--------------------------------------------------------
From: BE Goodman
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:05:02 EDT
Subject: Re: Events of 9-11 - What do you think?
To: •••@••.•••
I want you to know that not only do I believe what you are saying about
9/11, but I started to think it even when the event occurred. I just
didn't know how they did it. I have been interested in investigating
this, and have heard somewhat a similar story from a number of different
sources, which makes it all the more certain that it all adds up.
An interview with a Col. Donn de Grand Pre, who for ten years had sold
armaments throughout the world for the good ole USA, suddenly felt he
was selling his soul to the devil, and got out of the firing range. His
interview should be of interest to you because it tells EXACTLY how 9/11
was done. I think it is still on: WarFolly.com, and has written three
books, the last of which is called "The Enemy Is Inside The Gates", and
was with the Alex Jones radio show on February 25, 2004.
I printed out the interview, and if you cannot find it any other way, I
can arrange to mail it to you. He lives in Virginia, and I have spoken
with him by phone: 540-547-2996. He does not have an email address. I
am headed up to Washington soon, and was invited to stop in and talk
with him.
I am debating this, because, when I got his books, I was turned off by
something you, too, have said. And that is that this was a Zionist
plot, and Israel was in on it, also. Perhaps some of the people plotting
this were Jewish, and perhaps I share a wariness re Sharon, (just as
Bush & Co. is part of the USA, but that doesn't make all of USA like
them). Being Jewish, and even being a simple human being, I don't like a
whole group tarred and feathered by the few who perhaps deserve the
titles.
I wanted to immediately pass this on to a number of people on my email
list, but had to hesitate, because the reference to Zionists and Israel
would turn them off, as it did me, to the more important facts, or
"presented facts" of what actually happened on 9/11.
Exposure is the name of the game, and, I believe, what will undo the
glue which this administration is so carefully using to hide its true
objectives. (extreme secrecy).
But this email does not include what I hesitated about, so will be
forwarding this to the many on my list.
Let's keep in touch
I am part of an election coalition group, but I am more and more
convinced that this election will be rigged, with machines that cannot
be recounted, and are 85% owned by those who have vowed to re-elect
Bush. So exposure is about the only way I can think to thwart his
re-election. And we have got to spread the word, especially to those
who feel we Americans cannot possibly do those horrible things!! So, God
bless you, and let's keep in touch!
Evelyn Goodman
<mailto:•••@••.•••>
--------------------
Dear Evelyn,
Nice to hear from you. Thanks for taking the time to share and express
your experiences and attitudes. I would appreciate if you could send a
copy of the Grand Pre interview by email, if you have it handy.
I too am bothered by Kaminski's compulsive need to bring in superfluous
references to Zionism in everything he writes. Many of us have written to
him about that being counter-productive, and I must say he has toned
down somewhat over time in that regard. Nonetheless, I do not post many
of his essays, even though I read many of them and usually find them
quite useful.
In general, I do not restrict my postings to things that I agree 100%
with. Sometimes we can find unique and credible testimony embedded
within the context of a disturbed mind. Why should we deprive ourselves
of useful bits wherever we can find them? No one ever said this list was
politically correct. I'm assuming everyone out there is an adult, thinks
for themselves, and can pick the wheat from the chaff.
Personnaly, I find it most effective to keep my analysis as simple as
possible - focus on the central elements and use the least controversial
of the available evidence that reveals those elements. I don't find it
necessary to bring in the Isaeli connection when looking at 9/11, the
War on Terrorism, or the role of the mass media.
You discuss Zionism in terms of its psychological effect in
argumentation, and that is a topic that deserves some further
discussion. The problem comes up a lot, and it generates divisiveness
and non-listening among folks who would do better to think of themselves
as allies.
Now that you've pointed out the elephant in the kitchen, let's take a
look at it objectively. There is the State of Israel, there are the
Zionist special interest groups in Israel and in the US, there is
the Jewish culture, with its several branches, and there are the Jewish
people and there are Israeli citizens. Those are all different things.
My view of the Israeli state is that it is collaborating with the US in the
grand imperialist adventure - each party a tool of the other (a bit like
the relationship between the US and the UK). It's a symbiotic
relationship that has gone on for decades. The Israelis provide seasoned
terrorist trainers so the White House can have plausible deniability
about the atrocities in Latin America. The US provides the billions of
dollars of aid necessary to maintain the formidable Israeli military.
The list of collaborations goes on and on.
The Mossad is highly respected in terms of its Intelligence competence,
both with information and with operations. It would not be at all
surprising if the Mossad were to be tapped to carry out very deep cover
operations in the US. Particularly if only the top levels of the US
Intelligence network were in the know about the op. The Mossad has the
necessary know-how, they keep good security, they have agents whose
faces aren't familiar to the domestic Intelligence and law enforcement
communities, and they can disappear back home when the job's done. And
they owe us. An ideal choice I'd say.
To me, it doesn't matter much who was tapped to do the 9/11 job. The
important questions are about those at the top who made the decisions
and issued the instructions. There was no lack of available operatives,
Mossad just being a likely and presumably handy choice.
Zionism is real, and fundamentalist Zionism is real. From before Israel
was a state there has always been an element in the leadership with an
extreme view regarding ethnic cleansing, expansionism, and a Greater
State of Israel - all linked with a fundamentalist Biblical
interpretation in which their imperialist agenda is seen as the Will of
God. Sharon has long been part of this wing. I recall reading that he
personally participated in massacres of Palestinian villagers as a lead
up the formation of the Israeli state. These are the kind of people who
now determine policy for Israel. They are like the neocons in the White
House. Except they've been in power a lot longer. Neither group is
representative of the sentiments of their populations generally.
The neocons and the Zionists have a lot in common. Both groups are
expansionist imperialists, they both deal a lot in terrorism, and they
both cultivate a primitive tribal level of religious response in their
constituencies. In a very real sense, they are playing out the script of
a typical cult, something the CIA has been rehearsing for years, ever
since People's Temple. And the script is not that different than the one
followed by that earlier fascist leader, the one who appealed to the
primitive tribal levels of the Germanic psyche. In fact, there's a very
direct link between the Nazi regime and the groups currently in power in
the US and Israel. I have a great posting on that when we finish this
thread.
Zionism is both an elite agenda and a propaganda tool. It's content is
about imperialism, and it expresses itself as a set of cult doctrines
linked to deeply held primitive feelings in elements of the population -
not only of Israel, but perhaps more significantly in the American Jewish
community. The exploitation of this kind of propaganda is a very
important tool of the Israeli state and it's leadership.
Part of their propaganda effort is devoted to claiming that anyone who
opposes the extreme Zionist agenda - and the way things are being
handled in Palestine - is in fact anti-Semitic. (Kaminski plays into
their hands with his choice of language.) Again, the propaganda appeals
to deeply held primitive feelings, in this case tapping into collective
guilt around the Holocaust. They are expanding the base of their cult
following beyond those who respond to the fundamentalist interpretation
of the Old Testament. "Either you support the struggle of Israel,
whatever that leads to, or you're anti-Semitic." It's not that different
than Bush's, "Either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists."
As regards the election, I'm sure the script has already been written as
to who will get elected and what the agenda and rhetoric of the new
Administration will be. Here is an opportunity for a corporate
reorganization, a bit of consolidation perhaps, a soothing of the
domestic feathers. The election of Kerry would not be any great blow for
freedom, it would just be a change of style, and the playing out of the
script. Effort put into the elections is like stones thrown against a
castle wall. Of humorous interest to those inside, but hardly a threat
to them.
do stay in touch,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: M
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:44:06 EDT
Subject: Re: Kaminski: The fatal flaw in the 9/11 coverup
To: •••@••.•••
CC: •••@••.•••
Kaminski> "...by America's notoriously brainwashed Zionist press."
richard this kind of phrase is offensive to some people. it certainly is
offensive to me. and as you may or may not know i am very open minded.
in fact, i believe there was a 911 conspiracy. its not a frigging
'zionist press.' it's a freaknig 'mainstream corporate media.' i worked
in newspapers for 23 years, knight-ridder chain, and didn't have one
frigging zionist boss. or jewish one. tonyfrigging ridder and his
henchmen were some other type of monster. be very careful about
spreading hate where none is due. and you know i like you and i like
your work. as for why their records didn't show up on credit cards,
they paid cash. the level of this piece is not up to your standard.
--------------------
Dear M,
I agree that it is more useful to talk about "corporate media". The
point really is that the media follows an elite agenda. The subject of
"Who is the elite?" is a separate topic.
But since you are responding to the question of Zionist influence on the
media, let's talk about that. I am interpreting the world "Zionism" as I
did above - it's both an elite agenda (of imperialism) and a propaganda
ideology based on an appeal to deeply held beliefs. It refers to
fundamentalist interpretations of scripture, and in that way resonates
with fundamentalist Christians. It links to Holoaust guilt, and tries
to paint all critics as anti-Semites.
It is a fair question to ask to what degree the Zionist view influences
the content of the media. Such influence need not come in the form of
Jewish editors or executives, not by any means. Perhaps we should begin
by acknowledging that the media, particularly in the USA, acts as if it
is very heavily influenced indeed. Perhaps it is just coincidence, but
the stories we see are always supportive of the Israeli government and
its policies. You always see the faces and and the bereaved families
when there's a terrorist bombing in Israel - horrible pictures of harm
to innocent civilians. Wheras the Palestinians are always presented with
quite different pictures. You see people with raised fists, with
automatic weapons, nameless mobs - they don't look like innocent
civilians. Attacks by Israel are always accompanied by justifications,
it's never a case of terrorism no matter how brutal, how random, or how
deadly. If you were a Zionist who could somehow pull the strings, you
couldn't ask for a better result.
The fact is that propaganda is extremely important to the Israeli
regime. Public support in the US is absolutely critical to the survival
of the state, being entirely dependent on billions in US aid. There are
many Jewish organizations which are active in promoting the Israeli
position in the media. Just imagine the letters that would come in to
the New York Times if it seriously challenged fundamental Israeli
interests. And given the close alliance between US and Israel, it is in
the interest of the White House that its ally be presented in a good
light. Thus even if there weren't a direct influence by Zionist
organizations, the standard US propaganda mechanism would end up
exerting that influence by proxy.
I would say that we have a "Zionist compliant" media, and I'd say the
compliance is achieved by a variety of methods. "Zionist media" is
off-center as an overall characterization, it misses as you say the
support for globalization and corporate interests, which is more at the
center of elite policy.
I don't think this kind of discussion is "spreading hate." We all need
to face the facts. The propagandists want us to assume that criticism of
Israel is a sign of anti-Semitism. Kaminski should keep that in mind
when he chooses how to express himself. He fails to do that, and so the
propaganda climate causes many readers to dismiss him as an anti-Semite.
But readers have a responsibility as well. If they want to find out the
truth, they need to resist the propaganda pressures on them. The world
Zionist should not be seen as a red flag of dismissal. It is a useful
term, just like Neocon.
sorry you were offended,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 13:54:23 +0800
To: •••@••.•••
From: Dion Giles
Subject: Re: Events of 9-11 - What do you think?
I have found the discussion very useful, but short of evidence of a
really effective and reliable mechanism for precise control of airliners
from the ground I can't buy the notion that the PNAC crowd did it.
Without such a mechanism it required individuals who (1) were highly
skilled pilots and (2) were prepared to write themselves off to advance
the PNAC agenda. I find this no more believable than the scenario fed
us by the US beneficiaries.
Tentatively I would advance the proposition that the PNAC group (or a
subgroup within it) were well acquainted IN DETAIL with the proposed
attack -- time, place and method -- and decided to let it roll because
of the benefit (which is HUGE) that they could gain from it.
Involvement of Mossad both in gaining the necessary information and in
agreeing to conceal it (because of the relatively even greater potential
gain for consolidation and expansion of racist Israel) is almost
certain. There would not be the competence outside Mossad to keep
abreast of the plot and keep this knowledge secret. It is highly
unlikely that any group in the USA would have this dual capability.
Summary: Planned and carried out by Islamic terrorists, monitored in
detail by Mossad, facilitated by key elements in Washington. Three
major enemies of the people working in concert for perceived advantage.
Dion Giles
Western Australia
----------------
Dear Dion,
Thanks for sharing your ideas. I agree fully that the Kamakazi notion is
not credible for Western pilots, and I've seen no one propose that.
The remote control devices are real however. I've seen that confirmed
many times from diverse sources. Just the other day in the Irish Times,
for example, I was reading about a different kind of automatic override
that is being developed. This new kind is a computer system that takes
over control if a plane is approaching any large building or mountain
(it uses GPS). At the end of the article was a very brief note which
said, and I paraphrase, "An FAA official pointed out that planes have
for some time been equipped with remote control devices". (This was
intended to reduce doubts about the new system.)
Whether they are installed or not is a matter of fact, not of theory. Once
installed, all it takes is the addition of a simple video camera and
flying the plane remotely becomes trivial. It's just like playing a
video game. It could be done from anywhere - from a bunker under ground,
from an AWACS plane, or anywhere in between. On one screen you'd have
the video feed from the nose of the plane, and on the other screen you'd
have a satellite close-up of the plane from above. You move your joystick,
and the plane moves on both screens.
The Islamic terrorist theory is only credible if you are willing to
accept the Official Story about the collapse of the towers. There is a
LOT of evidence against that story. If you watch the video of the
collapse, you can see little explosions on each floor as it collapses,
and the rate of collapse moves downward faster than gravity could move
the mass. That's not how a building collapses, but it is how a
demolition system works. Once you accept the demolition notion, then it
becomes clear that the hijackers were not the primary perps. And if it
was a carefully planned Intelligence operation, then there's no way
those amateurs would have been allowed to determine its outcome.
cheers,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: "Robert Bolman"
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: The Stand Down
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 22:18:51 -0700
rkm> Well, it turns out that just two weeks before 9-11, President Bush
issued a directive saying that in future commercial intercepts could not
be authorized locally, but would henceforth require Presidential
authorization. Why did he do that?
Mr Moore,
I enjoy your posts.
I've been focusing at some length on the stand down as perhaps the
greatest 9-11 "smoking gun". Your most recent post was the first I had
heard of the above. This would certainly explain the stand down. But
now we're left with having to explain that presidential directive.
Where did you get the above information? It didn't mention it in "The
New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin. (I'm only half way through it,
but have covered the stand down section). It seems like a very
important piece of information to have heard nothing about until now.
Sincerely,
Robert Bolman
--------------
Dear Robert,
I first heard about the Presidential directive in a radio broadcast by
John Judge. We did learn in the regular media that on the day a
Presidential order would have been required for an intercept - but the
reports didn't say why it was required or why it wasn't forthcoming.
John Judge is a very interesting source. He knows his facts, he
articulates well, he doesn't have that annoying drone that characterizes
many conspiracy research buffs, and he talks about the big picture as
well as the details - the why as well as the how. I've got three audio
CDs of his and copies can be made available for anyone interested.
"jeb" sent in a copy (below) of an earlier directive, one that
centralized the intercept decisions in the office of FAA Administrator -
who must then send his request to the National Military Command Center
(NMCC). Even without the more recent directive, it is clear that the
White House could easily instruct the NMCC to check with the White House
before proceeding with any intercepts. The major enabling step was the
centralization of the decision making process.
all the best,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
From: Jim Bailey
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: The fatal flaw in the 9/11 coverup - Richard K. Moore
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 23:09:30 -0700
rkm > Well, it turns out that just two weeks before 9-11, President Bush
issued a directive saying that in future commercial intercepts could not
be authorized locally, but would henceforth require Presidential
authorization.
The attached was put on the web; do you have a later-dated document
giving intercept authority back to Bush? If so, please add it to your
reply.
jeb
[ jeb - sorry, I don't have a copy of the later document - thanks for
this one - rkm]
___________________________________________________
CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF
INSTRUCTION
J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A
DISTRIBUTION: A, B, C, J, S 1 June 2001
AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT
AIRBORNE OBJECTS
References: See Enclosure D.
1. Purpose. This instruction provides guidance to the Deputy Director
for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and
operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or
request for destruction of derelict airborne objects.
2. Cancellation. CJCSI 3610.01, 31 July 1997.
3. Applicability. This instruction applies to the Joint Staff, Services,
unified commands, and the US Element, North American Aerospace Defense
Command (USELEMNORAD).
4. Policy.
a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant
to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law
enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy
(hijacking) in the "special aircraft jurisdiction" of the United States.
When requested by the Administrator, Department of Defense will provide
assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c,
the NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing
assistance. In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by
the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception
of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests
for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD
assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d.
Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure A.
___________________________________________________
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2004 19:49:04 -0800
To: •••@••.•••
From: "Fred V. Cook"
Subject: Re: Events of 9-11 - What do you think?
Dear Richard,
Thank you for pursuing your inquiry in the way in which you are. I
believe that the inquiry does turn toward the psychology and ideology
which enable people to remain in denial.
My own observation is that it has several components.
a) The implications that "our own government" has executed a terror
campaign and coup against US democracy are just too disturbing to
contemplate. Many people do not have the free attention or flexibility
of character to undergo a change of world view of the scope which such an
idea would require. Their "sanity" or adjustment to "reality-for-them"
is so fragile that they feel that their psychological survival depends
upon not paying attention to such threatening ideas. Hence, the basic
psychological defense of denial. My father, for example, says "Even if
it were true, there's nothing I can do about it. It just raises my
blood pressure to think about it and I can't afford that."
A corollary is that it is just too implausible: The basic argument is
"You couldn't pull off an operation of that scale without having too
many people involved. It would inevitably leak." (This of course also
denies that the information we HAVE been finding constitutes a "leak".)
b) The "mainstream media" which represent a virtual oligopoly at this
point have carried only homeopathic, "inoculating/immunizing" doses of
the hardcore information and analysis which shows the Bush
Administration is lying about 9/11.
The result is that many people dismiss the information they do hear as
(i) wild speculation, somewhere between flying saucers and the survival
of Elvis and Hitler in credibility and importance, "the view from a
grassy knoll in Roswell" is my concise summary of this "conspiracy
theorist" putdown; (ii) Because, until recently, the main people who
were willing to RISK their social position and credibility by publicly
questioning the core of the 9/11 mythology were people who were already
suspicious of the Bush regime and its motives, so that people in my
union (for example) tend to dismiss the 'bringers of bad tidings' as
"ultra-leftist", "pinko-greens", "whiners", "narcissistic
attention-seekers", etc.
c) people who want to (1) be included in "polite company", (2) be safe
from political repression, (3) be employable, particularly in
"sensitive" positions are careful not to appear disloyal to the
administration - even if they may have doubts which they keep to
themselves. Questioning 9/11 is still not a popular position and one of
the means of "soft" repression is to privately and publicly ridicule
people who don't conform.
d) active surveillance and political repression against people who
publicly question the official story of 9/11 is an accomplished fact
here in the US of A. People who "make a nuisance of themselves" by
making a public fuss about the lying - such as by consistently speaking
up at public meetings, demonstrating in the streets, sitting in at
Congress people's offices, etc. are more likely to wind up on the "watch
list" and have their phone's tapped and generally receive a higher
degree of "enforcement" all around.
True. You are safer if you are white, middle class or higher, and of
course a born citizen - HOWEVER - this administration HAS flagrantly
violated the civil and human rights of a number of people, so far with
impunity, by branding them as "enemy combatants". It also has at its
disposal a "media and justice system" which is quite capable of framing,
convicting and executing people who prove to be "too much of a problem".
I have heard (understandably unconfirmed) reports of middle and upper
middle class (upstanding US citizens and probably Republicans at that)
individuals being given a whirlwind tour of "our" new persuasion,
interrogation, and detention facilities just off shore when they
refused to cooperate with certain covert expropriation plans of the
administration - it is all officially SECRET under the cloak of the
P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act. When you realize what they can do to you (starting
with kidnapping) WITH IMPUNITY - you have to be stronger, in many ways,
than most not to just shut up and go along.
AN ACQUAINTANCE of mine was a highly decorated fireman from Oakland,
CA. He went East to work on the WTC fires following 9/11. He was a
very bright guy; a winner of the MacArthur genius prize in fact.
Shortly after returning, he went out of the country on vacation. The
last I heard he had died under very odd circumstances. At present, it
is, for me, one of those "loose ends" awaiting investigation. My guess
is that having been there at Ground Zero and being as perceptive and
bright as he was, he may have wound up "knowing too much" and starting
to ask questions . . . a little bit like the fireman who is supposed to
have found an unexploded bomb near the nursery INSIDE the Federal
Building in Oklahoma City immediately after it was supposedly destroyed
by a truck bomb on the street outside - and somehow met his death the
day before he was to have been awarded a medal in a public ceremony.
e) the "9/11 Truth" movement itself has engaged in some nasty process -
including rudeness and outright exclusion of people who want to bring
evidence into the discussion which is at odds with the currently
dominant explanation of this or that event. One example that I found
shocking was the exclusion of people who wanted to present John Judge's
view, including supposed DNA evidence that an airliner HAD crashed into
the Pentagon (as opposed to the popular "it was a cruise missile"
theory). The question of just HOW the World Trade Center towers fell
down (pre-positioned standard demolition charges, vs. microwave phase
weapon to vaporize the water latent in concrete) is another area of
controversy in which the 9/11 Truth movement has shown itself capable of
more heat than light. This undermines the credibility of the whole
enterprise because outsiders see "intellectual irresponsibility" and
rudeness carrying the day rather than a true market place of ideas and
principled intellectual competition.
f) Related to (e) is the discussion within the 9/11 truth movement and
the wider "covert ops" view of US history (see PREVAILING WINDS, CAIB,
etc.) is the discussion of just how widespread and consolidated the 9/11
operation is - is it a "renegade" minority within the National Security
community, or does it - as I suspect - actually have mirror operations
in ALL the intelligence services of all the major national players
around the world? Does it represent a consensus ONLY of the narrowest of
NeoCons and Armageddonists, or does the Globalist-MultiLateralist
faction also give its tacit support because in the last analysis because
THEY ALSO SEE A NEED FOR an easy road to fascism in case the
anti-corporate globalization forces start getting out of hand.
I hope this is a useful contribution to your inquiry. As you might
imagine, I've been asking myself and people around me the same sorts of
questions SINCE 9/11.
I was one of those people who was shocked when I answered the phone and
turned on the TV to see the first WTC tower in smoke and flames. When I
saw the jet go through the SECOND tower I IMMEDIATELY thought "Reichstag
Fire" and "Pearl Harbor" and "Holy Shit, they're really doing it!" with
all the "New American Century" type implications, and I said so to my
partner with whom I was watching the TV.
As you might have guessed, I am one of those "alternative" history buffs
who doesn't trust the US government (or any others for that matter) and
hasn't since before the Pentagon Papers. I grew up next to a Strategic
Air Command (nuclear bomber) base and spent all my school years with the
offspring of Air Force personnel. I know that you can't have TWO
hijacked airliners fly through TWO sky scrapers in New York City without
having a "stand-down" order on the jets which otherwise are ALWAYS
standing by to scramble. I grew up with the kids of the men who fly
those interceptor jets. That is why I immediately "read" the event as I
did - this sort of thing doesn't happen in the US without orders from
the top.
I look forward to further discussion,
Fred
----------------------------
Dear Fred,
Good stuff! With a very nice rundown of the various inhibitors to facing the
truth - all the reasons why it's good to keep your head in the sand. I
think this one is perhaps central:
> Many people do not have the free attention or flexibility of character
to undergo a change of world view of the scope which such an idea would
require.
Yes, we are talking about a shift in world view. I'd characterize it
this way... The standard world view believes in the reality of Democracy
and of Constitutional process. "We have a good political system, and we
just need to elect better people." The other world view sees the
government as an agency which keeps the people under control on behalf
of behind-the-scenes power holders. That is a big shift, and "theories
about 9/11" is not a very good context in which to expect someone to
make that shift.
Indeed, the shift we are talking about is exactly why I grabbed on to
The Matrix metaphor and wrote "Esaping the Matrix". The shift we are
talking about is escaping from the media matrix world of illusion, and
seeing the world the way it really is - taking the Red Pill. And as in
the film, the real world has some very dismal aspects. Cypher is not the
only one who would prefer to return to the Matrix. I think a bit of
historical context is necessary before anyone would consider risking
such a shift in view. If you can see that the US has always operated
this way, then it's easier to accept that it continues to do so.
> "You couldn't pull off an operation of that scale without having too
many people involved. It would inevitably leak."
I've heard this one a lot. I think we're talking about another shift in
world view, this time about the media instead of about the government.
The standard world view is that what you see in the media is basically a
good first-draft version of what's going on in the world. You see lots
of viewpoints, and shows like 60 Minutes dig down and expose the dirt.
Sooner or later it all comes out. The other world view is that the
stories the media tells us are basically fiction. I am referring not to
the little details, but to the underlying interpretive narrative. We see
pictures of troops in Iraq - that's real. We are told they are bringing
democracy - that's fiction. A policy decision is made at the highest
levels about how the war will be "spun". That view is articulated by
government officials and shows up on CNN, BBC, SKY, etc. The rest of the
Western media follows the line if for no other reason than that they
would look silly if they didn't.
Again, I think historical context is necessary for anyone to make this
shift. You need to see that populations have been routinely lied to
throughout history, in most nations. Particularly when warfare or
imperial adventures are involved. There's always a fictional narrative
about Noble Causes and carrying the flag to Do Good. The simple
geopolitical considerations which actually drive the events are left out
of the narrative. This is easier to see and accept when it's in the
past.
thanks again,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 09:49:27 +0100
From: tstewart
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: RE: Events of 9-11 - What do you think?
aside fact tidbit...
all german purchases of commercial airliners are stripped of their
electronic nav systems. guess german security maybe know about the
override backdoor, and aren't going to let themselves get done.
This has been standard practice with them since long before the hit...
as to psychology, in my exchanges, theres firstly,
*no way, they couldn't/wouldn't*
then
*too much control, too organised*
[which is contradictory given the reciprocal]
or in Postmodernese, that its a totalizing closure, and any such
conclusion is unsustainable...nothing that tidy, all the loose ends, can
be anything but a work of fiction...
but the killer is the pragmatic....even if this is 'true', it doesn't
leave us anything to do. its uncomfortable to believe, so i won't.
and here, rightly as you said, we are into psychology, or more
accurately psychoanalysis, the realms of repression...
but also the loneliness. a voice alone, in the wilderness, often stays
silent.
Thanks yet again for your work.
------------------------
Dear t,
You hit on the same major points raised by Fred (above). These seem to
be the biggies, and they are both about a shift in world view. No one is
going to make such a shift over an event surrounded by such controversy
as 9/11 is. That would be tail wagging the dog of the belief system.
Given that none of us really knows how we can change things, it is indeed
frightening to accept that we are basically helpless pawns in the hands
or ruthless unaccountable masters. To believe that puts one out in the
cold, so to speak.
Perhaps we are dealing with yet another shift in life perspective: the
acceptance of insecurity as a basic fact of life - We are like dust in
the wind, impermanent and blown by forces beyond our understanding. It's
a spiritual thing, the "impermanence of all things", it's about the
inevitability of death. It's something you need to accept before you can
get beyond it to the other side. Once you see that there is no real
safety, no sure path, then you are free to act. Instead of seeking the
safe path to align yourself with, you are free to create your own path.
Again, this kind of shift in perspective is not likely to be considered
in the context of a 9/11 discussion.
thanks for your contribution to this thread,
rkm
--------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2004 01:58:37 -0400
From: Isaacs
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: Events of 9-11 - What do you think?
rkm > So again I ask the question. You in the jury, what do you believe
about 9-11? And why?
Hello Richard,
It seems to me that the lack of interception needs a detailed
explanation from the U.S. "authorities" ( everybody seems to favour that
word so I just thought that I would use it too ).
However, just like the validity of Bush's "election" one must suspect
that the questions surrounding 9/11 will remain unanswered. Time presses
on and the likelihood of answers, as well their significance, diminishes
daily.
Whether they executed it or not, the Bush administration has leveraged
9/11 into an impending catastrophe for America that goes far beyond any
direct 9/11 consequences.
America is disliked and distrusted. The military is stretched to the
breaking point in an Iraq that has been spun out of control. The oil
dependency grows by the day. The trade imbalance grows and the once
mighty greenback is in retreat. The blue collar jobs have left for
China. The white collar jobs are departing for India.
My juror's decision is that 9/11 has been mishandled so badly that it
has brought forward America's decline and fall by several decades. The
"election" of George W. Bush has been deadly for America. The hijacking
of American democracy is proving to be fatal. The lack of real democracy
has left America without an immune system and the wound from 9/11 has
quickly become a lethal infection. Who was responsible simply no longer
matters.
Regards,
Paul Isaacs
-----------
Dear Paul,
You say:
> 9/11 has been mishandled so badly that it has brought forward
America's decline and fall by several decades.
When you say "mishandled", you are implying that someone is bungling,
that they are not getting the results they intended. You are suggesting
that the White House is disappointed with the way things have turned
out, and wishes it had done things differently. Do you really believe
that is the case?
In fact, there is little for the White House to be disappointed about.
They have succeeded in establishing the framework for their New American
Century. Under the banner of the War On Terrorism they can now invade
anywhere they want to, and get by with it. With propaganda, fear
tactics, and appeals to patriotism, they manage to maintain the
necessary level of public support. While we may not like the direction
of the US economy, Halliburten and Bush's other corporate cronies are
raking in megabucks of our money with military spending and construction
projects in Iraq. The decline of the US economy is not a result of
bungling - what we are seeing is a systematic looting of our treasury
and resources. It's part of globalization, of privatization, of the
fascist takeover. GW Bush had earlier such experience when he
participated in looting the S&L Industry.
If you can see this, then it does make a difference who was responsible
for 9/11. You can then see that 9/11 was not an event that caused
certain changes, rather it was an operation designed to enable those
changes.
You say:
> just like the validity of Bush's "election" one must suspect that the
questions surrounding 9/11 will remain unanswered.
What do you mean by "unanswered"? I suspect that you mean, "will not be
answered in the mainstream media"... When it finally shows up on 60
Minutes, or Meet The Press, or the New York Times, then finally it's
real. All else is speculation, preliminary theorizing. Am I on the right
track?
It's strange how most of us give the media so much credibility, so much
legitimacy. It's built into our language - we watch the "news", implying
that we are seeing the new things that are happening. We don't say we
are watching the "corporate story feed", which is closer to the truth.
But to give up on the media is a bit like giving up on religion - it
leaves you with a big vacuum. You're losing the Third Estate, an almost
official branch of our political system. It leaves you in the position
of needing to decide for yourself what is true. Scary stuff.
cheers,
rkm
--
============================================================
"...the Patriot Act followed 9-11 as smoothly as the
suspension of the Weimar constitution followed the
Reichstag fire."
- Srdja Trifkovic
There is not a problem with the system.
The system is the problem.
Faith in humanity, not gods, ideologies, or programs.
_____________________________
cyberjournal home page:
http://cyberjournal.org
"Zen of Global Transformation" home page:
http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/
QuayLargo discussion forum:
http://www.QuayLargo.com/Transformation/ShowChat/?ScreenName=ShowThreads
cj list archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=cj
newslog list archives:
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/show_archives/?lists=newslog
'Truthout' excellent news source:
http://www.truthout.org
subscribe addresses for cj list:
•••@••.•••
•••@••.•••
============================================================
