The comments below first appeared on Paul Stott's 911cultwatch blog (13/6/08)--strange to say, no response was ever forthcoming. Bit cerebral for cultists, perhaps. So we're putting it here too...
Peter Dale Scott: interesting, but flawed (by Larry O'Hara)
It would be trite to assume that all those supporting, or in the orbit/thrall of the 9/11 cult, are intellectual charlatans. Some have interesting things to say, and in this category comes former Canadian diplomat Peter Dale Scott. The originator of the term 'parapolitics' (which describes both the Notes From the Borderland and Lobster tradition here in the UK) Dale Scott's research into 'deep politics' predates 9/11. He is important both for this and because he uses past (and legitimate) research in a way that does not challenge, and in effect drums up support for, the 9/11 cult. In doing so (and this is difficult to prove) he has compromised his intellectual and political integrity to a degree, at least, by evading key evidential issues or skipping lightly round them. Well illustrated by a recent article on the Global Research web-site entitled 9/11 Deep State Violence and the Hope of Internet Politics.
To what extent Dale Scott himself has actually become a cultist is unclear--he says he is merely offering "a hypothesis for further investigation: that the American state is somehow implicated with al-Qaeda in the atrocity of 9/11". The phrase "somehow implicated with" is extremely nebulous indeed: perhaps intentionally so. Dale Scott is important, and shaky, because he continually equates past events with current ones on the basis of flimsy evidence or mere assertion--referring to the "simulated 'surprise' of the Bush administration to the 9/11 attack" as "indeed analogous to the simulated 'surprise' of the Truman administration to the outbreak of war in Korea on June 25 1950". Was Bush really not surprised? Or Richard C Clarke? Dale Scott doesn't prove his point, merely asserts it. As too in his reference to COG (Continuity of Government Orders) before 10 am on 9/11 having "constitutional implications" albeit that "what COG means in practice is still largely unknown to us". Very helpful (not). That said, he is right to say that 9/11 has been used to centralise power by the administration, with little check by Congress or a compliant media.
Dale Scott's solution to the problems he raises is not just pitiful, but symptomatic. He advocates "internet politics" putting pressure on electoral candidates in support of various (eminently desirable) political demands as regards oversight, document release etc. Not only will the internet alone never overcome the powerful ruling class forces and secret sate agencies operating in society, the internet itself is no neutral medium--this 'Devil's Harp' is in a very important way responsible for precisely the debasement of politics among the 'Google Generation' (see previous post by Paul) that the 9/11 Cult exemplifies. Tellingly, Dale Scott criticises Alexander Cockburn's attack on the 9/11 cult by way of misrepresenting him, claiming that Cockburn only took exception to the "displacement of coherent Marxist analysis" by 9/11 'Truth' activists--yet Cockburn's critique (and ours) is far more wide-ranging. His 'answer' to Cockburn, that there are both continuities and divisions within powerful US circles is, fundamentally, irrelevant to Cockburn's concerns. And not likely to have been accidentally so--perhaps Dale Scott just lacks the moral courage to attack the cult, and wants (a bit like Robin Ramsay I might say) to hedge his bets on 9/11 by being all things to all people. Not something we at 9/11 Cultwatch could ever be accused of...
Dale Scott's overall work, available in various books, is well worth detailed examination and scrutiny--which we will give it--however the internet is not the place for that. I just wanted to point out, for the record, he is an important and worthy opponent who we rate more highly than charlatans like Webster Griffin Tarpley & the holy snake-oil salesman David Ray Griffin.