Theater of Cruelty


MEDIA / When did it become part of the Beware poster to take everything in the worst sense?


The monthly newspaper Ny Tid will no longer be delivered with Klassekampen. As an editor, I am happy for the two years we have been together, and editor Bjørgulv Braanen obviously has the right to end the collaboration.

The two newspapers have their differences. Where Ny Tid holds a more international one orientering, with an ecological and neo-anarchist superstructure, the Klassekampen is probably more domestically popular and nationally focused. Lenin also in his time rejected the anarchists completely, while Marx was perhaps more anarchist in his thinking than many would like. Hence our sharp criticism of state power, especially globally.

But the 9/11 case in the previous newspaper has created a great debate, both in edited newspapers and in social media. Also littering. When did it become part of the Be Careful poster to take everything in the worst sense? Where one engages in debate to defeat, rather than in dialogue to enrich?

Ny Tid's main story about 9/11 in the previous newspaper has as many as seven observations or scientific facts supported by several thousand serious engineers and architects in the criticism of the official, flawed US NIST report on fire as the main cause of the collapse. This is being discussed in a healthy and responsible manner in the USA. We thus represented the counter-votes, as the "accepted truth" was well known.

Reasonable suspicion is not pure speculation. That Klassekampen's editor Bjørgulv Braanen chooses to use a full-page editorial (19.9 September) to support the NIST report – that is his own choice. But he shows a strange bias which is countered here by experts (see here ). As the editor of Ny Tid, I am skeptical of the NIST report, something I share with thousands of serious people who are still discussing and researching the events of September 11, 2001. Even NIST has stated that the full explanation for the total collapse of the WTC7 building, it has they don't.

I don't think the Americans were behind a possible controlled demolition, as Braanen told me ("Inside job"). Because the terrorists may have had such a motivation.

We are now attacked via induction rather than rational deduction from the arguments. If you find one weak source, you generalize this to apply to everything in a case. The label from Klassekampen was "extreme conspiracy theory".

But I put an end to 9/11 there, as this is certainly not the "new line" that some try to stick on me.

Ny Tid is a monthly commentary where, as a principle, we base a lot on essayistic journalism – subjectively probing, questioning, reflective and the heretical. And as Braanen wrote, it must be allowed to make mistakes. We publish 50 articles every month, including 30 book and film reviews. We have a fantastic group of freelancers in Ny Tid, as well as the Cultural Council's support. As an edited medium, unsubstantiated claims are rare with us.

This is probably the reason why we now received hundreds of subscribers and statements of support when Klassekampen kicked us out.

Thanks for that!

In fact plain craftsmanship
Let's stick to science when it comes to 9/11, not conspiracies
Obviously 9/11 was an explosion
The new positivism
The new 

Truls Lie
Truls Liehttp: /
Editor-in-chief in MODERN TIMES. See previous articles by Lie i Le Monde diplomatique (2003–2013) and Morgenbladet (1993-2003) See also part video work by Lie here.

You may also like