* 9/11 and the New American Century
The great masses of the people in the very bottom of their
hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and
purposely evil...therefore, in view of the primitive
simplicity of their minds, they more easily fall a victim to a
big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in
little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big.
- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor
slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best
that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in
Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in
Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and it is always a
simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a
democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a
Communist dictatorshipŠ[V]oice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country.
- Hermann Goering, interview during the Nuremberg Trials,
April 18, 1946
The world changed on September 11, 2001, with the attacks on
the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The changes were
profound, affecting each of our lives, our attitude toward
'security,' and the whole context of international relations.
Let us first trace these developments within the world of the
Matrix, and after that we'll seek to understand what's really
been going on. Here's the basic story, as told inside the
Matrix:
American officials at all levels were caught completely off
guard on 9/11 by a terrorist attack that used totally
unexpected methods; our standard defenses were unequipped to
deal with it. The government responded quickly to this new
kind of threat, realizing that it could come in many forms,
including dirty bombs and biological weapons. A Patriot Act
was passed, giving the government the power it needs to track
wouldbe terrorists and prevent them from getting around our
security procedures. Civil libertarians say these measures
threaten our civil liberties, but they are intended only for
terrorists, and we need the measures for our security.
A general War on Terrorism was declared, with Homeland
Security on the domestic front, and a general warning to
terroristsupporting nations that they might be liable to
attack. The government soon followed up on these warnings with
an attack on Afghanistan, and later Iraq. Our leaders will
leave no stone unturned in their effort to ensure our
security. When they believed that Saddam Hussein was preparing
to threaten us with terrorist weapons of mass destruction,
they wisely invaded, intending not only to protect us, but
also to bring the blessings of freedom and democracy to the
suppressed Iraqi people.
Since the attacks of 9/11, our nation has been on the
defensive. We are discovering threats all over the world, and
we are stretching our resources in order to respond adequately
to them. We have no designs of our own regarding conquest or
empire; we are simply doing our best to make the world safe
from terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. It is
regrettable that our allies do not give us more support.
In order to understand the reality of these developments, we
can begin by looking at the goals and the agenda of those who
occupy the White House - those who were responsible for our
security and defenses on 9/11 and who have subsequently made
the decisions about how to 'respond' to those events. Donald
Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and crew came into the White House
with a detailed agenda up their sleeves. The agenda of the new
White House was written up as a report, "Rebuilding America's
Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,"
produced in September 2000 by The Project for the New American
Century (PNAC), and now proudly displayed on their website.
The report is an updated version of a classified Defense
Policy Guidance document drafted in 1992 under the supervision
of Wolfowitz. Some of the founding members of PNAC include
Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Richard Perle, a group
who are frequently referred to as neocons (neoconservatives).
Here are some excerpts from their written agenda for the New
American Century, with emphasis added.
[T]he United States has for decades sought to play a more
permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved
conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the
need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf
transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein. (PNAC,
14)
Further, these constabulary missions are far more complex and
likely to generate violence than traditional 'peacekeeping'
missions. For one, they demand American political leadership
rather than that of the United Nations, as the failure of the
UN mission in the Balkans and the relative success of NATO
operations there attests. (PNAC, 11)
Despite the shifting focus of conflict in Europe, a
requirement to station U.S. forces in northern and central
Europe remains. The region is stable, but a continued American
presence helps to assure the major European powers, especially
Germany, that the United States retains its longstanding
security interest in the continent. This is especially
important in light of the nascent European moves toward an
independent defense 'identity' and policy; it is important
that NATO not be replaced by the European Union, leaving the
United States without a voice in European security affairs.
(PNAC, 16)
Since today's peace is the unique product of American
preeminence, a failure to preserve that preeminence allows
others an opportunity to shape the world in ways antithetical
to American interests and principles. The price of American
preeminence is that, just as it was actively obtained, it must
be actively maintained. (PNAC, 73)
To preserve American military preeminence in the coming
decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively
to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts,
and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military
affairs (PNAC, 50).
Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings
revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor
(PNAC, 51).
It is ironic, and perhaps intentionally so, that the neocons
chose 'a new Pearl Harbor' as their metaphor. Recently
released documents are now revealing that America had broken
the Japanese codes, that President Roosevelt knew precisely
when and where they were going to strike, and that he felt he
needed such a dramatic incident in order to bring (then
strongly isolationist) America into the war and stop the
Nazis.
Much new light has been shed on Pearl Harbor through the
recent work of Robert B. Stinnett, a World War II Navy
veteran. Stinnett has obtained numerous relevant documents
through the Freedom of Information Act. In Day of Deceit: The
Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor (2000), the book so brusquely
dismissed by director Bruckheimer, Stinnett reveals that
Roosevelt's plan to provoke Japan began with a memorandum from
Lieutenant Commander Arthur H. McCollum, head of the Far East
desk of the Office of Naval Intelligence. The memorandum
advocated eight actions predicted to lead Japan into attacking
the United States. McCollum wrote: "If by these means Japan
could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the
better." FDR enacted all eight of McCollum's provocative steps
- and more.
While no one can excuse Japan's belligerence in those days, it
is also true that our government provoked that country in
various ways - freezing her assets in America; closing the
Panama Canal to her shipping; progressively halting vital
exports to Japan until we finally joined Britain in an allout
embargo; sending a hostile note to the Japanese ambassador
implying military threats if Tokyo did not alter its Pacific
policies; and on November 26th - just 11 days before the
Japanese attack - delivering an ultimatum that demanded, as
prerequisites to resumed trade, that Japan withdraw all troops
from China and Indochina, and in effect abrogate her
Tripartite Treaty with Germany and Italy.
After meeting with President Roosevelt on October 16, 1941,
Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote in his diary: "We face
the delicate question of the diplomatic fencing to be done so
as to be sure Japan is put into the wrong and makes the first
bad move - overt move." On November 25th, the day before the
ultimatum was sent to Japan's ambassadors, Stimson wrote in
his diary: "The question was how we should maneuver them [the
Japanese] into the position of firing the first shot...."
(Perloff)
Prior to 9/11, the neocons were facing precisely the same
predicament Roosevelt had faced: they had a momentous agenda
they were eager to pursue, and it was an agenda that the
domestic population would be strongly opposed to. And like
Roosevelt, the neocons had the means to bring about a
sufficiently dramatic incident to shift public opinion. In
Roosevelt's case he simply needed to wait for Japan to respond
to his provocations; in the neocons' case, they needed only to
arrange the events of 9/11. They were certainly in a much
better position to do so than was the ragtag bunch Al Qaeda
allegedly sent over to do the job - and the neocons had a much
more understandable motive as well.
[W]hen you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains,
HOWEVER IMPROBABLE, must be the truth.
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
We'll probably never know for sure what really happened on
that day, but the number of glaring anomalies in the Matrix
version of 9/11 are countless, from the failure to follow
standard intercept procedures in the case of hijacked
aircraft, to the mysterious collapse of a third WTC building
that was not hit by a plane, to the numerous urgent warnings
U.S. intelligence had received from around the world - warning
of precisely such an attack by Al Qaeda, to several FBI
investigations into Al Qaeda prior to 9/11 that were
mysteriously quashed from Washington, to an exercise being
carried out on the very day regarding hijacked airliners, to
the fact that some of the alleged terrorists had been secretly
trained by U.S. security forces. That part of the Matrix is
riddled with glitches.
NEW YORK CITY, NY (Oct. 26, 2004) An alliance of 100 prominent
Americans and 40 family members of those killed on 9/11 today
announced the release of the 9/11 Truth Statement, a call for
immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level
government officials may have deliberately allowed the
September 11th attacks to occur. The Statement supports an
August 31st Zogby poll that found nearly 50% of New Yorkers
believe the government had foreknowledge and "consciously
failed to act," with 66% wanting a new 9/11 investigation.
- http://www.9/11truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633
Whether they had a hand in the events of 9/11 or not, those
events provided precisely the "new Pearl Harbor" that the
neocons believed was necessary so that their path to pursuing
their PNAC agenda would not "be a long one." Regardless of who
was responsible for the dramatic incident, it has led us to a
Matrix world where a 'War on Terrorism' is being pursued, and a
real world where the U.S. is grabbing for global hegemony, and
the infrastructure has been put in place to turn the USA - by
virtue of the 'Patriot Act' - into a fully regimented society,
under military administration. According to 50% of New
Yorkers, at least, these glitches in the Matrix are becoming
rather transparent.
This agenda, which has been cherished by the neocons for at
least twelve years, casts a different light on American
'responses' to the events of 9/11. In terms of the Matrix
construct, the driving motivations for invading Iraq -
evidence of weapons of mass destruction and support for
terrorism - have turned out to be untrue. But in terms of the
PNAC agenda, the invasion of Iraq is clearly called out as an
important early initiative. The invasion of Afghanistan seems
to have done little to curtail the alleged activities of Bin
Laden or Al Qaeda, but it goes a long way toward projecting
American force into South Asia and extending "American
military preeminence," as recommended in the PNAC report.
Although the report does not mention economics or mineral
resources specifically, it can be taken as obvious that
control over petroleum sources and pipelines is a primary
element of "military preeminence." Besides, we need to keep in
mind the Anglo-American elite's timehonored strategy of
oil-based dominance, which the PNAC agenda clearly serves.
While in the Matrix the USA is defending itself against
terrorism around the world, we can see that in reality America
is pursuing an aggressive, expansionist campaign, following
the recipe outlined in the neocons' own PNAC agenda.
With the PNAC agenda being expressed both in word and deed, we
can now see how geopolitical order is to be managed in the
new-millennium blueprint. Not content to remain merely the
global policeman, the U.S. is striking out to be the outright
global dictator. The term 'Pax Americana' is of course a
reference to Pax Romana - the internal peace of the Roman
Empire. In the new blueprint this reference becomes all the
more apt, with the Pentagon now taking on the role of the
invincible Roman Legions, and Washington as the new Rome.
The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden
fist - McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas,
the builder of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the
world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the
United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
- Thomas L. Friedman, New York Times, March 28, 1999
--
http://cyberjournal.org
"Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World"
http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/Apocalypse_and_NWO.html
List archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog
Subscribe to low-traffic list:
•••@••.•••
