Thank you for the interviews on May 18 2013 with authors Jeremy Scahill and Masha Gessen. Taken together, they provide good insight into two contrasting political perspectives. From “Nation” reporter Scahill you get an establishment reporter on the left edge of what may be discussed in polite conversation, i.e., what one may say without being labelled a “conspiracy theorist”. From the anti-establishment corner we heard Ms Gessen, from whom you will get the most anti-Putin views you are likely to find anywhere.
Mr Scahill is well known as someone who is quite happy with the received media/government 9/11 conspiracy theory, and is usually mentioned along with Amy Goodman and Noam Chomsky as a “left gatekeeper“. These people have done some very good work, but always within the bounds of government and corporate media acceptability.
We have Mr Scahill digging up the dirt on special ops atrocities and US government sponsored murders, but without any questions about why the US, New Zealand and other Western countries are involved in the longest running wars and occupations in modern history. We had a litany of “ain’t it awful”, but never the question, “why are we there in the first place?”. He is thus loyal to the mainstream media’s Hypocritic Oath, “First, do no harm (to the Establishment).”
Much air time was devoted to the late US intelligence asset, Anwar Al Awlaki and the incredible schemes he was associated with, including the underwear bomber, the Fort Hood shooter and 9/11 itself. (Please follow my links to mainstream news stories that contradict the official versions of these stories.) Whenever the term “became radicalized” is used, think “became US intelligence asset.” These “radicalized” people are usually double or triple agents, and are disposed of somehow when their use-by date has passed.
That conversation steered clear of any conspiracy theories, unlike the one that followed. Masha Gessen was a more refreshing an informative guest, owing to her unabashed honesty, rich experience and willingness to respond openly to your questions. She mentioned the weapons grade polonium that was used in the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko. There is a distinct parallel with the anthrax scare that quickly followed the 9/11 attacks, and which must be considered as a part of the 9/11 attacks. The anthrax used could only have come from a solitary US military source, just as the polonium could only have come from a high-level military source. In the end, the US admitted that the anthrax attacks were an inside job, but framed a patsy as the perpetrator. A lengthy article by lawyer Barry Kissin provides a detailed account of the attacks.
Ms Gessen also said something like, “Russian police do not investigate acts of terror and often participate in the coverup afterwards”, something equally true of many Western governments, including the US and the UK. The Oklahoma City bombing, 7/7 bombings and 9/11 are but a few examples.
I was pleased to hear that you think that conspiracy theories actually exist in the world, if only in exotic lands run by faceless tyrants. There is an American academic, Lance deHaven-Smith who would be only too happy to tell you about some of the conspiracy theories that are uniquely American. His latest book, published the University of Texas Press, is “Conspiracy Theory in America“. He can tell you about the popularisation of the term in the 1960s, and the mainstream media’s attitude towards conspiracy theories. Here is a link to a long interview with Prof deHaven-Smith on Black Op Radio.
Yes, Putin is a nasty piece of work, but we live in a world where evil fighting evil can do good. Putin’s stance against the Anglo-Americans has so far prevented the latter imperium from overrunning Syria and Iran. If Putin is indeed a spent force, as Ms Gessen claims, then there will be more NATO boots on fresh ground ere long.