THE POPE AND THE AXIS OF TERROR

Saturday 11 September 2010, 14:50

Adam Curtis Adam Curtis

Tagged with:

This is the story of the man who tried to kill the previous Pope in 1981 and how in doing so he unwittingly helped create one of the great religious beliefs of our modern age.

It is the belief in a global network of terror - and the conviction among its believers that anyone who questions it is a heretic.

It begins with a very brave, but also very obsessive, Lieutenant Colonel in Vietnam called Alexander Haig. Here he is talking as his troops bulldoze and flatten a Vietnamese village.

He perfectly expresses the American military's famous explanation - "It became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it."

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Haig's career then took off - and in 1969 he was made Henry Kissinger's assistant.

Almost immediately he became involved in the secret bombing of Cambodia.

The American military was convinced there was a giant secret bunker hidden in Cambodia from which the North Vietnamese were directing their attacks. The bombing, followed by an invasion, was going to destroy it.

But the bunker was never found. It seems never to have existed.

But it became a vision that was going to possess Haig, and others, in the years to come. That somewhere there is a hidden central control where the enemies of America are co-ordinating their attacks.

They know this secret place exists. Even if there is no real evidence.

And you can do bad things and cut corners in order to prove it exists.

Here is some footage - first from the invasion with an American Major from the US Cavalry convinced they are going to find the bunker. Then William Shawcross describing the illegal things that Haig was involved in. Followed by a report of what they did find.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Haig then became President Nixon's chief of staff during Nixon's final - paranoid - days.

After that he became the commander of NATO in Europe. And as his power grew so did his vision of the hidden threat. In 1979 Haig made a speech about what he called the new "global disease of terrorism" which he was convinced the Soviet Union was behind.

Up to this point the terrorists in Europe and Latin America and elsewhere had been seen as disparate groups. They might know each other - but they were separate movements driven by their own weird interpretations of leftist or rightist theory.

Haig was saying - no, they are all part of something bigger. Here is part of his speech.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Then - a month later - a group of terrorists tried to kill Alexander Haig.

The German group, the Red Army Faction, hid a bomb under a bridge in Belgium and detonated it as Haig's motorcade went over it. But they mistimed it by a few seconds.

For Haig it was evidence of an international plot to get him.

By now Haig was not alone.

In July 1979 a conference was held in Jerusalem to discuss the phenomenon of "International Terrorism". It was organised by a young Benjamin Netanyahu at the Jonathan Institute, named after his brother who had been killed by terrorists at Entebbe.

All sorts of people were there, including George Bush Snr, many Neoconservatives who would become influential in Bush Jnr's adminsitration, and Prime Minister Begin.

But the agenda of the conference was shaped by a new breed of what would become known as "terror experts". And all of them were convinced by the new theory that the KGB were running almost all terrorism around the world.

They were also great, and sometimes very weird,characters.

One was an Australian journalist and novelist who wrote for the British Economist called Robert Moss.

Moss was one of the earliest promoters of the idea of hidden Soviet control. And in 1976 he helped write the speech for Mrs Thatcher that led the Soviets to call her the Iron Lady.

Later - in the mid 80s - Moss decided he had found a route to perceiving higher truths in the world. Truths hidden from ordinary mundane consciousness.

Through his dreams.

He developed a system he called Active Dreaming. You can find his theory here.

"When we act to bring the energy and imagery of dreams into physical reality, we become poets of consciousness and infuse our world with magic. Deep into multidimensional reality"


Another "terror expert" was a French historian called Annie Kriegel.

She had been a hardline Stalinist in the French Communist Party, but had turned violently against the Soviet Union.

Kriegel was convinced that all the terrorist acts in the Middle East were being co-ordinated from Moscow. This was music to the ears of Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli leaders who were seeking further US support.

In 1982 Kriegel wrote a book that said that the massacres in the Sabra-Chatila camps were organised by the Soviets and carried out by German terrorists under KGB control.

But perhaps the most important expert was another ex-communist. An American called Claire Sterling.

Sterling was a journalist who lived in Italy. She took all the "evidence" of Soviet control that was produced a the conference and bundled it up together into a book called The Terror Network.

It had a dramatic thesis.

It said that there was a "Global Terror Network" underneath the surface of most Western societies and the Middle East.

That all of them - the Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof gang, Provisional IRA, South Moluccans, Japanese Red Army, Iranian terrorists, Turkish People's Liberation Army, Spain's ETA, Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine and Fatah, the military arm of the Palestine Liberation Organization were all part of a grand Soviet scheme.

The aim of the scheme was to force the police in a Western democracies to crack down on individual freedoms. Then a repressive police state would emerge and breed resentment - making the masses ripe for Communist revolution.

One of Sterling's closest friends in Italy was a young American academic called Michael Ledeen. He was fascinated by the theory.

And then early in 1981 he became a special assistant to the new US Secretary of State in the first Reagan administration.

Who was General Alexander Haig.

Haig read The Terror Network and immediately bought Sterling's theory - because it proved what he instinctively knew about the Soviet threat.

And few days later Haig went to Congress and publicly accused Moscow of "training, funding, and equipping" international terrorists. He announced that "international counterterrorism will take the place of human rights."

William Casey, the new head of the CIA also read and believed Sterling's book.

The only problem was the no-one else took it seriously.

Many of those running the Reagan administration knew that the Soviet Union was supporting and arming liberation movements in the developing world, but they didn't believe in the Global Terror Network.

Casey met with his CIA analysts. He told them that the book - The Terror Network - "has told me more than you bastards whom I pay $50,000 a year."

His analysts then patiently explained to him that much of Claire Sterling's evidence was composed of Black Propaganda they themselves had invented and spread around Europe to discredit to Soviets.

Even Reagan - for all his anti-communism - didn't take it seriously.


But then - on 13th of May 1981 - Mehmet Ali Agca tried to kill the Pope in Rome.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Agca was a member of an extreme right wing Turkish group called the Grey Wolves. But at first Agca said he had done it on his own - it was neither right or left, he said. He was tried and put in prison.

But then in May 1982 Agca suddenly changed his story.

But he didn't say he had done it as a member of the extreme right. Instead he insisted he had been part of a communist conspiracy to kill the Pope that had been organised by the Bulgarian secret service - and was being controlled behind that by Moscow.

Here is a bit of Agca shouting to the Italian press as he was taken from prison for more questioning. Telling them that he was part of a KGB plot.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Claire Sterling seized on this and went into action. She talked to lots of "intelligence informants" in Italy and the rest of Europe and wrote an article for Readers Digest. It caused a worldwide sensation.

Sterling said that Agca showed the incredible spider's web that Moscow had created to control terrorism throughout the world. It had been built in such a way that it was normally impossible to see the links. But, like a flash of lightning on a dark night, Agca had shown how web really worked.

In his case, the KGB controlled the Bulgarian Secret service, and they in turn controlled the Turkish criminal mafia.

The Bulgarians had told the Mafia to find someone who could never be suspected of being linked to Moscow, bring him to Rome and tell him to shoot the Pope.

He would be interpreted as a Muslim fanatic, while Moscow would be rid of a Polish Pope who was a supporting the Solidarity movement in Poland.

Claire Sterling became a media celebrity. She appeared on TV across America and the world. Here she is on Nationwide in December 1982 putting forward her theory.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Sterling's theory caused consternation in the Reagan administration, and especially in the CIA.

Almost all CIA officers and analysts were united in a belief that what Sterling was saying was rubbish. They produced an internal report saying there was no evidence linking the KGB to the assassination attempt.

But the head of the CIA, William Casey, was convinced by Sterling.

A senior CIA analyst called Melvin Goodman testified in 1991 to a Senate Committee as to what Casey then did.

He forced CIA officers to alter the report's main judgements and to "stack the deck" in favour of KGB complicity. The sections of the report that expressed doubts and had counter arguments were erased.

The altered report was then sent to the White House. And it became one of the underpinnings of President Reagan's increasingly simplified view of the world - that there was an interconnected network of terror in the world.

Although a new puppet master had also appeared, along with the Soviet Union - Iran.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Meanwhile the Pope now travelled the world in a protected, high-defence series of pope-mobiles.

Here is a report from the Pope's visit to Britain in 1982 about how British Leyland have built both the standard model and super-giant protected version - under guidance from terror advisers.

I very much like Kevin Beadle from British Leyland who is interviewed. He is so deadpan - the reporter must have hated him.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

But then it all went wrong for the global terror theory.

Agca was put on trial again, but this time with seven others. They were accused of being part of a Soviet backed conspiracy to kill the pope.

But the problem was that the prosecution seemed unable to produce any real evidence.

And then Agca himself started talking in court. And it became increasingly clear that he was disturbed and delusional. At one point he announced to the court that he was Jesus Christ and the world was about to end.

Some journalists tried to keep the faith and said that the mad ramblings and his lies were part of a cunning plan. But others began to report the case as a growing fiasco.

Here is BBC news report from the courtroom which gives you a really good idea of how Agca really was out where the buses don't run.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

In the end all of the accused were acquitted because there was absolutely no evidence against them.

People went back and looked at Claire Sterling's writings. They pointed out how she also seemed to have no real facts. There were lots of footnotes and references. But when you analysed them they were mostly from secondary "terror experts" who had relied, as she had, on the same Western intelligence sources.

What this meant was that she was citing the same intelligence sources, directly and indirectly, under different names. This then produces a cumulative effect on the unsuspecting reader through a kind of echo chamber.

It was the beginning of the fundamental problem with much of today's "terror industry". They quote each other to produce an illusory breadth of research - when in fact they are often being manipulated by a few intelligence sources with facts they have no ability to check.

And at the same time another media phenomenon rose up.

The terror drama-doc.

At the very time that the Agca-Soviet theory crumbled, the BBC made a film for their "Sunday Premiere" slot called "The Most Dangerous Man in the World".

Here are some extracts. It stars Martin Shaw as a very evil member of the Turkish Mafia.

I've put some captions in explaining how the extracts fit into the story.

I love the bit where some Marxist students try to turn Agca by telling him they can offer "experimental theatre, Brecht and girls".

And there is also great moment where Agca goes to the secret traing camp in Syria where all the world's terrorists come to be trained. And he tells his friend:

"These cats are dealers who deal in rare and expensive violence. The pure stuff"

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

What Agca had helped create was a powerful modern myth.

It is the idea that underneath all the chaotic violence that marks the modern world there are hidden patterns. Networks of terror that are orchestrated by America's deadly enemies.

This myth reappeared after September 11th 2001. It then fell away again after the debacle in Iraq.

But now it is re-emerging yet again with Iran. And one of the leading promoters is Michael Ledeen. He was Claire Sterling's friend in Italy who did so much to promote the idea in the early years of the Reagan administration.

In his latest book, Accomplice To Evil, Ledeen claims that now Iran is the key lynchpin of a Global Terrorist Network which is engaged in a war against the West.

The reason that no-one can see this network he says is that the mullahs are brilliant at covering their tracks.

At the front of the book he quotes Baudelaire - "The loveliest trick of the Devil is to persuade you he does not exist."

Ledeen is a fascinating man. In the 1970s he wrote a great book about the Italian poet and revolutionary politician, Gabriele D'Annunzio

In 1919, in the chaos at the end of the Great War, D'Annunzio took over the city of Fiume. He was joined by a strange mixture of Futurist artists and revolutionaries from both left and right.

D'Annunzio tried to create a new kind of society in Fiume. He mixed politics with modern art and old religious myths to try and create a heightened awareness among the masses. His aim was to give them a vision of a new kind of world.

The experiment at Fiume has often been portrayed as the beginning of Italian fascism. But Ledeen makes a powerful case that it was far more than that.

What D'Annunzio invented, Ledeen says, is the shape of all modern mass politics. He created melodramatic, theatrical settings to manipulate the masses and so radicalise them.

Behind this was D'Annunzio's belief that there was a hidden, higher reality in the world which the old elites and cowardly politicians prevented ordinary people from seeing.

As Ledeen puts it about D'Annunzio:

"The forces he had awakened (at Fiume) constituted a kind of 'Superworld'. Those, in contrast, that opposed them were an 'Underworld'. It was a poetic vision. It was not fascist or leftist. It was a new way of doing politics.

D' Annunzio's style was the politics of mass manipulation, the politics of myth and symbol which have become the norm in the modern world."

The problem with mass politics today is that we increasingly have no idea what is myth and theatre, and what is really true. And I'm not convinced that Michael Ledeen does either.

In the 1920s D' Annunzio built himself a beautiful garden on the shores of Lake Garda. It expresses his belief that you can shape the world to be what you want it to be. In the midst of it is a real navy cruiser which he hauled up the hillside and embedded in the rocks.

And above it all is a giant mausoleum in which D'Annunzio and some of those who accompanied him in Fiume are buried together.

The whole place is a memorial to D'Annunzio's 'Superworld'.

Here is some footage I took of the Garden. Followed by some old archive of D'Annunzio and his followers in the revolutionary world of Fiume.

Plus some video of the 'Superworld' that the American neoconservatives tried to create nearly a hundred years later.

In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash Installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content

Tagged with:

Comments

Jump to comments pagination
 
  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 41.

    This is what one Roman Catholic had to say when writing to Einstein:

    "We deeply regret that you made your statement . . . in
    which you ridicule the idea of a personal God. In the past
    ten years nothing has been so calculated to make people
    think that Hitler had some reason to expel the Jews from
    Germany as your statement. Conceding your right to free
    speech, I still say that your statement constitutes you as
    one of the greatest sources of discord in America."

    Apparently, the Catholic had the audacity to equivocate Hitler's idealogy with that of Einstein, a non-believer Jew. Is there no depth that Christian will go to justify their unreasonable beliefs.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 42.

    I've enjoyed reading these posts, interesting.

    @egbert 41. You can't be serious, right? Generalisation much? This just in - anyone can be a nutter whether they believe in God, or believe in no God, or believe that Elvis lives. I mean the statement seems misguided. But I think there is a point where pure scientism, teleological obsession, certain theories of evolution etc. where these can easily pervade, and manifest in eugenics and ethnic cleansing, because the moral and emotional impulse is removed. Fair? I mean Dawkins argues that altruism is essential to species survival, but that is still a rational argument. If altruism isn't found in nature, or in evolution, if it isn't efficienct or progressive to a certain end, does that make altruism worthless? I think that's postivism, I think that's an addiction to reason. And I refer back to the Taoist quote; there are epistemological contraints, therefore claims to absolute knowledge are perhaps the only things we can recognise as untrue. Well I wouldn't go that far, but you get my point.

    Did anyone see the program 'The End of God'? I watched it yesterday on Iplayer. It's pretty good, I'd recommend it.

    Also did anyone see the Stephen Hawking program telling us about alien life? Absolute bongo I thought. It was more like Ricky Gervais Flanimals, seriously. Then Hawking comes out with 'we shouldn't try and make contact with alien life because they would most likely destroy us for the resources of the Earth'. Cheers Steve. I mean he's got it all worked out hasn't he, because he's smart and that. Insane.

    What's a lot better is something I found on this site. It's Melvyn Bragg talking to a bunch of academics about the Frankfurt School, I think on BBC Radio 4. It's absolutely fascinating, and I think really has significance in relation to Adam Curtis' stuff.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 43.

    @the art teacher
    I agree, that irrationality and immorality are not confined to god-delusion, but surely this does not excuse irrational and immoral actions done in the name of God? I'm sure there are plenty of delusions out there, perhaps communism is a great example of a godless delusion. Saying that well, belief in God isn't the only evil, is no excuse for saying, well then communism is okay, or Stalinism is valid because there are other evils in the world.

    As for Dawkins, I wonder if you've ever read him? "The God Delusion", perhaps, an example of the 'new atheism' people are complaining about. And Hitchens' "God Is Not Great" which present the case that religion is not only untrue but harmful. Maybe perhaps worth a listen? They have sold many millions and spread atheism far more widespread than ever before in history. But rather than attack Dawkins and Hitchens personally (as if this is a valid rational approach anyway) why not actually read what they have to say.

    Also, Stephen Hawking has a new book "The Grand Design" why not read that rather than resort to personal insults and attacks.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 44.

    I understand you're not excusing terrible acts committed in the name of secularism because you're against religious belief. And I have no problem with a lot of God Is Not Great. It's a powerful argument that he makes. But I just don't agree with strands of Atheism (and I do think this is encouraged by Hitchens) that say religion is at the heart of most of our problems. I couldn't agree more that terrible things have been done in the name of God. But my only argument really is that we don't know if it's a delusion or not, really, and I don't think it's existence has been entirely negative.

    What Stalin did was terrible. But I don't hate Marxism. And I think rationalisation has led to some bad aspects of modern society. But I don't hate the Enlightenment or the natural sciences. And I think the relationship between religion and it's abuses is the same. If you think by it's definition religion leads to suffering and is implicitly wicked, then I can understand that argument - the books you talk about make a compelling case. But I don't think it's always true that religion leads to these things.

    I'd also say I don't think I was attacking Dawkins. I just don't agree with him and think there are drawbacks to a society that would be based on such views. And I didn't personally insult Hawking. I just thought his program was silly. He's done fascinating work don't get me wrong. But do you see what my point is? It's interesting what he said about not contacting aliens, because he refers to Columbus and what happened to the native americans. That reveals something quite profound I think, about the way we view ourselves, and dare I say it perhaps something about a kind of deterministic view of evolution - that any intelligent life we find won't be able to unbind itself from, I'm not sure how to put this, from conquest, from consumpton, from self interest, in the same way that we've failed to. Hopefully that makes sense.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 45.

    @the art teacher

    Did you hear about the Catholic Astronomer who wants to Baptise the aliens as soon as they make contact? 'No matter how many tentacles'.See here:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/the-pope/8009299/Pope-Benedict-XVIs-astronomer-the-Catholic-Church-welcomes-aliens.html

    Right now, is a battle of hearts and minds. The hatred and vicious personal attacks, against honourable men, are being encouraged by the propagandists and even other so-called atheists. Of course, none of this is at all rational, and it's every bit as sinister as the injustices that are being pointed out by these very brave men.

    And Dawkins is right now, being attacked by the media for trying to expose the injustice of paedophile priests continuing on with their evil sexual abuse without prosecution. This is a scandal of tremendous proportions. If only Catholics and believers were to stop complaining about his 'shrill, aggressive potty mouth' and actually do something about this terrible crime.


  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 46.

    egbert_the_atheist wrote:

    "And Dawkins is right now, being attacked by the media for trying to expose the injustice of paedophile priests continuing on with their evil sexual abuse without prosecution. This is a scandal of tremendous proportions. If only Catholics and believers were to stop complaining about his 'shrill, aggressive potty mouth' and actually do something about this terrible crime."

    What if these "tremendous proportions" are themselves propagandist exaggerations?

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/earticle/9548/

    If so, then it would not have been the first time that Marxist-Feminists perpetrated a mass lie of tremendous proportions. Remember the false memory syndrome:

    http://www.salon.com/books/memoirs/index.html?story=/books/int/2010/09/20/meredith_maran_my_lie_interview

    "During the 1980s and 1990s, tens of thousands of Americans -- most of them middle-class, 30-something women in big cities, like me -- became convinced that they'd repressed memories of childhood sexual abuse, and then, decades later, recovered those memories in therapy."

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 47.

    Anyone else having trouble with RSS feed? I don't think it's updating on new blog posts.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 48.

    Egbert wrote "Right now, is a battle of hearts and minds. The hatred and vicious personal attacks, against honourable men, are being encouraged by the propagandists and even other so-called atheists."

    I find this chilling.

    If Mr Curtis is correct in The Age Of Terror about the Islamist terrorists descent into "reasoned" hell then we are seeing the same descent being played out here. The New Atheists are even condemming other atheists, no doubt people who don't read Prof. Dawkins, for not being the "right" sort of atheists!

    @The Art Teacher. Thanks for highlighting Bragg discussing The Frankfurt School. I'll listen to it this weekend. The Frankfurt School is being mentioned quite often on the blogosphere (usually in negative tones). It will be good to hear an unbiased discussion of it which, for me at least will be an introduction. I'd be interested to hear what you made of the programme.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 49.

    @ DerekMc

    Either people are indeed 'paranoid' according to Adam Curtis, or they simply don't read posts clearly. I said Dawkins et al, are being attacked by atheists not that they are attacking.

    And Marxist-Feminists, are they the ones with the moustaches?

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 50.

    Hi Egbert

    First of, if I've written anything which irks you, then I apologise. That was not my intention. I thought I saw in your words a judgement call on the integrity, motivations and ultimately, "loyalty" of atheists who have not adopted the new thinking. And then, I read into that a schism in the atheist community.

    Secondly, I wrongly referenced The Age Of Terror when I should have said The Power Of Nightmares. (esp the 1st episode, "Baby, it's cold outside.") It's on youtube.

    I was asking if your comment shows that atheist ideology is radicalising in the same way Mr Curtis lays out the Islamic thinking of Qotb became radicalised. And instead of looking back at history, could we look at the radicalising of Atheism and predict where it is going? A warning from a foreseeable future, if you like.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_Nightmares

    No, I didn't think you were saying that Prof Dawkins, et al, were attacking some atheists for being the wrong sort, I said that the New Atheists were doing the attacking.( you posted earlier, Post 39, "gnu-atheists." Is this the preferred address to use now?) Maybe I should have said "the more radicalised followers of New(Gnu)Atheist thinkers."
    And your use of the dismissive "so-called" kind of makes me think that you are attacking the old atheists. We read and hear the sniffy "so-called" a great deal nowadays in the media and on the blogosphere: So-called war on terror; So-called climate change. It is designed and employed to devalue the next words in the audiences minds. But I acknowledge that I could be very wrong on this and I'll genuinely listen to what you say in reply.

    You also grouped the so-called atheists with propagandists. (I assume you mean religious propagandists.) So-called atheists, opening a new front and joining in the attacks by religious nutters on "honourable men" like Prof. Dawkins - is that right? Do you think the old atheists are trying to undermine the new(gnu)atheists, like Prof. Dawkins, from within the atheist movement? Do you think this campaign is being orchestrated? It would be interesting to hear from somebody who has the inside track of the atheist movement.

    I know you have been talking with StenkaRazin about moustaches. I'm afraid I don't know any hirsute women nor their political persuasion!;-)

    Although I believe the Marxist, feminist Marie Stopes was known to carry a cut throat razor in her handbag. But that might have been because she was Scottish. :-)

    All the best

    Derek

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 51.

    @DerekMc - I did hesitate in mentioning the BBC Radio show about the Frankfurt School actually. It might sound weird, but for anyone who's kind of travelled this journey of discovering these ideas, I didn't want to spoil it. That might sound strange, but I was concerned that it might a bit like jumping to the end of a book.

    I'm going to listen to it again I think. But I recall kind of smiling, recognising what their ideas were, and how it broadened my understanding of The Trap. I'm not an active member of the blogosphere, but I'm surprised their ideas are unpopular, I'd be interested to know why? Is it the association with Marxism, or their broad pessimism, or maybe that they challenge what now is an extremely dominant picture of the world that most people have? Who knows?

    I didn't like their view of popular culture, that essentially it's trash solely existing to perpetuate the current system, the current 'organisation of power' perhaps. I think they felt art had become product and that it should actually not draw people in with it's beauty; it should be ugly and reveal the world. It reminded me a little of Brecht's Verfremsdungeffekt, they wanted people to be alienated by art, not seduced, because otherwise the relationship involved became one of dominance and submission. I think. I'd be interested to hear other people's inpretation.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 52.

    @Derek

    Of course I have seen The Power of Nightmares, I am a huge admirer of Adam Curtis, and I see very much where he's going with this all. He continues to show me new perspectives on modern culture, which I greatly appreciate. I would never heard of Edward Bernays or Leo Strauss if it weren't for Adam Curtis.

    As for new atheism, think of it as an attack on the special status that religion holds within society, that it is often a given that religion gives society its 'morality' and that is above criticism. So what new atheists are doing is taking their scepticism and rationalism a bit further, to moral scepticism. What they're trying to achieve is consciousness raising, that religion holds no right to any claim to morality, but rather such institutions are corrupt and unjust and cause more injustice in the world.

    And to really understand this perspective, a sober reading of such books as God Is Not Great, and The God Delusion, will show that this new atheism is really not radical at all. And in fact, it's very mainstream selling millions of copies and changing the minds of believers far more than any previous discussion between atheists and theists.

    But now there is a huge backlash and attack on the new atheists. A propaganda war has erupted, to discredit Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and others, rather than deal with their actual arguments and claims. And this is mainly being waged within the media. And so too atheist journalists are joining in with this bizarre reactionary backlash. They accuse the new atheists of being aggressive, shrill, strident, etc., but are these accusers not the very ones who are using personal attacks?

    And so the new atheists are attacking back at their accusers, why are you attacking us and pointing the finger at us, when paedophile priests go free to abuse more children, or while angry muslims make death threats to cartoonists. And why indeed are the media obsessed with attacking people who are pointing out the injustices, isn't there something rotten going on here? Isn't that part of what the media should be doing themselves? Each time some new article comes up attacking new atheists, it uses the same old rhetoric, but no rational criticism at all.

    Perhaps it is also because the new atheists have been pointing fingers at theology and philosophy as having no rational justification. And here is perhaps the real origin of the intellectual backlash and propaganda war.

    Feel free to peruse all the articles about new atheism in the media, in particular the serious newspapers, and see for yourself.

    Best Wishes,
    Egbert

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 53.

    Has anyone seen an interview given by Yuri Bezmenov, in 1984, explaining what the soviets were up to during the cold war era?

    You can see his interview here:
    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4CDAB99FAB5980BA

    It might help, given the current situation today, in explaining the narrative we now find ourselves in.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 54.

    I tell you one thing that's a bit scary - typing in Frankfurt School into Youtube and seeing all the anti-Semetic stuff, and people going on about Obama being a communist on the videos.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 55.

    @ The Art Teacher.

    It's strange how things work out.

    Mr Curtis starts a project and says:

    "It is the story of how, with the rise of individualism, we all stopped defining ourselves by politics and being part of collective groups, and believing in collective ideas.

    And instead we started to define ourselves by culture - both popular and high-brow - because music and style and art allowed us to give expression to our individual identities, rather than supressing them in the greater interest of the group."

    Whilst you're typing about The Frankfurt School:


    "... their view of popular culture, that essentially it's trash solely existing to perpetuate the current system, the current 'organisation of power' perhaps. I think they felt art had become product and that it should actually not draw people in with it's beauty; it should be ugly and reveal the world. It reminded me a little of Brecht's Verfremsdungeffekt, they wanted people to be alienated by art, not seduced, because otherwise the relationship involved became one of dominance and submission."

    Yip, the blogosphere is almost completely barking mad and a genuinely scary place. Which is why Bragg's programme is so welcome.

    Cheers

    Derek

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 56.

    "This is the story of the man who tried to kill the previous Pope in 1981 and how in doing so he unwittingly helped create one of the great religious beliefs of our modern age.

    It is the belief in a global network of terror - and the conviction among its believers that anyone who questions it is a heretic".

    The BBC makes me laugh, it must be a talent to twist every article to imply that Muslims are victims and Christians are evil, not matter what the story.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 57.

    Great work from Adam Curtis as ever - surely the most insightful documentary film-maker in the country.

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 58.

    Just looked into D'Annunzio and wrote a post about him, inspired, of course, by Curtis' over-arching narrative - fascinating:

    http://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2010/10/24/in-the-long-dark-shadow-of-gabriele-dannunzio/

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 59.

    I have to say Adam, I wish that your documentaries were required viewing in all schools in America.. Perhaps then we would begin to educate people in how we are manipulated by so many factions.. Yes there seems to be purpose behind some of the actions, but the most of the manipulation is experimental, and as such even the perpetrators don't know what the results are going to be.. We now live in a fear ridden world than can be controlled well enough to bring up our anger and lash out at each other, while the perps are hidden behind the veil of our own anger.. We can no longer see that we are being duped, and the planet is suffering deeply for our errors.. Thank you for producing such brave films, your work is greatly appreciated by many..

  • rate this
    0

    Comment number 60.

    56, that's your interpretation, not a rational one either?

    To this whole 'Secularism gave us Despots', was not Communism a faith too?
    Think about it, it has it's icons, Marx, Engels, Lenin, lots of factions, Trotsky, the break by Mao with the USSR, certain dates to be celebrated, it offers both an explanation for the world - in this case class, economics - with an ideal for living, a guide to how society should be.
    Does any of this sound very much much an organised faith?

    But we think differently about this one, since it's origins were much closer to today, the 19th Century, compared to other faiths.
    We see the regular faiths as ones with origins much further back, why?

    I'd argue that Nazism was one too, though a very short lived one that effectively destroyed itself, in this case though, more of a death cult, Hitler and co had more in common with Jim Jones than a larger faith.

    Blind adherence to a faith is no different to blindly following a creed like Marxism, both when followed in this way have a way of making bodies pile up in mounds.

    There are no 'organised secular plots' it's up there with secret UN bases in Nevada set to destroy the American way of life, bunkum.
    The only major organised plots I'm aware of was the longstanding one to protect, hide, cover up the crimes of, child molesting priests.

 

Page 3 of 4

This entry is now closed for comments

Share this page

More Posts

Previous
MADISON AVENUE

Friday 20 August 2010, 18:19

Next
THE STRANGE DEATH OF POLITICAL ENGLAND

Friday 24 September 2010, 14:05

About this Blog

This is a website expressing my personal views – through a selection of opinionated observations and arguments. I’ll be including stories I like, ideas I find fascinating, work in progress and a selection of material from the BBC archives.

Blog Updates

Stay updated with the latest posts from the blog.

Subscribe using:

What are feeds?