Order the summer edition here

The new fascism

CONSPIRATION / We are more at risk of being labeled as conspiracy theorists if we question so-called adopted truths – no matter what the facts say or what history should have taught us.


Ny Tid's editor Truls Lie wrote a few lines this summer on his private Facebook page about what could possibly be behind the events of September 11, 2001. He deleted the message immediately, but not before someone had noticed and taken a screenshot of it – for Shortly afterwards, Lie was attacked in both VG, Dagens Næringsliv and Dagbladet for "lefling with conspiracy theories".

Issues that were obvious to discuss in the media and even in the US Congress in the 70, 80 and 90 century – on US coups, drug trafficking, terrorism and murder of politicians ("US Select Committee on Assassinations" and "Iran-Contras affair" ") – can no longer be talked about, but is instead called" conspiracy theories ". Criticism of American or British illegal methods (from slave trade and colonialism) is reduced to the same. We have a society where no one dares to criticize, and the more central a potential critic has, the harder the attacks become. This is a form of hidden fascism that infects all political life.

Historical repetitions. In the 1930 century, Swedish newspapers described Adolf Hitler as a "normal politician" who wanted to save Germany – Sweden's protective power. The same newspapers would later characterize George W. Bush and Hillary Clinton in the same way, supporting their wars in Iraq and Libya.

In the 30s, my mother was refused by my grandfather to go on the official ball because there were so many Nazis there. The same was true of academics. At universities, among officers and officials as well as in the media, there were many German friends. In 1939, it was the Chief of Defense, General Olof Thörnell, who led the Swedish delegation to Berlin to congratulate Der Führer on his 50th birthday. Some already wrote about German concentration camps, but these were only marginal votes. Today, we would have called these "conspiracy theorists". Journalists and academics could not imagine that Germany – the great cultural nation – could be guilty of such outrage. When our US patronage today commits genocide, terrorism or starts war, or when France, Britain and the United States enter into armed conflicts in an alliance with Libyan Islamists with roots in Al Qaeda, we refuse to take facts over us. The British Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee criticized the bombing in support of the Islamists, but we dare not even mention it.

9/11: Residues from the military explosive nanothermite have been found in the dust from the towers.

False flag attacks. In VG and Dagens Næringsliv, Truls Lie was attacked by John Færseth, one of those who specializes in stamping any similar criticism as "conspiracy theory". In 2013, I said in a lecture that central people had told me that Bosnian Muslims were behind the grenade attack on the market square in Sarajevo in 1994. Færseth then gave me the conspiracy theorist designation.

In the same lecture, I had mentioned what General Vigleik Eide (Norwegian Defense Commander 1987-89 and Chairman of the NATO Military Committee 1989-93) had said:
the Muslims had roofs that could be opened, just to shoot grenades. One of these cars was used in the attack on the marketplace, which was to secure international support for the Muslims. According to General Eide, this was the internal conclusion. Eide was military adviser to former Defense and Foreign Minister Thorvald Stoltenberg 1993-94, during his UN mission in former Yugoslavia. The commander of the SACEUR (Supreme Allied Commander Europe; NATO) crisis team responsible for Bosnia (later Flag Commander Jacob Børresen), in addition to a later Minister of Defense and Foreign Minister, had reported the same. Børresen had been Defense Secretary Johan Jørgen Holst's military secretary and later became chief of staff for the Norwegian Navy. He had not even seen the investigation which concluded that the grenade had been shot from Bosnia-Muslim territory. But this was SACEUR's opinion – and that despite SACEUR and the US backing the Bosnian Muslims, he said. The reason for the grenade attack was, according to Børresen, "a desperate attempt to provoke an intervention by the international community in a situation where the siege of Sarajevo had become increasingly hopeless". Such a strategy is called a "false-flag attack": one attacks one's own people, but pretends to be the opposite party to do so, to win support from "the international community". That the Bosnian Muslims themselves were responsible was common knowledge at NATO headquarters, said Børresen. Colonel Ashworth, the UN Deputy Chief of Military Observers in Yugoslavia 1994-95, has also stated the same. Ashworth wrote that while the media and Western governments were quick to point out the Serbs as the attacking party, "the UN technical report showed that the Serbs were unlikely to be behind the massacre. But this and other reports were withheld for political reasons, ”he wrote. Both the UN and NATO concluded that it was the Muslims themselves who were responsible, but Americans and Britons would not say this out loud. Colonel Ashworth and others voiced this criticism ahead of the parliamentary debate on Syria on August 29, 2013. He pointed out that the United States had used a false attack in Sarajevo in 1994 to legitimize Western aircraft attacks, and that developments in Iraq speak for themselves. Ashworth believed that this kind of unconfirmed intelligence could not be relied upon, which also applies to Syria. These words probably stopped the British-American plane attack against Syria in 2013.

The strategy of excitement. But for Færseth and company, all this is thus only "conspiracy theories". The good American, the British or (as in this case) Bosnia
Muslim can not perform heinous acts. Today's media players appear as unconscious as the Swedish newspapers of the 30s, who could not imagine that the high-
civilized Germany could be behind the horrors of that time.

In 1962, the United States Defense Force wanted to launch a terrorist campaign and blast bombs in American cities, then blamed Cuban agents. One would also lower an American vessel and shoot down an American aircraft to hold Cuba responsible. The proposal was part of a sophisticated plan to legitimize a war against Cuba – but President John F. Kennedy said no. This document was downgraded 40 years later. In 1964, following Kennedy's death, the same environment staged an attack on the American des-
trophy USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin, to legitimize a war against North Vietnam. My former colleague Robert Bathurst was at that time the officer in the Pentagon, and the one who woke the United States Navy commander in the middle of the night with a phone to tell us about the incident. In 1998, Bathurst showed me internal material from US Naval Intelligence that documented that this attack was also a hoax. In Italian court cases at about the same time, CIA agent Carlo Digilio and Italian counter-espionage commander General Gianadelio Maletti revealed that the United States was behind what was called the "tension strategy" around 1970. This included a brutal terrorist campaign with several bomb attacks in Italian cities, blaming the political left. This was done to prevent the Italian left side from ruling.

In Italy and the US it has been possible to discuss this in a serious way, but in Norway everything is automatically dismissed as conspiracy theories. In the 1900s, the word "conspiracy theory" was rarely used. In the early 80s, when it needed foreign submarines into Swedish naval bases and ports, the media wrote that these were Soviet – but then Foreign Minister Lennart Bodström said there was no evidence of this. The media campaign against him became fierce and he had to step down. Social Democrat Bodström was called "conspiracy theorist" by Americans. However, in the year 2000, former US Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger and British Navy Secretary Keith Speed ​​determined that they had operated with submarines deep within Swedish waters to test Swedish coastal defense. The background was the "too strong" and "too critical" Swedish social democracy. Former US Naval Intelligence commander and CIA nest commander, Admiral Bobby Inman, said that Soviet submarines had also operated in Swedish territorial waters – but that it was not those who had operated farthest in archipelagos and ports. When I wrote about this, I immediately got the conspiracy theorist stamp of Færseth's like-minded. That US and British ministers and admirals had confirmed the situation did not seem to matter.

Lepers. In all of the above cases, the word "conspiracy theory" has been used to label Social Democrats who did not support 100 percent of American politics. The label today has the same function as the "dissident" had in the Soviet Union. Everyone knew that you could not talk to a "dissident"; if you did that, you risked your whole career. The conspiracy theorist, like the Soviet dissident, is a leper, one that anyone can spit on while others applaud – and the one who does not applaud is himself suspected. The Swedish journalist and lead writer for Dagens Nyheter Olle Alsén wrote in his leadership position in 1987 that the submarines in Swedish waters may not have been Soviet. The next time he took the elevator to the canteen for lunch, everyone in the elevator turned away from him. No one dared talk to him, the "conspiracy theorist."

But it was not until the 2000s that the concept really began to circulate in Scandinavia. Discussing the terror of our day is far more difficult. My old history professor argued that I shouldn't write about things that happened after World War II, because significant documents are still not downgraded and available. But I wrote my doctoral dissertation in the 80s on the US naval strategy at the time, and I gave lectures at Swedish, Norwegian and US military colleges. I wrote books that were on the syllabus of universities and military colleges, also in the United States. In retrospect, I know that some of the theories were not correct, but several of the topics can not even be expressed even today. When, after September 11, 2001, I discussed the collapse of the Twin Towers in New York with a key intelligence person, he said that this was something to be quiet about. That he found large quantities of molten steel and residues from the military explosive nanothermite in considerable quantities in the dust from the towers was almost impossible to mention. If anyone should get into the topic anyway, powerful actors advocate total marginalization of the person. He or she is immediately a "conspiracy theorist".

The label "conspiracy theorist" today has the same function as "dissident" in the Soviet Union.

We do not know what happened on September 11, 2001, but we know that when former top executives in the intelligence, and people like the West German Social Democratic Minister Andreas von Bülow, question the official version, the conspiracy tag immediately marginalizes and freezes from the good company . von Bülow was in parliament in the 80s and 90s responsible for the control of intelligence services.

One could say that it is unlikely that the Americans themselves would be behind the blast of the towers of New York; but that Germany should set up concentration camps for gasification of people, also appeared unlikely to many Swedes and Norwegians in the 30s. The important thing is to analyze what has happened empirically.

It was, of course, a mistake by Truls Lie to take up this matter; he then also deleted the post shortly after posting it. Possibly he should have waited a few decades to publish it – when some of the documents may have been downgraded.

also read
The new positivism
"Obviously 9 / 11 was a blast"

Ola Tunander
Ola Tunander
Tunander is Professor Emeritus of PRIO. See also wikipedia, at PRIO: , as well as a bibliography on Waterstone

You may also like