Bcc: contributors ============================================================================ From: "Boudewijn Wegerif" <•••@••.•••> To: <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 12:41:14 +0200 Excellent, Richard - not at all extreme! I had already prepared an e-letter with Thierry Meyssan's talk and am glad that I had not yet posted, as I am now able to include your comments. See What Matters-80, coming soon. Regards, Boudewijn ============================================================================ Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 From: P Subject: Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September To: "Richard K. Moore" <•••@••.•••> I sent this piece to Normon Solomon. He didn't like it any more than the stuff from Michael Ruppert, of whom he has been very critical. His exact comments were: "I think the kind of stuff you forwarded along below is WAY off. Actually, ludicrous..." It's difficult to know how to understand this material when those I trust (Chomsky, Solomon, etc.) think it's ludicrous. When Thierry Meyssan's book is so big in France and he gets to lecture before distinguished audiences, it doesn' make it any easier to understand what's true about this and what isn't anymore. Nevertheless, keep asking the questions. Maybe something will shake loose someday. ======= Dear P, The trick is to think for yourself. Actually everyone does that whether they admit it to themselves it or not. For many, the main thought is 'so and so knows the truth, belive what they say', and in many cases that 'so and so' is the Bible, Koran, Chomsky, etc. That strategy seems to relieve one of the responsibility for one's beliefs, but that relief is an illusion, a rationalization, a passing of the buck. Claim the courage to look at the evidence and reach your own conclusions. Chomsky & Solomon are typical liberal reformers. They believe our liberal democracies are sound, in concept, and that all will be right if people are better informed and vote accordingly. They don't understand how deep the rot goes, and they don't understand that democracy, as we know it, doesn't work and can never work. Given their perspective, one can understand why they must keep themselves as close to the mainstream as they can. They want to seem 'reasonable' to as many people as possible, so as to maximize their political influence, such as it is. Anyone who stays close to the mainstream misses a lot of what's going on. There's not much visibility in that narrow ravine. regards, rkm http://cyberjournal.org ============================================================================ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:57:03 -0500 To: •••@••.••• From: Stephen Shaw <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September Greetings: Am new to your mailing list. Thank you for Thierry Meyssan piece - which you may know is also posted at http://www.globalresearch.ca I did notice it got trashed at http://geocities.com/vialls/index.html - but perhaps not credibly. I am writing, though, to bring to your attention the following - which is more grist for the mill: http://www.Public-Action.com/911/bumble.html I hope your future postings will help us home in on the true nature of this confusing drama. Regards, S. Shaw ========= Dear Steve, I may post some further items about 911, but I don't see a lot of point to it. The evidence, of many different kinds, overwhelmingly points to the most obvious culprit. Modus operandi, motive, opportunity, physical evidence, subsequent behavior - all clearly indicate a U.S. Intelligence operation. I have yet to see one shred of evidence for any other interpretation, least of all the ludicrous Bin Laden conspiracy theory. What more is there to say? Yes, there are conspiracy investigators who stray into unsubstantiated theories, but that is of little consequence. The fact remains that the official story is full of holes, especially the stand-down from normal air-defense procedures. We need to move on and figure out how to deal with our post-Coup environment. yours, rkm ============================================================================ Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:26:31 -0800 To: •••@••.••• From: "Fred V. Cook" <•••@••.•••> Subject: Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September Well put, Richard! ---<snip>--- One of the less discussed aspects of the story which concerns me is that the "new Era" looks to intensify the forces which drive and legitimize terrorism. The true answer to terrorism would be to eliminate the horrenduous conditions, including official impunity which give rise to such generations of misery, impotent rage, and utter desperation. By locking in those conditions, Cheney et.al. can be assured of generations of terrorists who will in turn legitimize the draconian measures they prefer in any case, and will probably need in order to consolidate the full spectrum dominance and global neoliberal hegemony. ---<snip>--- My hope is that we in the United States begin to act on the knowledge that Hubbard's peak is passing and that the change of direction must be made while there is enough slack to cover the cost of transition. We need to move most of the military budget into developing sustainable energy infrastructure and beyond that re-engineering everything for living within our means - and that includes taking LESS than our per capita share of the world's resources for a generation or two in order to allow the colonies which have given so much for our development, to keep enough of their own wealth that they can continue to develop toward an eco-sustainable sufficiency. We can't come up with a complete blueprint. It is going to require a massive, multi-lateral negotiation process to find our way into a sustainable future. I have no doubt that it will require a massive educational campaign and strong political leadership to even get this movement off the ground in the US of A. It is not enough to give stingingly accurate critiques of the present system. We must offer a credible replacement and a believable path of migration to reach it. Best wishes, Fred =========== Dear Fred, Thanks for your comments. I certainly agree with your call for a 'credible replacement' and 'believable path'. That is open for discussion on the list, and many previous postings have dealt with those topics. You might find this article of interest... "Returning to our roots": http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/MC/mar01Roots.shtml There is still a point, however, in accurate critiques. Often I've heard progressive people say, "We all know what the problem is, no need to talk about that.". It isn't so. For one thing, there's a wide range of beliefs about the 'main problem' - we don't have anything like a consensus. For another thing, most of these beliefs do not go deep enough. And if you underestimate the problems, your 'replacements' and 'paths' cannot be appropriate to the ~actual~ problems. Hubbard's peak is certainly far behind us, and I believe most people are well aware of that. Especially those at the top. They've mapped out by satellite all global resources and have plans to monopolize them for use by those who can pay the most for them. This agenda is being implemented by means of the IMF and by military force (in the name of anti-terrorism). Any other strategy would prevent economic growth from continuing. We can sustain the Earth, or we can sustain capitalism. But not both at the same time. Just as we can't keep a rat and a snake in the same cage. There is no point in educating people about sustainability, without also educating them about the need to replace capitalism. You said: > it will require a massive educational campaign and strong political leadership to even get this movement off the ground in the US of A.. I suggest that educational campaigns and political leadership are part of the problem, not the solution. Both are top-down ways of manipulating people. In your case, you are hoping for manipulation to proceed in a beneficial direction. You've fallen prey to the Great Liberal Fallacy: the belief that a good society can be created through education and legislation. This is a fallacy because it overlooks the most obvious of all facts: Those in control of a hierarchy always steer it for their own benefit, not for the benefit of you and me. Belief in this fallacy has been one of the most destructive elements of the past century or two. Liberals repeatedly support greater centralization of power, in the mistaken belief that good might come of it. Instead, it has led to the abysmal mess we find ourselves in today. In fact a movement has started, under the provisional banner of 'anti globalization'. This did not come about through educational campaigns nor political leadership. There are no Mario Savios or Abby Hoffmans, and I suggest that's good thing. What the movement needs now is to think in terms of extending itself more broadly, rather than trying to 'influence public opinion' or 'bring the WTO to a halt'. It does ~not~ need to be taken over by some charismatic political leader. The education we need is not about sustainability. It is about empowerment, learning to have faith in our own judgement, and learning how to build community. Sustainability is a straightforward matter of obviously sound policy. > It is going to require a massive, multi-lateral negotiation process to find our way into a sustainable future. With this I agree. What you call a 'multi-lateral negotiation process', I would call a 'harmonization process'. It is not so much a matter of political horse trading, but rather of discovering how we can satisfy everyone's most important needs and preferences. This is what the movement needs to focus on. The negotiation needs to be among we the people, not with the current political structure. The only purpose of that political structure is to control the population from the top, and a primary tactic political leaders use is to pretend to endorse popular demands: co-option. You say: > ...Cheney et.al. can be assured of generations of terrorists who will in turn legitimize the draconian measures they prefer in any case, and will probably need in order to consolidate the full spectrum dominance and global neoliberal hegemony. I'd put this a bit more directly: capitalism cannot achieve enough economic growth to continue unless it employs draconian measures. This has been understood by elites for some time, and the insight was memorialized in Huntington's famous "Crisis of Democracy" paper way back in 1973. The CIA has subsequently spent billions of dollars creating Bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al Qeada. Cheney's current policies are simply a direct extension of bipartisan policies that have been going on for some time. Control of you and me is the problem, and terrorism is the solution. What we are seeing now is the cashing in of the chips: the exploitation of a long-nurtured investment. best regards, rkm -- ============================================================================ Featured articles: "Escaping the Matrix": http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/WE/jun00Matrix.shtml "Returning to our roots": http://cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/MC/mar01Roots.shtml "A Guidebook" for transformation: http://cyberjournal.org/cj/guide/ Jerry Fresia: "Toward an American Revolution": http://cyberjournal.org/cj/authors/fresia/ "Consensus does not mean agreement. It means we create a forum where all voices can be heard and we can think creatively rather than dualistically about how to reconcile our different needs and visions." - Starhawk, "Lessons from Seattle and Washington D.C.", in "Democratizing the Global Economy", Kevin Danaher, ed., Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, 2001. Permission for non-commercial republishing hereby granted - BUT include and observe all restrictions, copyrights, credits, and notices - including this one. ============================================================================ .
