Friends, The book project is finally nearing completion. I've been a bit disappointed about the scarcity of feedback from you folks. Perhaps it's the pressure of the election, or perhaps people are just weary of the long, somewhat academic chapters. But I have gotten some feedback from particular people, and those included the ones for whom the material was most relevant. Thus Rosa responded to "Harmonization in the microcosm", and Joseph McCormack responded to "Harmonization and cultural transformation". Rosa's positive response was welcome as I consider her to be my 'harmonization guru'. Joseph's more neutral response was also welcome, as my arguments were aimed directly at him--he has been applying harmonization in the hopeless world of adversarial politics. He even went so far as offering to include a 'community track' in his own activist agenda. Very good. Dave Ratcliffe is maintaining the most recent draft at: http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/rkmGlblTrans.html I could use some help with editing and research if anyone is interested. I believe the writing style in this material is improved over my previous efforts, and it seems worth trying to 'get it right' this time around. So a bit of copy-editing would be in order. As regards research, the issue is footnotes. I don't want too many of those, but a few at critical points would probably be in order. It would help if someone would read through the second draft (in a few weeks), and notice where a supporting reference seems called for. I might already have a reference at hand, or perhaps a bit of searching would be needed. I imagine the aftermath of the election will have a strong effect on the final draft. So many things could happen, with such different consequences. We might enter a Clinton-like era, where liberalism seems to be on the upswing, but meanwhile more Iraqi children are dying from sanctions than have been killed in the current conflict. Or we might be in the midst of a nuclear exchange on a global scale. Or we might have an election fiasco and some kind of coup. Or we might move still closer to emulating Nazi Germany domestically. We're on the cusp of one of those chaos points, where we branch off into one of several possible futures. It's scary but I'm very glad to be here at this 'moment' (on many scales) of history. Anyone want to venture a guess, just before the election, as to which path we'll follow? Consider this: 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 911 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. I've posted quite a few pieces re 9/11. As I see it, there is no doubt whatever remaining as regards the perps. It was the Cheney crowd in cahoots with Mossad, along with a certain demolition corporation (the same one who carted away the evidence from the Oklahoma City bombing). I'm not sure of the sentiments on this list, but I'd say there is a growing number who are able to see through the shallow deception of the official story (eg., 50% of NYC). And of those, there are a reasonable number who then take the trouble to put two & two together, and consider questions like: If there was a decision 'not to act', would that be the end of it? Wouldn't there more likely be a viable project plan, with particular outcomes whose accomplishment must be guaranteed with some certainty? Wouldn't such a project need to be carried out by professionals? Could you afford to take the risk of trusting such a sensitive project to maniac-extremist, presumably psychologically unstable, Cessena trainees? People who ask such questions soon realize that the job must have been professionally planned at the White House level. But most people seem to stop there, perhaps calling for an investigation or expose, as above. What I find useful is to always go on and say, "OK, well what next? What does that imply?". In other words: If the White House carried out 9/11, presumably planned before Bush's 'election', then what does that tell us about everything else that's been going on in the Bush era? For one thing, it puts Al Qaeda in a different light. We know that the CIA worked closely with Al Qaeda in Kosovo, and even later in other contexts. Up until then they served as a convenient, veteran asset, well qualified to carry out covert terrorist operations of the heavy-handed kind. There is in fact no reason to suspect that the relationship of the CIA to Al Qaeda has ever changed. The role of Al Qaeda in 9/11 seems to have been to contribute a cell or two of naive jihadists, who had delusions of grandeur about taking down the Great Beast. Scapegoats & fall-guys. The White House had to intervene several times to keep the bunglers from being arrested by the FBI, to save them to play their roles. We don't even know if any of them were actually on the fateful planes. Bin Laden. Close family member of long-time business partners of Bush family. Alleged mastermind of sinister Al Qaeda. Get real. I'm sorry Michael Moore, but it wasn't the Saudis, as you probably know yourself. Bin Laden is a media figure. His script is written in Washington. He's copied from the pages of 1984... the sinister villain of whatever country is the current designated enemy. When I read 1984, I thought to myself, "Those folks must be really brainwashed from birth. How could they be taken in by such blatant propaganda?" So here we are today in 2004, and in 'consensus reality' (aka, The Matrix) anyone who questions the official 9/11 story is considered to be a nut case. And most folks are taken totally in. 1984 has come true. With an understanding of who the perps were, the War on Terror comes into clearer focus. Once you get it, that the Patriot Act has nothing at all to do with 'terrorism', then it becomes obvious that it has one and only one purpose: it is the charter for a fascist police state. 'Enemy combatant' means exactly the same thing that "Enemy of the Reich" meant in Nazi Germany. In either case you can get locked away, with no reason whatever, and you may or may not be heard from again. No longer does the Constitution stand between us and that possible future. A post-constitutional legal framework has been established, along with numerous precedents, and the challenges to it have been substantially ineffective. We are protected now only by the perceived self-interest of those in the White House. And we cannot find much comfort in Kerry, who has vowed to pursue the War on Terror with particular vigor. "OK, what does that imply?"... Why would such extremely rational people go to such lengths to establish the framework for a police state? I find it useful to go first for the most obvious answer to such questions. So often that turns out to be the right answer. And if it's wrong, you'll soon find out. In this case, the obvious answer is: they are expecting massive unrest. They are afraid of a much-enlarged grassroots revolt, an expansion of the anti-globalization and peace protests, something more like the height of the sixties, and perhaps with more depth of purpose behind it. That would be the disease for which the Patriot Act is the appropriate cure. And not just the Patriot Act, but all the sister acts that were adopted around the world. We focus on the Bush regime, because it is so blatant, but the police-state framework exists in the EU as well. The IndyMedia case was a small-scale trial run of the mechanisms. "So why do they expect unrest in the West?" The obvious answer: because they know we are not going to like what's in store for us. This brings us full circle, because we already knew that. Or should have. If we've been paying attention, then we'd have noticed the biggest unreported story of the decade: the global economy, and particularly the US economy, are in very, very serious trouble. Big time trouble. Global growth has been relatively stagnant, in real terms, for quite some time. It's quite a bit like the CO-2 scenario, which by strange coincidence seems to be unfolding in synchronization. We always knew that sooner or later CO-2 emissions were going to cause predictable greenhouse effects. We can now see it happening for real. Similarly, we all knew that sooner or later we'd run out of room for 'growth' on a finite Earth. This unreported story should be as well known as is global warming. The economic equivalent of the polar ice caps melting is massive unemployment and economic chaos. Picture: the Great Depression plus Storm Troopers. We are now in the midst of a post-growth scramble for global position. The dollar as reserve currency is under assault. The neocons are going for oil-seizures as a strategy to maintain the petrodollar and facilitate future economic hegemony. Beyond that, they seem to be firmly on course to carry their program of regime changes to Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, implementing their Agenda for the New American Century. Russia and China are taking steps toward defensive measures. It is not only liberals that want to get rid of Bush. The neocons are an arrogant clique within the elite community, and significant elements of that community don't like their style or their extremism. Their bullying tactics have made them some formidable enemies, including within the Pentagon and US Intelligence services. These folks have their own, deeply felt reasons to seek a regime change in Washington. Among other things, they must certainly be aware by now of the truth behind 9/11. The neocons seem to be pulling out all stops, election fraud, October Surprise, and all--in a mad scramble to get over the decisive finish line unscathed. Can you imagine the arrogance that would follow? ...might there be purges in the Pentagon and CIA? There are many forces at work at this cusp of chaos. The Pentagon is a wild card, Israel is a wild card (vis a vis possible unilateral attack on Iranian nuclear facilities), and the neocons have been wild cards all along. You know I'm not shy about expressing opinions. In this case, I cannot venture a guess as to the outcome over the next few weeks. It could just be a slam-dunk Kerry victory, and a more-or-less replay of the Clinton regime. Or it could be many other things. There's a bad moon rising. best regards, rkm http://cyberjournal.org
