman pulled the alarm. There
was a panic, but not nearly as bad as some have made out -at least not on that
carriage. The ‘hysterical’ woman was, obviously, very distressed but reacted
faster than anyone around her in getting to the alarm and evacuating the
carriage. This situation would have warranted the alarm to have been pulled
regardless of any recent terrorist activity. For a journalist Nosemonkey seems
to have been a little premature in dismissing this incident outright - everyone
around me was independently reacting to the fumes, covering their mouths and
coughing before the woman described as a ‘rabid spactard’ actually cried out."

“Me and my girlfriend were both on the actual carriage in Vauxhall that filled
with fumes after leaving Stockwell. The operation took over three hours -
significantly longer than any of the recent ‘false alarms’. The station was
about to be reopened within about 20 minutes of the incident when police
realised that the smell of the fumes was NOT the smell of the trains emergency
brakes. They then mounted a very large security operation including bomb
disposal units in contamination suits and masks. We both stayed with the police
in the cordon throughout, then were moved at one point, completely out of sight
into the street behind. I can say, and several other witnesses will
corroborate, that our carriage definately filled with some kind of acrid
chemical smelling haze, which we first tried to ignore but eventually became so
strong that people began to cough. The reports of hysteria in the carriage
affected are wildly exaggerated, most people managed to remain considerate and
fairly calm under the circumstances. For a false alarm this was a pretty major
operation, taken very seriously by the officers in the cordon. It’s absence
from any news reports from that day seems a little conspicuous to me.”

Quoting John Holloway <johnholloway@PRODIGY.NET.MX>:

> 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:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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

Philip Dunn

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Jul 31 2005 - 00:00:01 EDT