============================================================================ From: •••@••.••• Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 17:32:46 EST Subject: Re: 9-11 To: •••@••.••• Richard, We don't really have an argument in theory. I've already said there's nothing I'd put past the USG. But I still reserve the right to judge each case as it comes along. What's the alternative? And where would that lead one? In solidarity, Bill PS Thanks again for the globalization-imperialism comparison. It's a great help, a brilliant crystallization. I forget, what ever happened to your book plans? Serialized in journals instead? ========== Dear Bill, re/ book plans: I'll post another message tomorrow about book plans. I'd welcome feedback. --- re/ globalization-imperialism comparison: It was honor to receive that query from you, and it's probably the topic that has been at the center of my work. I've found that the many differences - between globalization and the long-running regime that preceded it - serve as indicators to reveal the essential structures of both the old and new regimes. --- re/ conspiracies: You said: > We don't really have an argument in theory. I've already said there's nothing I'd put past the USG. But I still reserve the right to judge each case as it comes along. What's the alternative? And where would that lead one? Yes of course, every case must be judged on its own merits. That's exactly what I do. But you're not the only one who assumes that I have a knee-jerk 'blame a conspiracy' reaction. But there's a reason why this particular period of history is conspiracy rich. The fact is that we are now in a rapid-move chess game - the final construction phase of a new world order. And since the creation of this new order is not something the media talks about, or that officials acknowledge, every one of the chess moves is bound to be more or less conspiratorial. You ignore the game at your peril; but if you pay attention to the moves, then you are observing lots of conspiracies. For example, it is plain to see that the Patriot (Anti-Terrorism) Bill is aimed at stifling dissent and suppressing opposition - a kind of neo-McCarthyism only worse. Even if the Bill is 'opportunistic' - and the WTC disaster was unexpected - these police state measures are nonetheless conspiratorial. The cover story is terrorism, and the real objective is tighter control over the population. And we've been building up to this police-state regime for some time, with the 'war on drugs' and the erosion of civil liberties which accompanied that. That too was conspiratorial - the cover story was fighting drugs, the reality was undermining the Bill of Rights. How could a government seriously fight drugs, when its CIA is deeply involved in managing the global drug trade, and when its leading banks are busy laundering drug money? Similarly, it is plain to see that the current wave of military interventionism is aimed at achieving geopolitical / economic objectives. We all know about the importance of Caspian oil, and the need for a secure pipeline. If it were really terrorists they were going after, they'd be starting with Saudi Arabia, where the alleged hijackers mostly came from. But, no, the oil of Saudi Arabia is already being adequately managed. Thus, Bush's interventionism as a whole is a conspiratorial venture. Under the cover story of terrorism, military and economic objectives are being pursued. And again, we've been building up to this intensified interventionist climate for some time. I date the project back to the invasions of Grenada and Panama. Those were the prototypes: blitzkrieg warfare, minimal American casualties, managed media coverage, phony excuses, and most of the real objectives accomplished via so-called 'collateral damage' incidents. Iraq provided the testing ground for refining the technology, the media coverage, and the apparent seduction of global public opinion. All of this is conspiratorial activity, and it paved the way for the devastation of Yugoslavia and now Afghanistan. Yes, judge each case on its merits - a knee-jerk response is inappropriate whether it be for or against conspiracies. What most people seem to do is to take everything that sounds at all like a high-level conspiracy, and put it in a general 'dubious' category - "could be true, could be false, no way to know, forget it." This is a knee-jerk reaction in the direction of 'know nothingness'. It is like putting on a blindfold while crossing a highway. You can't see what's going on, even though you can feel the rumble of danger all around you. I've tried to show above that lots of obvious conspiracies are going on all the time. ~Standard~ government procedure is to pursue unannounced objectives, and to justify each action by some kind of phony PR explanation. If we recognize how prevalent such conspiracies are - so prevalent that we take them for granted and don't think of them as conspiracies - then we can begin to take a more objective attitude in examining more controversial cases. Those who adopt the common 'know nothing' strategy exile themselves to the matrix, a land of illusion, where the real demons can be neither seen nor overcome. all the best, rkm ============================================================================ From: •••@••.••• Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 23:31:13 EST Subject: follow-up query To: •••@••.••• Richard, I need a clarification. Re your conspiracy theory concerning Sept. 11: At what point in the scenario do you mean to imply that the USG authorities became aware of the true nature of the terrorists' plan? While it was still in the planning stage? When they boarded the planes? After the first plane crashed? Or when? The degree of culpability of the USG, and the degree of conspiracy, are a function of the answer to this question, wouldn't you agree? ============= Dear Bill, I must protest your use of this term 'conspiracy theory'. When Bush says that Al Qeada conspired to attack the WTC, we don't call that a 'conspiracy theory'. Instead, we say something like, "He has identified the most likely suspect." Every investigation of a crime (involving more than one person) is an investigation into who conspired with whom, and we don't usually accuse the police of engaging in 'conspiracy theories' when they try to solve a bank robbery. Why do you and others pull out the dismissive term 'conspiracy theory' when the suspects happen to hold high office in a Western nation? Certainly it isn't because such people never conspire! In solving any crime, we look at the possible scenarios, eliminate those that don't fit the facts, and then examine more closely the remaining alternatives... Scenario 1: Al Qeada managed to plan and carry out the WTC attack, completely surprising everyone, and air defenses bungled their response through incompetence or red tape of some kind. This scenario just doesn't match the facts. I won't enumerate the inconsistencies yet again, as we've published numerous very credible analyses, including the one about 'cover stories' to which you are responding. Nonetheless, this is the scenario that nearly everyone in the world seems willing to accept. Boggles the mind. Scenario 2: Al Qeada managed to hijack the planes, completely surprising everyone, and Bush (or the CIA or whoever) opportunistically decided to let the attack proceed so they could pursue their own objectives. I've never seen anyone put this scenario forward until you did above, and it doesn't make any sense. No one would have known what the targets were, and no one could be sure the outcome would fit their hastily concocted plans. And no one could respond so quickly to such an unexpected emergency and pull together in a few hours a consensus at the highest levels to follow such a risky path. Scenario 3: The CIA (or other intelligence agency) got wind of Al Qeada's plans early on and this came to the attention of the highest levels in Washington. A decision was made to covertly nurture the project so that it could be used as an 'outrage incident' to justify unlimited interventionism and the installation of a police state. While Al Qeada was proceeding with its plans, Washington was putting together its plans for the follow-up. This scenario fits all of the facts, and is consistent with the standard US protocol for engaging in major acts of war - used in ~every~ war the US has ever been involved in. It explains why FBI investigations of Al Qeada were squashed from Washington, why bin Laden was not arrested when the opportunity was presented (multiple times), why standard air defense measures were not followed, why Bush and other high officials sat out the whole affair, why the identity of the perpetrators and their organization were known within hours, and why the War on Terrorism was fully worked out and funded within days of the attack. Finally, Washington's motives for this scenario are all too clear. Why do you dismiss scenario 3 as a fanciful 'conspiracy theory', when it is the other scenarios that beggar belief? I can only explain that as 'sheep mentality', and I know that doesn't apply to you. Please explain! rkm ============================================================================ Delivered-To: moderator for •••@••.••• From: •••@••.••• Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:59:57 EST Subject: Re: Why not seek reform?? To: •••@••.••• Richard, Can you please give me one or two examples of what you mean here? > You'd need to withdraw from most of the free trade treaties, which are designed specifically to prevent the kind of reforms we're talking about here. Thanks, Bill ========== Bill, Unlike the question about globalization vs. imperialism, I'm surprised you ask this one. Isn't it obvious? Let's start with the WTO. The WTO gets its authority from free-trade treaties, beginning with the Uruguay Round of negotiations (1995?). The WTO has the authority to overturn any member nation's laws if they are deemed to be 'restrictions on trade'. It has in fact exercised this authority on many occasions, as when it forced the US to permit dangerous additives in gasoline. The whole point of free-trade treaties is to prevent national governments from regulating or restricting the activity of corporations. Withdrawing from these treaties would be the obvious first step for any nation which wanted to seriously reform its economy and bring it back under national control. This is so obvious that I must have misunderstood your question. puzzled, rkm -- ============================================================================ Richard K Moore Wexford, Ireland Citizens for a Democratic Renaissance email: •••@••.••• website & list archives: http://cyberjournal.org content-searchable archive: http://members.xoom.com/centrexnews/ "A Guidebook: How the world works and how we can change it" http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/ A community will evolve only when the people control their means of communication. -- Frantz Fanon Capitalism is the relentless accumulation of capital for the acquisition of profit. Capitalism is a carnivore. It cannot be made over into a herbivore without gutting it, i.e., abolishing it. - Warren Wagar, Professor of History, State University of New York at Binghamton Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits, and notices - including this one. ============================================================================ .