Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September


Richard Moore

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.



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

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.


Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:57:03 -0500
To: •••@••.•••
From: Stephen Shaw <•••@••.•••>
Subject: Re: The Grand Coup of 11 September


Am new to your mailing list. Thank you for Thierry Meyssan
piece - which you may know is also posted at

I did notice it got trashed at  
- but perhaps not credibly.

I am writing, though, to bring to your attention the
following - which is more grist for the mill:

I hope your future postings will help us home in on the true
nature of this confusing drama.


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.


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!

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

By locking in those conditions, Cheney 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.

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,


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":

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

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 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,



Featured articles:

"Escaping the Matrix":

"Returning to our roots":

"A Guidebook" for transformation:

Jerry Fresia: "Toward an American Revolution":

    "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.