rkm: some thoughts

2004-11-01

Richard Moore

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












Share:

ekbonus bahis forum linkegit.com