Bcc: contributors
============================================================================
From: C
To: •••@••.•••
Subject: Re: Why was 911 necessary?
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002
Richard:
Thank you for your thoughtful replies to my questions.
I agree that it seems likely the Pentagon was chosen for
symbolic reasons (get the US military really pissed off)
without intending to do any serious damage. I have now heard
from another source a confirmation that the wing in question
was under construction.
Regarding the answer to question 2: why now?, I'm still
agnostic. I can see it as a preemptive strike if and only if
they were reasonably convinced it would work perfectly.
Pearl Harbor was a very calculated risk, which failed in the
long term. 9-11 is a very calculated risk and if they don't
have all their ducks in a row, or some unexpected dynamic
takes hold, they could lose it all. Thus, why not go slower?
Much as I'd like to believe that the anti-globalization
forces were having a major impact (and where it really
counts is where the money is and where what's left of the
middle class lives: N. America and Western Europe, but
mostly the former), I'm just not convinced that the bad guys
were all that scared. I was in Seattle and Quebec City and
both were amazing events, but the number of stages between
these and any sort of real mass movement where your mom and
dad might show up was still vast. In fact, the movement
seemed locked into a kind of static warfare approach that
was tactically doomed to fail in the long run.
If the anti-globalization movement scared them, then it was
only one variable. (I'm a scientist and what I do is try to
make sense of multiple interacting variables that can lead
to neurological diseases). So here is what I am
contemplating (please comment/critique):
1. They are unleashing a very real war against us: All the
"you're with us or with the terrorists" is sincerely meant
by GWB et al. and is not mere rhetoric.
2. The war can be shown to be real not only by overt
military attacks as in Afghanistan and the Philippines, etc.,
but also in the general approach at all levels. I will send
you separately an article by Prichard and Bennett that
discusses the basis of 'manoeuvre warfare' doctrine and how
it is being applied to the social justice
/anti-globalization movement.
3. Somewhere, these guys with all the giant computers in the
world, have programs that model and plot time courses and
dynamic interactions of the following variables: key
resources (oil, water, etc.), growth of resistance to
globalization in N. America and elsewhere, the rise of China
as a military/economic power, the recovery of Russia, other
potential power blocks (Muslim?),any and all of these vs.
future control and profits.
4. Some or all of these curves intersected close to Sept
2001, giving temporal maxima and minima for costs/benefits.
Striking now, while risky, is less risky than doing so later.
Now they can fight largely a 'one front' war: First
Afghanistan (using anti-terrorist legislation at home to
keep down pesky protests), then Iraq, etc. Once they
complete the linearization of the war, country by country,
they control most of the world's oil (they already 'own'
Canada and have much of the world's water). The success of a
step by step linearized war gives them bases throughout
central Asia and the southern borders of both China and
Russia. Moving back into the Philippines controls South Asia
and blocks the Chinese moving south.
6. I think you are totally right that the final strategy
involves overcoming China and Russia. The above gives the a
big leg up on this. (And I can just imagine the excuse in a
few years time: something along the lines of suddenly
realizing that the US has to help the oppressed people of
Tibet...).
8. Where it gets interesting is when considering the factors
they doubtlessly didn't add to their calculations: (a) the
basic pathology of global capitalism and (b) chaos theory.
There is actually a lot we can do about all this, as bleak
as it sometimes seems. Perhaps we can 'talk' more about
these things in days to come. I'm looking forward to more of
your 'red pills'.
Peace and solidarity,
C
=============
Dear C,
Thanks for a very perceptive analysis. It's refreshing to talk
to someone who has taken the red pill and who isn't afraid to
open their eyes and look around at the real world.
---
What you say about the Encircle China strategy is very
useful. Chinese strategists, by the way, are very aware
of this. Lao Tze was, after all, Chinese, and their empire
was already mature before Rome was founded. I'll be
posting an article about this soon. Here's a pre-taste (I'm
excerpting from an article someone sent me):
Hong Kong's Cheng Ming newspaper quoted Chinese Defense
Minister Chi Haotian as saying war with the United States is
inevitable. "We cannot avoid it," he was quoted in the
newspaper as saying. "The issue is that the Chinese armed
forces must control the initiative in this war. . ."
According to a Rand Corp. report, China's military is
narrowing its technology gap with the U.S. armed forces,
using U.S. commercial technology to approach or equal the
United States capabilities.
From this perspective, both the US and China have a
considerable sense of urgency. China wants to achieve a
credible strategic defense before they are encircled, and
their time is rapidly running out. The US wants not only to
encircle, but to simultaneously upgrade its aggressive
capability. That's what the Space Command, the Strategic
Missile Defense, and laser weapons are all about. Washington
wants to be able to attack China using vastly upgraded
Desert Storm tactics. As you point out, there are countless
pretexts that can be employed when Washington is ready to
provoke hostilities.
---
I don't understand why you say Pearl Harbor "failed in the
long term". It totally succeeded in its mission, and there
seems to be negligible fallout from the fact that some of us
have finally learned that Roosevelt planned the whole
affair. None of these conspiracies remain secret forever,
and that turns out to be politically irrelevant. Even though
countless examples have been eventually exposed, most people
(don't ask me why) still think conspiracies don't happen!!
I guess it's just part of sheep psychology - "Pretend the fox
doesn't exist and he won't get you."
And they ~did~ have all their ducks in a row re/911. That
is, they have total control over the mass media - and what
the media (matrix) says is equal to reality for most people.
Also, consider all the practice they've had with such
incidents. The earlier WTC bombing had an FBI agent in the
inner planning circle, and they managed to keep that from
backfiring. Hundreds of people saw the missile they used to
shoot down TWA 800, and they kept that under control as
well. Publicly available seismic records show that McVeigh
could not have been the primary Oklahoma City perpetrator,
and few people (apart from those dismissed as "right wing
extremists") seem to care. In a land of sheep - especially
divided sheep - the fox can get by with just about anything.
---
> If the anti-globalization movement scared them, then it
was only one variable.
This depends on how you define the anti-globalization
movement. In truth, those who gathered in Seattle, Genoa,
etc. were only tips of a much bigger iceberg. Freedom
fighters in Columbia, Chiapas, Peru, Palestine, the
Philippines, and dozens of other places ruled by
US-sponsored terror-regimes are also part of the movement.
Even Euro-skeptics in Britain are in their own way resisting
globalization, as are labor leaders fighting against layoffs
and plant closings throughout the 'advanced world'. All the
so-called 'rogue states', and the imaginary 'Evil Axis', are
named as enemies solely because they don't toe the
globalization line. China is certainly willing to play the
free-trade game for the time being, but it is steadfast
against surrendering national sovereignty to the WTC. In
that sense, China is very much an anti-globalization power.
That is precisely why it is in the primary target of
Washington's long term aggressive planning.
---
> 8. Where it gets interesting is when considering the
factors they doubtlessly didn't add to their calculations:
(a) the basic pathology of global capitalism and (b) chaos
theory.
It is a serious mistake to underestimate the insight,
resourcefulness, brutality, or deviousness of the regime.
The regime is well-aware of the pathology of global
capitalism - after all, that's their primary business. Among
their computer models, which you mention, foremost are the
economic models. My own view is that the ~primary~ urgency
driving US policy comes from managing the chaos of
capitalist economics.
Lots of people talk about chaos theory, but few know
anything it. I don't pretend to be an expert on it, but I
do know that one of the primary results is that chaotic
systems are ~not~ in general unmanageable. That's what a
sheep dog does, for example. He cannot predict which sheep
will run off in which direction - that's chaotic - but he
can respond as necessary to keep the flock moving in a
definite direction with high reliability. Similarly, the
IMF, the Federal Reserve, the Bundesbank, and the other
top-level financial institutions spend their time
shepherding the global economy in 'desired' directions.
Giving the airlines $15 billion, seizing Caspian Oil,
sabotaging the Asian Tigers, destroying third-world
economies - these are all examples of chaos management. By
these means, the slowdown in global growth can be
concentrated outside the West, and the West can enjoy
sufficient prosperity to keep the regime in power in its
heartland. Outside the heartland, brute military force can
be used to suppress (or liquidate uia genocide) the masses.
Eventually, brutal measures will be required in the
heartland as well, and that's what the fascist legislation
is all about. It is very important to note that this kind
of legislation was implemented throughout the West after
911, not just in the US. In Canada, Britain, and the EU,
the measures were in some cases even more draconian than in
the US. These too were some of the ducks which were lined
up in advance by the global regime.
Capitalism doesn't fail until people like Rockefeller and
the Bush's start feeling the pinch. The rest of us don't
count.
And when they feel the pinch, they'll simply change the
rules. My own guess is that we'll end up with a kind of
neo-feudalism. Capitalism may collapse, but not the regime.
Not until we do something about it.
---
> There is actually a lot we can do about all this, as bleak
as it sometimes seems. Perhaps we can 'talk' more about
these things in days to come. I'm looking forward to more of
your 'red pills'.
I'd like to hear more about what we can do about it. Give
us a red pill of your own. I'll keep your name withheld
until you say otherwise.
in my humble opinion,
rkm
http://cyberjournal.org
============================================================================
Share: