ga('send', 'pageview');
John Passant

Site menu:

October 2010
« Sep   Nov »



RSS Oz House



Subscribe to us

Get new blog posts delivered to your inbox.


Site search


Keep socialist blog En Passant going - donate now
If you want to keep a blog that makes the arguments every day against the ravages of capitalism going and keeps alive the flame of democracy and community, make a donation to help cover my costs. And of course keep reading the blog. To donate click here. Keep socialist blog En Passant going. More... (4)

Sprouting sh*t for almost nothing
You can prove my 2 ex-comrades wrong by donating to my blog En Passant at BSB: 062914 Account: 1067 5257, the Commonwealth Bank in Tuggeranong, ACT. More... (12)

My interview Razor Sharp 18 February
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp on Tuesday 18 February. (0)

My interview Razor Sharp 11 February 2014
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace on Razor Sharp this morning. The Royal Commission, car industry and age of entitlement get a lot of the coverage. (0)

Razor Sharp 4 February 2014
Me on 4 February 2014 on Razor Sharp with Sharon Firebrace. (0)

Time for a House Un-Australian Activities Committee?
Tony Abbott thinks the Australian Broadcasting Corporation is Un-Australian. I am looking forward to his government setting up the House Un-Australian Activities Committee. (1)

Make Gina Rinehart work for her dole

Sick kids and paying upfront


Save Medicare

Demonstrate in defence of Medicare at Sydney Town Hall 1 pm Saturday 4 January (0)

Me on Razor Sharp this morning
Me interviewed by Sharon Firebrace this morning for Razor Sharp. It happens every Tuesday. (0)



9/11, Afghanistan and the lies of the establishment

On the day of a parliamentary debate into Australia’s role in the war on Afghanistan, Jon Faine, presenter of ABC Radio’s widely listened to Melbourne Morning Program, declared: “There’s nothing to debate.” He went on to tell listeners that those with views “which are so wrong on such an important issue” are not entitled to an opinion.

Unfortunately, Jon was not raving about any of the nefarious lies being peddled in the federal parliament justifying Australian military involvement. Instead he was outraged by the conspiracy theory that MUA Victorian State Secretary and Victorian Trades Hall Council (VTHC) President Kevin Bracken articulated when on Faine’s radio program. Bracken thinks 9/11 was an inside job.

Predictably, he was pulled up by anyone and everyone in a day of furore over his comments. The editorial in the Herald Sun condemned the theory as “nothing short of appalling”. Federal Liberal MP Josh Frydenberg pushed Julia Gillard to take action against Bracken (who is a Labor Party member). Gillard described Bracken’s comments as “stupid and wrong”.

His own union and the VTHC distanced themselves from him – obviously seeking some damage control.

Bracken’s comments are wrong. But the one thing that can be said of his theory is that it is at least premised on an understanding of a certain reality: that the US is prepared to kill countless civilians to serve its imperialist agenda. In that regard, his theory is far less batty than the rubbish spewing out of the mouths of “respectable” parliamentarians over the last two days. Take these examples:

Wrong view #1: Julia Gillard

Australia is involved in the Afghanistan war “to make sure that Afghanistan never again becomes a safe haven for terrorists”.

This statement is completely hollow. If networks of terrorists are a scourge that the government is intent on uprooting, why is the Australian military not engaged in Florida hunting down Luis Posada Carriles, and shutting down the host of known terrorist training camps which dot the south of the US state? Why, in the Prime Minister’s own words were there “no Australian units deployed in Afghanistan between December 2002 and September 2005”?

To ask these questions provides the answer. Terrorism was a pretext for war, but it is no overriding consideration. Western governments had a bigger fish to fry with Saddam Hussein. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie admitted in his contribution to the debate that Afghanistan is “irrelevant” with regard to terrorism. Wilkie supported the war on the basis that al-Qaeda was based there. Now they are not, so he is perplexed that foreign forces would remain.

Wilkie is a former army senior intelligence analyst, but he is lacking in understanding when it comes to the strategic motives of the US. It has only ever had one goal with these wars – to secure US supremacy among states.

Wrong view #2: Julia Gillard

“The new international strategy…is focused on: protecting the civilian population…and facilitating improvements in governance and socio-economic development…”

The civilians in Afghanistan have always been expendable. The country is under a foreign military occupation which is responsible for thousands of deaths; there are around 250,000 internally displaced and several million refugees in neighbouring countries.

Today the “international strategy” is actually to do whatever it takes to save face. The only outcry yet heard in the Australian parliament over civilian deaths in Afghanistan has been the one that ensued after several soldiers were recently charged over the alleged murder of Afghan children. And the uproar was not about murder – but that perhaps the troops are being hard done by.

As for improvements in governance, as Greens MP Adam Bandt pointed out in his contribution, “US General David Petraeus reportedly describes the Karzai government as a ‘criminal syndicate’” – yet this man and his hired goons have run the country for years now, receiving billions of dollars in support.

His claim to that support? He is the only person who seems to be able to cobble together a substantial coalition that is prepared to tolerate the US presence.

Wrong view #3: Tony Abbott

“Afghanistan has been the central front in the most important civilisational struggle of our times.”

This is possibly the most offensive justification for war that has been peddled in Australia – or anywhere for that matter. The idea that the US military machine – now responsible for probably over one million deaths in Iraq and the almost complete destruction of one of the Middle East’s most advanced nations – is a beacon of light in a war for progressive human values is one of the most racist and vile contentions around.

Someone should have thrown a pair of shoes – and the box – at his ugly little mug. Instead he went effectively unchallenged and was heard in silence. What a complete indictment of parliamentary respectability.

The parliament is full of these nutbags with unsupportable views, but you wouldn’t know it from reading or listening to the mainstream media. For them, bullshit justifications for endless slaughter in the name of the prestige and standing of the US empire are the bread and butter of legitimate debate.

Yet anyone who dares question the motives of the killing machine is derided as somehow insensitive. What hypocrisy.

This article, by Ben Hillier, first appeared in Socialist Alternative online on 22 October.



Comment from Arjay
Time October 27, 2010 at 7:54 pm

WTC 7 47 storey sky scaper,which no plane impacted, came down 6 hrs after the towers in 6.5 sec at virtual freefall speeds into its own footprint, like a rock falling off a cliff.It took 6 yrs for the US to publish a sham report on it.

WTC7 was reported on the BBC as collapsed 20 min before it actually happened.

As Kevin Bracken said ,aviation fuel burns at less than half the temps of molten steel,yet we have photographic and eye witness testimony of molten steel flowing like lava.

No evidence of pancaked floors.Concrete pulverised into dust.Witnesses hearing explosions.Human bone fragments found atop of buildings 600 ft away.

Prof Neils Harrit came to Sydney in July this yr to present his paper on nano thermite.His team of 9 international scientists have proof of this highly sophistocated military explosive being found in all 3 buildings of the WTC.
No Western Govt will even acknowledge the evidence let alone examine it.
Thanks John Passant for having the courage to air the truth.Many in power know it, but like people in Nazi Germany have become weak and fearful.

Pingback from En Passant » 9/11, Afghanistan and the lies of the estblishment : – Learn the truth , no more lies
Time October 28, 2010 at 1:56 am

[…] Originally posted here:  En Passant » 9/11, Afghanistan and the lies of the estblishment […]

Comment from Bernard
Time October 28, 2010 at 9:55 am

What can you expect from an illustrious allumini of Queens College Oxford The 1981 NSW Rhodes Scholar Tony Abbott. Cecil John Rhodes would have cheered the efforts of his scholars attempts to bring recalcitrant Afghanistan into his imperialist fold.
in his Will outlines four criteria to be used in the election of Scholars:

* literary and scholastic attainments
* energy to use one’s talents to the full
* truth, courage, devotion to duty, sympathy for and protection of the weak, kindliness, unselfishness and fellowship
* moral force of character and instincts to lead, and to take an interest in one’s fellow beings.
Which I am sure that Tony practises in his political career.

Comment from Marco
Time October 29, 2010 at 7:22 am


The use of spin and “distortions” of the truth is an old tradition of all forms of Government.

The difference is that once upon a time, spin doctors actually tried to make things believable; what we see nowadays is only remarkable in that it is obviously wrong.

You might remember that, back in 2001, the Taliban chieftain Mullah Omar offered to hand Bin Laden over to the Yanks.

But the Yanks refused. I don’t know how others might interpret this, but I see it as a refusal to settle things peacefully. They could have brought Bin Laden to justice, but they preferred to invade the country; thus, it is not justice what they want, either.

So, on the basis of empirical evidence available, can we conclude anything about the true motivations behind the invasion?

Well, “yes, we can”. The former German President Horst Koehler had to resign this year for admitting candidly that the true reason Germany sent troops to Afghanistan was “to protect our interests… for example free trade routes”.

German President Koehler quits amid row over military. BBC. 31-05-10.

Now, tell me, if Koehler knew this, could Howard, Rudd or Gillard possibly be ignorant?

Gerhard Schroeder, however, had promised that German troops would go there to pacify and rebuild the country.

The same shit here: we’re there to help these poor people. And we’re so intent on helping them, that we send them to concentration camps here. Or worse: we send them back.

I’m writing a series of blogs on a related subject, mostly referenced to South America, but that will have final ramifications to a wider intellectual debate.

You are welcome to have a look at my blog, if you are interested on this subject.

Comment from Arjay
Time October 29, 2010 at 12:47 pm

Marco, if you want an excellent view of world power plays,see

This imperialism is driven by the large corporate forces of the planet.They are not bound by the laws of any country and have corrupted our Govts by the power of money.

Comment from Arjay
Time October 29, 2010 at 6:58 pm

This is really worth listening to.Anthony Lawson does an analysis of the Jon Faine Kevin Bracken interview.

Comment from marianK
Time October 30, 2010 at 9:54 am

Ben Hillier writes an article about governments lying to cover up the fact that they are prepared to kill countless civilians to serve their imperial agenda. So why introduce it with an anecdote about Keith Bracken making this same point in the context of 9/11 on ABC radio, and then bluntly stating that the Bracken is wrong?

By association then, this indicates that anyone who argues that governments are prepared to kill innocent civilians and cover their actions with official lies must also be wrong. The author’s unwillingness to entertain any possibility that Bracken could be right or partly right shoots his own article in the foot.

PS Thanks Arjay for that excellent link to Anthony Lawson’s analysis. I’ll be making an official complaint to the ABC about Jon Faine’s appalling behaviour. It was also gratifying to see the results of the poll that showed over 75% of Faine’s listeners actually agreed with Bracken.

Comment from Arjay
Time October 30, 2010 at 12:43 pm

MarianK, don’t be too harsh on John Passant.Alan Hart a well known English journo has recently come out about 911 saying he knew from the inception that 911 was a false flag event but did not want to be branded a nutter.H e worked under cover for many years. Alan Hart is a good friend of John Pilger who officially accepts the US Govts version.Pilger in many of his articles comes close to the bone in accusing the US Govt of being involved.John Pilger has a good relationship with John Passant.I think that John Passant knows the truth and will choose his time like Alan Hart to come out.

Ron Paul the Congressman for Texas is on asking for a new investigation but officially falls in line with the US Govt view.

It is a game of judgement because you can lose credibility if you choose the wrong time to speak the truth.I’m with John Bursil and the ae911truth movement in Aust.We have made really good progress over the last 12 mnths.Spread the word.

Comment from marianK
Time October 31, 2010 at 8:24 am

Arjay. I was being critical of Ben Hillier, the original writer of the SA article, not John (who I think is wonderful and does a great job here … but don’t tell him I told you).

As for 911 Truth, you can add Robert Fisk to the small but increasing list of respected journalists who have tentatively ‘come out’ on this. My own feeling is that proven (or at least well documented) false flags from the past – the Luisitania sinking, the MI5 bombings of Dublin, the Israeli plot to fool the US into attacking Libya etc – are easily sidelined from history anyway, due to the all too human capacity to want to trust the powerful. However, it’s still important to obtain the full story one way or another on all the issues that affect us, regardless of what is done about it.

Comment from John
Time October 31, 2010 at 4:01 pm

Thanks marianK. Ben Hillier was making the point that all the outrage was directed against Kevin when the lies of the elite about Afghanistan and our reasons for being there go unchallenged. As do the deaths of tens of thousands of civilians because of our invasion. But let’s be frank. There is no US Government involvement or conspiracy over 9/11. Al Qaeda did it.

Comment from Arjay
Time October 31, 2010 at 8:16 pm

John ” Let’s be frank, Al Queda did it.” I thought they had two name changes ie CIAEDA and Mossqueda.

Apparently Bin Larden ate so much fatty BS he suffered and panic attack and used Michael Jackson’s plastic surgeon to flatten his nose.Rumour has that Osama Bin Larden of the fat noses, is worried that his nose might turn white and fall off due to too much surgery by the CIAEDA.

We could have a Lazarus Bin Larden of the fat noses and start a who new religon.Where’s Monty Python when you need him?

Comment from John
Time November 1, 2010 at 5:51 am

Arjay, I think you conflate two issues – the brutality of imperialism and those who respond to it. I am the last person to point out the crimes of US imperialism. They produce blow back. 9/11 was blow back.

Comment from Arjay
Time November 1, 2010 at 7:10 pm

John 911 was the catalyst for their New World Order. It was more than blow back

I see this facism beginning in 1913 with Woodrow Wilson granting a private group of banks called the Federal Reserve power to create the US currency.This meant they could own the increases in GDP and steal by counterfeiting which we call inflation. These banksters create wars and profit from them.It is all a power game to them. It is these Global Reserve banks that now have a strangle hold on our Govts.We cannot even raise our own capital to equal our own productivity without their permission.This is economic slavery via debt.

They are now making the biggest play for control of the world’s resources and energy via endless wars based on the lie of terrorism. Pilger here says at the very least Bush and the neo-cons “Let it happen” Some years before 911 Zibineiw Brzezinski,”What we needis a truely massive and widely perceived direct external threat.” The threat of the cold war was over and they needed a new enemy to subdue us.