Bcc: X & others...
Friends,
I need some inputs about what we should be doing on this
list. We could talk about Israel, or the war between India
and Pakistan, or Fuhrer Bush, or neo-imperialism
in Columbia, Venezuela, and the Philippines, or whatever.
One thing I'd like to hear about is "What it's like in the
States?". Do people still hang out flags? Would it be safe
for me to visit there?
Seriously now, my time has been taken up by a business
venture and I want to focus the time I spend with political
pursuits. What is worth doing? What can I say to you folks
that I haven't already said, for better or for worse. I can
certainly forward interesting things people send in, but
that's a no-brainer. Let's do something more creative.
Suggestions welcome.
---
I read an article on the net, by someone who generally makes
sense. He was talking about the WTC, and 'what Bush knew',
and was all apologetic about how impossible it would be for
Bush to have prevented the WTC incident. For what it's
worth, let me bring you in on the conversation...
X wrote> The authorities could also have shut down the
airports or massed police, soldiers and FBI agents to check
every airline passenger.
rkm> And they could have followed standard procedures, which is
to scramble fighters when airliners are hijacked - not
necessarily to shoot them down, but to reconnoiter and be
available for any action required. Why were standard
procedures not followed? Especially after warnings had been
received, and when four planes were hijacked instead of just
one.
Furthermore, there were many more advance warnings than
those recently admitted to in the mainstream media.
X> These are certainly subjects for investigation. I agree;
though what scrambling planes could have done is beyond me.
We always argue that big centralized institutions are
inherently inefficient and unwieldy. Here, it seems to me,
you and other critics, are arguing that there's something
suspicious in the federal government's lousy response to
this; I'm saying it's inherent and it should be of no
surprise. What passes for intelligence is the promiscuous
collection of raw data that they do not know to interpret
and, when they do, they usually get it wrong.
rkm> Many thanks for your response. Scrambling planes,
whether we know why or not, is standard procedure. As it
happens, the interceptors can fly along the wing-tips,
signal to the pilot, make threatening gestures, etc. If the
path goes near strategic targets, they can shoot down.
These kind of procedures, one would expect, would be
heightened in the weeks following a finding that terrorist
attacks were anticipated.
I'm glad that you brought up this business of government
incompetence. That goes to the heart of liberal mythology.
Consider how laws are made. An agenda is set, somewhere
outside the scope of public discussion. In the 1850s it was
about subsidizing the railroads. In the 1950s it was about
destroying the railroads and promoting the internal
combustion engine. Whatever. The agenda is set for
economic and geopolitical reasons. Finally, the politicians
and pundits come up with reason why the people should
like the legislation. That's when we first hear about it.
It's all a conspiracy from the get go.
Here's why that's relevant to your comment, "they usually
get it wrong". If you believe the politicians' lies about
~why~ a law is being passed, then of course you will see
incompetence in the fact that the alleged objectives are
never accomplished. But if you realize that the alleged
objectives were PR lies to begin with, then incompetence is
no longer the accurate explanation of the turn of events.
Take for example NAFTA, which lover-boy Clinton told us was
going to help the economies of both the U.S. and Mexico. It
didn't, and any common-sense appraisal of the treaty knew
that from the beginning. It was a treaty whose sole
objective was the removal of barriers from corporations
doing whatever they wanted to do. A way to keep capitalist
growth going a bit longer. And then came the PR.
Incompetence? No. Conspiracy? Yes. And the bottom-line
benefit to the corporate sector was concrete and measurable.
As is the human suffering.
---
[Another thread...]
rkm> Why do you avoid any discussion in your article of
the most likely explanation: the incident was planned by
U.S. Intelligence in order to justify the many and radical
actions that have been subsequently taken? Are you not
aware that every war the U.S. has ever been involved in for
the past two centuries has been enabled by an outrage
incident which has later proven to be either faked or
arranged?
X> I've read all the conspiracy theories and they do not
strike me as credible. An easy question: Why four plans, and
not just one. Would not the WTO [stet] made their point. Did they
hit the Pentagon to improve credibility? Do you really
believe the U.S. the source of ALL evil in the world? That
everything bad that happens is hatched in Washington? Do
you think Bush wanted to destroy the travel industry and
crash the stock market? There are less destructive ways to
create fear and opportunity for repression and militarism.
rkm> Jesus, I could write a whole book in answer to the many
assumptions and twists of logic in that one paragraph. To
begin with, you didn't address any of the issues I raised.
You immediately jumped to, "If what you say is true, then
how do you explain this...". Is this a high-school debate
or are we trying to find truth? I'm serious: why were
standard procedures not followed? Why did an air-force
source say that orders were given out to 'stand down'? Why
do you seek a way to dismiss such questions? Why not deal
with them, and then move on to your more general
observations?
Let's look at some of your assumptions. Did "Bush [want]
to destroy the travel industry and crash the stock market?".
Those are very ephemeral things. To begin with, the airline
industry, almost instantly, as if part of a previous plan,
was granted $30 billion in subsidy. That kept them in meat
and potatoes for a comfy interval, with the best cream going
to the top. The stock market? Who gives a fuck? It's the
little guys who lose out. The big guys either got out
first, or they have the staying power to wait out the panic.
The ~big~ economic factor is the slowdown in the global
economy. They don't talk about it, but it's big time. Too
many new cars and too few new-car buyers. That's it in a
nutshell. The same kind of over-production and hyper
investment that characterized the 1920's and led to the
Great Depression. The Industrial Revolution makes more
things than anyone needs: that's the long and the short of it.
If only it _had been the ~WTO~ instead of the WTC... much
more beneficial! (:>) Seriously now, who can understand
the diabolic logic of anyone who plans to blow up the WTC?
Certainly Bin Laden is the least possible to explain -- it
was clear that the U.S. would end up punishing any
perpetrator ten times over. No gain there. No logic there.
So we can debate whether the Pentagon was a wise part of a
CIA scenario. Perhaps you're right, perhaps the Pentagon
was a faus pas. But the core logic of Bush (as figurehead
for those who know their times table) is inarguable. In a
world of diminishing resources, uprising populations, and a
crisis of capitalism, survival of the system demands that
the gloves be taken off, that hardball be played. Those who
say "It's all about oil" don't have a clue. That's just the
current project-in-pipeline (pardon the pun).
The big payoff, the all-important payoff, is two-fold. (1)
Control the domestic population. (2) Take off the limits re/
geopolitical intervention. Both have been accomplished in
spades. And not once have we seen even a shred of evidence
to implicate Bin Laden or anyone else. Jesus, their
arrogance is so gross that they don't even care if they
cover their tracks. CNN=Truth, and why bother with the
details?
"Conspiracy theories not credible". I'd be interested in
which conspiracy theories you have in mind. Our whole
system is conspiracy-based from the top to the bottom. No
company tells the truth about its products; few politicians
tell the truth about anything - that would be counter-
productive in their careers. I've seen the microcosm in
various companies I've worked at. A plant was to be closed
down, I was on the management team in the parent company,
and we were told not to inform any of the workers so they
wouldn't flee to other jobs. That's just business as usual,
and the closer to the top you get the more sophisticated the
games.
I detest the term 'conspiracy theory'. What we have are
incidents, elite PR, and evidence. I take the
evidence, and lay out the plausible scenarios. Just like on
"Murder She Wrote". What makes the most sense? Who had a
motive, opportunity, and modus operandi? The answer is
often different that what is being sold on TV. Why does
that make it a conspiracy theory? The answer to that
question, I believe, has to do with sociology and mass
delusion, not with logic.
---
X> It's like Pearl Harbor, which we've argued about in
the past. Once the Japanese set sail the die was cast. FDR
had no reason to lose the fleet. Had we understood the
intelligence and been ready to respond and protected Pearl
we still would have had reason to enter the war. The crucial
issue was their attack; not our response. Same here. Unless
you believe that bin Ladin didn't do anything, that he's
really a third world revolutionary who seeks a better life
for the struggling masses, even women.
rkm> You're getting desperate here. No, I don't put Bin
Laden forward as a people's hero. What does that have to do
with anything? Are you saying everyone is either a total
good guy or a total bad guy? Have you been watching too
many Hollywood movies? Let's get back to the topic at
hand...
Do you know how deeply isolationist the US was in 1941?
Isolationism had been sold as policy for many years, while
U.S. corporations were investing and profiting in Germany
and Japan. And there was a native sympathy for isolationism
in the American heartland. And there were many in the
business elite who liked Hitler and would rather support the
Nazis against the Russians than any other option. Turning
all that around, and generating the incredible popular
energy that went in to the War Effort was a truly amazing
feat. A failed attack would not have turned the trick.
There had to be blood of innocent Americans. It worked to a T.
We didn't lose a fleet. We lost a few antiquated
battleships and the like. The strategically important
ships, the carriers, were all safely out at sea on
maneuvers. A convenient coincidence, as was the fact that
observation posts on the critical island of Kauai were told
to stand down just before the event. I'll stop, because the
evidence for FDR's agency goes on and on and is irrefutable.
---
X> The left needs to be credible; since we have no money and
little access to the mass media credibility is all we've
got.
rkm> This may be your most interesting point. The left
(aka. liberal intellectuals) has an impoverished view of
public opinion. People at the bottom are radical. They
might be born-again right-wingers, or the opposite, but they
aren't moderate. Not in general. People want to hear the
truth. And they have a hard time finding it anywhere.
"Being credible" means 'sounding like the mass media', the
Turner defined reality. There's no win down that path. They
define the agenda, you pick at it and point out its
inconsistencies. By definition you are marginalized. You
evoke the illusion of debate. You serve the system. Wake
up and tell the whole truth, as you know it.
best regards to all,
rkm
http://cyberjournal.org
Share: