Dialog re: regime changes, Wellstone, escaping the matrix


Richard Moore

Bcc: contributors

Note: URLs at bottom have changed.. this may fix some 
problems that people enountered when accessing archives.

Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 04:40:15 -0800 (PST)
From: Dustin Mikiska <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The real Regime Change...
To: •••@••.•••

I have been reading your writings for the past 2 or so
years...and this last one I must say is weak [snip...] 
narrowing down a group of people as more or
less a " us and them"  scenario is not true.. everyone
plays their role in life ,,,sure  people learn,,but
there is no machine running our world..no giant
capitalist larger than life machine that is for or near
to against us..is just a lack of communication in many
different ways... [snip...]  peace from Boone Nc..


Dear Dustin,

I have heard many people, some very well informed and
widely read, who share your belief that 'no one is in
charge' (to put my own label on it).  I suppose you
folks see a 'plurality of forces', political and
economic, pushing this way and that... a kind of
chaotic system where 'surprises' such as 9-11 can knock
everything off balance, refuting any earlier
predictions... etc.  "How _could anyone be in charge in
any real sense?" ... "How _could anyone, or any group,
make and carry out reliable, long-range plans??"

Such beliefs are not surprising, among the general
public, since this is the view that is taught in
schools and communicated over the mass media on a daily
basis.  The 'consensus' view of Word War I, for
example, is that no one really knows how it started,
apart from the consequences of an unpredictable
assassination of an Archduke.  It just kind of
'happened', because lots of nations had treaties that
entangled hem... "actually no one really wanted it",
etc. etc.

Those historians who challenge this (or any other)
'consensus' view are called 'radical' or 'alternative',
or even 'revisionist'.  Those who value tenure at their
universities (which is the overwhelming majority)
therefore do not stray from the 'consensus' path.  And
how many folks want to read 'alternate' histories
(boring subject!) after they escape from school?

But if you read good historians (such as Zinn or
Parenti) who try to get at the truth, which inevitably
moves them off the 'consensus' path, then you find a
quite different history.  World War I, for example, was
inevitable within the context of imperialism. Not
because of unfortunate treaties, or assassinations, but
because the 1000-year-old Ottoman empire was crumbling.

Lots of territory and resources were up for grabs, and
Germany was eager to get its own economic sphere, which
Britain, France, and the USA had previously
accomplished.  Germany had only recently unified and
industrialized, and it needed markets and resource for
growth.  The existing imperialist powers did not want a
new rival, and were eager to divide the new territories
among themselves -- which is precisely what they did
after they won the war.  That's what it was all about,
and that is not mentioned in mainstream sources like 
"Guns of August".  Imperialism does not exist within
the matrix.

The same scenario repeats for almost any historical
event you want to look at.  There is always the
'consensus' version, and then there is what actually
happened.  The 'consensus' version talks about the
actions of nations and presidents, and omits the elite
machinations which have always driven events from
behind the scenes.  Parenti's "History as Mystery" is a
very interesting study of a variety of historical
episodes over the past 2,000 years.  He shows how the
historical record has been warped and censored,
beginning at the time the events occur, and then warped
further over time to suit the needs of current elites.

There have always been elites running things, since
about 10,000 years ago.  When they were called Chiefs
and Kings and Emperors this was obvious.  What changed
with the advent of 'democracy' was only the propaganda.
In fact, 'democracies' were designed to empower not the
people, but the wealthy.  By getting rid of monarchies
and church power, they eliminated those hierarchies of
power which competed with the wealth hierarchy.  The
establishment of republics was simply a power coup by
one elite, overcoming its rivals.  The best treatment
of this topic I've seen is Fresia's "Toward an American
Revolution", which is on our website

It takes a bit of work, but if you begin to get an
accurate sense of history then the useful questions are
never, "Are there elites running things?", or "Are there
any conspiracies?", but rather "What are they up to
now?", and "Who will gain what from this latest
development?".  Or, as they said during Watergate,
"Follow the money."  This was true with Nixon, it was
true a thousand years ago, and it is true today - even
more so.

best regards,

Date: Wed, 06 Nov 2002 23:11:06 -0600
Subject: Your year 2000 article, "Escaping the Matrix"
From: C
To: <•••@••.•••>

We thoroughly enjoyed your article, "Escaping the
Matrix".  It was superbly crafted to give the reader a
concise and complete historical analysis of the red and
blue pills that lead to today's matrix and the reality
that is conceals.

And I am amazed that you wrote this even before 9/11! 
Most of took the red pill just after that date. 
Unfortunately, I have grave doubts about any positive
changes taking place until the shit hits the fan hard
enough to splatter all over the matrix and and destroy
it.  The media has become the major automatic matrix
maintenance server, and too many of us continue on
their blue pill habit.

That's not to say that we should get off the red pill. 
But we need to keep the reality alive stealthily, much
like the camp where the protagonist of "Fahrenheit
441".  As you know, everyone there memorized a book and
all participated in reciting those books as a means of
keeping them alive.

That is similar to what those outside the matrix will
need to until the numbers have grown sufficiently and
the multitudes began to gag and barf on their blue
pills when the matrix loses enough of the power needed
to maintain itself.  Who knows when?

Thanks again for your entertaining and enlightening


Dear C,

As I said to Dustin above, I've heard many folks
express your viewpoint, which is basically, "When
things get bad enough, then the people will finally
rise up and demand changes."  I don't see any evidence
for this.  Our situation is that of the proverbial lazy
frog.  If thrown into boiling water he jumps out; if
heated up slowly he allows himself to be boiled.

The deterioration of our societies happens
incrementally, and at each step the propaganda is
refined to accommodate the new conditions.  It is never
the system which is at fault, but always someone else
(usually the victim).  Unemployment is because people
don't bother to get the right training, or they don't
take available jobs.  Crime is because certain people
are inherently anti-social.  Our civil liberties are
gone because of terrorists.  We make war all the time
because of evil rogue nations.

If bad conditions can be blamed on someone else, then
those conditions do not cause anyone to 'rise up'.  No
matter how bad the conditions get.

For you, the events of 9-11 were evidently a 'line that
was crossed', and you escaped from the matrix.  For
many, globalization has been such a 'line', and those
are the ones who make up the anti-globalization /
anti-capitalist movement.  But for many others,
especially those at the bottom economically, fear and
anxiety cause them to seek security.  They want the
regime to treat them better, but the idea of changing
the regime only increases their fear and anxiety.  As
Morpheus put it, "They will fight to the death to
preserve the matrix."

Consider the 60s.  That was a time when the majority of
the population was demanding (and creating) radical
changes in society.  And it was a time of unprecedented
prosperity.  We had it very easy in those days... less
crime and homelesness, lots of employment, houses
affordable, police less fascist, etc.  It seems that
good times may be more conducive to radical thinking
than bad times.

So I don't agree that 'things getting worse' can be a
source of hope for us.  Escaping from the matrix does
not happen because of a change in conditions, but
rather from a change of perception, a change in
perspective.  Rather than biding our time while we
"keep the reality alive stealthily", we need to be
finding ways to encourage a shift of perception in our


Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 09:50:46 -0600
From: M
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: important question re: Wellstone


I read your dispatches with interest and with a healthy
amount of skepticism, which I try to apply
democratically to all information. As a Minnesotan and
huge Wellstone fan, this recent comment caught me eye:

  rkm> Whenever some kind of resolutions appear (from the
    UN and also from Congress) which can be interpreted (or
    misinterpreted) so as to provide legitimacy -- then the
    onslaught will begin. If bombs must be set off in Bali,
    or Senators assassinated, in order to create a 'climate
    of legitimacy', then that must be done. As Kissinger
    put it, commenting on a similar scenario, "You can't
    make an omelette without breaking eggs."

I assume you refer to Sen. Wellstone's untimely demise.
What have you got in terms of evidence for the
"Senators assassinated" part?

Thanks for whatever additional comments you may have
regarding this.

All the best,


Dear M,

There is considerable evidence, both physical and
circumstantial, to indicate that Wellstone was
assassinated in order to help consolidate Bush's
control over Congress.  Below is an article (thanks to
Brit Eckhart) that enumerates some of the physical

As in the two exchanges above, I want to say that I've
heard many people who share your viewpoint.  Whenever a
conspiracy situation arises, they always say "Where is
your proof?"  I suggest that this is the wrong question
to be asking.

I suggest that a more useful question is, "What is the
most likely explanation for Wellstone's death?".  Here
is someone who was explicitly targeted by the
Republican Party as the #1 person to defeat in the next
election... and his defeat at the polls was unlikely. 
Then he dies in a mysterious plane crash just before
the election... and the media immediately adopts an
unlikely explanation and sticks to it.

Proof?  There is no 'proof' for any explanation of the
crash.  Certainly the media explanation - crash due to
bad weather - is far from proved.  Indeed, it is close
to being disproved.  I don't _know what happened, but
for my money the most likely explanation - given what
we do know - is that he was the victim of a hit ordered
from the top.  The fact that the media immediately
adopts a pat answer, with little evidence to support
it, adds to the likelihood of this explanation.  This is
the standard pattern for cover-ups.  If a genuine
accident / surprise happens, there is much more
speculation and investigation by the media - solving a
mystery helps sell papers.

To accept media explanations as 'likely', while
demanding 'proof' of other possibilities, gives one a
very distorted perspective on reality. The image that
comes to my mind is of a sheep wearing blinders,
dutifully following the shepherd to the slaughter.

all the best,

From: "Brit Eckhart" <•••@••.•••>
To: <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Fw: Fears confirmed? Articles on Wellstone plane crash
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 03:24:09 -0500

-----Original Message-----
>From: Dorothy Henaut <•••@••.•••>
To: •••@••.••• <•••@••.•••>
Date: 4 novembre, 2002 13:07
Subject: Fears confirmed? Articles on Wellstone plane crash

Hi peacelist!  there was a commentary on the CBC this
morning about the Wellstone crash, mentioning how
bizarre it was that the media were not interested in
investigating this crash.  Let's hear it for our
(threatened) democracy.  cheers, dorothy

Subject: articles on Wellstone plane crash
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 04:34:04 -0000

Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 00:19:09 -0800
Subject: [Aftermath] Wellstone murder: Remote
control takover and simultaneous radio blackout --
like several others

Received from Will Holmgren:

Wellstone Plane Was Out Of Control - Media Survey
Wednesday, 30 October 2002, 11:06 am
Article: Rick Ensminger

The following is a summary of the facts available at
this time via the media, surrounding Senator Paul
Wellstone's airplane crash of 10-25-02. Judge for
yourself, was this more likely an assassination or
an accident?

>From the 10-27-02 Sunday edition of the St.Paul
Pioneer Press:

"They were no longer in control of the aircraft." said
Don Sipola, a former president of the Eveleth Virginia
Municipal Airport Commission, who has 25 years of
experience flying at the airport. "That will be the $64
question---what occurred in the last few minutes that
distracted them or caused them to wrestle control of
the aircraft."

"Something caused them at low altitude to veer off
course," Sipola said.

The angle of descent also indicates an out of control
flight, Sipola said. The normal approach for the
aircraft is a descent of 3 degrees, he said. But Siploa
said the NTSB investigators told him Saturday that the
plane was descending at 30 degrees.

"This was a real steep bank, not a nice, gentle
don't-spill-the-coffee descent," Siploa said. This is
more like a space shuttle coming down. This was not a
controlled descent into the ground."

*************** >From the Minneapolis Star Tribune

The state of Minnesota operates two King Air 100's.
Jesse Ventura uses the planes.

Tom Kirton, an associate professor at Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University in Daytona Beach, Fl. said he
flew a similar King Air model for five years as a
corporate pilot before joining the school, which also
has one. "The King Air is the finest airplane I have
ever flown," he said. "The engines were totally

"Performance on take off and landing was suberb. I
mean, its got power to spare," Kirton said. "You take
off and lose an engine, most folks could bring it down
very, very easily on one engine and land a perfectly
normal landing."

Jeff Johnson, an associate professor in the aviation
program at St.Cloud State University, said he has flown
about 500 hours in King Air 100's as a private pilot.
He said the planes are forgiving, stable and reliable.

Johnson noted the King Air 100 has a flexible,
boot-like device on the leading edges of the wings that
the pilot can make "expand like a balloon to break ice

He said he was told that only one pilot is required to
fly the plane, two were hired because a Senator was on

The pilots of Wellstone's plane... Conry had nearly
5200 hours of flying time and the highest certification
a pilot can attain, his company said. Guess had 650
hours and was certified as a commercial pilot; he
graduated from UND's aeronautics program.

The weather at the Eveleth airport was a mix of mist
and light snow at the time of the crash.

Greg Spoden, assistant state climatologist said that at
the Eveleth airport visibility was about 3 miles at the
time of the crash.

End of Star Tribune article.

As CNNFirst Reported: Breaking News.

The crews on the ground found two large sections of
plane. The tail section was intact. The weather did not
have anything to do with the crash, said the on the
scene reporter.

Wolf Blitzer tried to correct her.

He said, "The plane was flying into the storm of
freezing rain, right?"

There is no evidence that weather had anything to do
with the crash.

The on-the-scene reporter stuck to her guns.

>From the 10-29-02 Minneapolis Star Tribune:

However, the team was able to make this significant
discovery: the plane's landing flaps, which allow a
slower and steeper approach to a runway, were extended
15 degrees on EACH wing.

This information tends to discount the possibility,
discussed by some local pilots, that one flap may have
malfunctioned, putting them in different "asymmetric"
positions and causing the plane to slowly turn 90
degrees from its westward approach to the runway in the
moments before the crash.

According to Executive Aviation, which operated the
plane, Capt. Richard Conry flew his second-to-last
flight Thursday, to Bismarck, N.D. His co-pilot on that
flight told the NTSB that Conry didn't seem sick or
tired on that flight.

Conry spent much of Wednesday undergoing a required
test of his flying proficiency, the Star Tribune has
learned. Executive Aviation spokeswoman Mary Milla said
Monday that Conry passed the so-called check ride,
which was administered by a company pilot designated to
conduct the exams by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA).

The proficiency checks are required of commercial
aviators every six months to maintain licensure.

"He passed the check with flying colors," said Conry's
wife, Johanne, on Monday. She also said her husband was
in good health and well rested for the Wellstone

>From the 10-29-02 St.Paul Pioneer Press:

"Investigators...have ruled out physical problems with
the pilots and one important piece of equipment."

Dr. Thomas Uncini, St.Louis County's chief medical
examiner, said Monday his preliminary conclusions are
that the two pilots were in good physical condition and
there were no signs that they suffered a heart attack
or stroke. "No, it didn't happen," he said of medical
problems. "It looked pretty straightforward."

Frank Hilldrup, lead investigator for the NTSB said the
landing gear appeared to be down but was too damaged by
fire to determine if it had been locked into place.

Another pilot who landed a slightly larger twin engine
plane at the airport on Friday, a couple of hours
before Wellstone's plane crashed, said in an interview
that he experienced no significant problems.

Veteran pilot Ray Juntunen said there was very light
ice, "but nothing to be alarmed about. It shouldn't
have been a problem."

He said he ran into moderate icing conditions at 10,000
feet and requested permission to drop to 5,000. At that
altitude, he had only light icing. When he dropped to
3400 feet, to begin his approach, "the ice slid off the
windshield," he said.

According to the NTSB, Wellstone's pilots received
warnings of icing at 9,000 to 11,000 feet and were
allowed to descend to 4,000 feet. Juntunen said he was
able to see the airport from five miles out, and
another pilot landed a half-hour later and told him the
clouds were a little lower, but still not bad.

Radar tapes indicate the plane had descended to about
400 feet and was traveling at only 85 knots near the
end of its flight. It then turned south, dove at an
unusually steep angle and crashed.

From the 10-26-02 edition of the St.Paul Pioneer Press:

The weather Friday was dismal, gray, foggy, with light
snow, but the landing should have been routine, said
Gary Ulman, assistant manager of the Eveleth Virginia
Municipal Airport.

Shortly after 10 a.m., Ulman heard the pilot's voice on
the radio and saw the landing lights flash on after the
pilot clicked the signal from the cockpit.

But the plane didn't land.

"After a while, I thought to myself, 'Where the hell
are they?' "

Ulman jumped into his own private plane and took off in
search of the missing aircraft."


If the icing conditions were so bad (which they
weren't) why would Ulman take his own plane up?

They had just radioed in that they were coming in for a
landing. They were only about 7 miles out. They gave no
indication of any problem. The NTSB has confirmed that
several times.

There was no problem with icing at the altitude they
were flying.

Airport manager Ulman even took his plane up proving
that icing was not a problem.

The landing gear was down.

The plane was "forgiving, stable and reliable."

The engines were "totally reliable."

You could land it "very, very easily on one engine."

"Performance on taking off and landing were superb."

The pilots were experienced veterans in good health
and well rested.

Only one pilot was required to fly the King Air A100
but they had two as an extra precaution for safety.

Bush had made it his number one priority to get
Wellstone out of the Senate, presumably thru the
election process.

Bush himself had come to Minnesota to stump for
Republican Norm Coleman. "Americans for Job Security",
a Republican controlled "tax-exempt" group pumped over
one million dollars into ads against Wellstone.

Wellstone had voted against Bush's Homeland Security.
He had voted against some of Bush's judicial
appointees. He pushed stronger environmental programs
while Bush pushed the opposite way.

Wellstone pushed hard for genuine measures to counter
corporate fraud while Bush pushed for cosmetic ones.

Wellstone pushed hard for an independent 9-11
investigation over Bush and Cheney's strongest

Wellstone voted against giving Bush a free hand to
invade Iraq and it actually increased his popularity in
Minnesota. He was pulling ahead of Coleman and it
looked like he would win re-election.


They lost all control and all communications in his
plane instantly, without warning during a landing

Is this sabotage, assassination or an accident?

You be the judge.

Hear Christopher Bollyn (Am. Free Press) and Dick
Eastman discuss
five previous remote-control murder crashes.

Radio Free America (RealPlayer needed)

Scroll down to the 11/25/01 broadcast. These
crashes are discussed
in great detail -- the similarity to the Wellstone
murder will be obvious.

=================== + ===================
Support Antiwar.com 
http://antiwar.com and the Global Network Against
Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space http://www.space4peace.org.

=================== + ====================


cyberjournal home page: 

"Zen of Global Transformation" home page: 

QuayLargo discussion forum:

cj list archives:

newslog list archives:

cj_open list archives:

subscribe addresses for cj list:

subscribe addresses for cj_open list: