- hi every bodyi've read the yellow book number 6 and i'm asking if some information are true, like franc ma�on in politique and about the jason project, majestic 12, steiner mentioned corruption but never at this point. and if it is true, stand up wake up for your right... whath can we do in this dark matrix.
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
- Bradford comments;
So why would anyone in their right mind spend so much of the time
looking at George Bush? My own diagnosis stands, he is a mere
Sentient Soul good ole boy and model for 6th grade educational
fundamentalism in America. Period. Nothing remotely unique or special
about this lad, except his latent pathology. President; Pope; or
understanding Steiner, which do you think is worthy of humanity? Yet,
here we stand in the Free World having to listen to him and his
Administration lie, cheat, deny and corrupt the higher mission of the
U.S. and the higher mission of the Michael Age with blatant
fundamentalist and neocon ahrimanic deceptions 24/7.
Hans Blix and the U.N. as well as Germany, France and Russia deserve
an apology. An apology from George Bush because his state of denial
and this countries state of denial has reached the brown eye ball
phase. Colin Powell and Rummy should admit that they screwed up, lied
and that their information was utter nonsense. Can you imagine how
ugly and occultly disgusting it would be to watch Rumsfeld or Bush
come to terms with their complete deflation? Propped up will dynamics
held by an occult forces is horrible to watch in wage war internally
on its own unforgiven betrayal of its inner humanity.
Denial is a disease, and all of us on the path of esoteric knowledge
have had to encounter and still encounter what is a stubborn, willful
denial of our own errors. When, if taken in stride and on the
learning curve, one can easily grow and retain the wonderful
humanitarian aspects of our own imperfection. It becomes warmly human
to admit our flows, then move on. But stubborn stiff necked denial is
something many of us grew up with, with our own parents. It remains
the perfect pocket for the occult infestation of Ahrimanic forces in
Each of these Democrats and Republicans that continue to allow this
utter nonsense and destructive fascism to be mouthed by the White
House has been robbed or bribed or manipulated into a corner where
they must cower like dumb pups. Americans, still believe, in over 50%
of the population, utter nonsense and lunacy about why we went to War
in Iraq. From outside, voices press against this insanity but the
huge Denial of spoiled and occultly blocked wills, create an even
more darkened and twisted center, a vortex that is enhanced by the
very hatred and fears it generates in the tidal swell of the ignorant
When brotherhoods and dark Initiates look into the will sphere, they
can take control of personalities which have stunted psychologies.
Define the primitive keys to the psychology and you can easily
control and have media and talk show hosts bow to the stiff image of
the Power of a President and all of the stunted and screwed up
soul/psychologies craving to cling to denial.
The denial of ever having to search deeper for reincarnation; The
deeper aspects of the Christ Event; The profound potentials of
Education; Man as a Spiritual Being acting in a world of Providence
and thought; Ahrimanic, brotherhood and luciferic deceptions; our own
double. Knowing the Christian Right Wing Sentient soul psychology of
the majority of Americans is knowing exactly the Psychology of George
Bush and why he is the perfect tool of brotherhoods and particularly,
the most powerful man in the west, Karl Rove... visibly.. the others
are acting behind the scenes and use this mere lump of a man as their
stooge and the core of holding the Sentient Soul illness of the west
in shallow issues of meaningless merit. Except that Iraq and U.S.
souls are dying and American economy has been swept into this
profoundly fundamentalist side show, makes the study of George Bush a
stinky topic that must be contained by higher self knowledge.
So George, how do you feel about your mom and dad?
Psychologist Oliver James analyses the behaviour of the American
Tuesday September 2, 2003
As the alcoholic George Bush approached his 40th birthday in 1986, he
had achieved nothing he could call his own. He was all too aware that
none of his educational and professional accomplishments would have
occured without his father. He felt so low that he did not care if he
lived or died. Taking a friend out for a flight in a Cessna
aeroplane, it only became apparent he had not flown one before when
they nearly crashed on take-off. Narrowly avoiding stalling a few
times, they crash-landed and the friend breathed a sigh of relief -
only for Bush to rev up the engine and take off again.
Not long afterwards, staring at his vomit-spattered face in the
mirror, this dangerously self-destructive man fell to his knees and
implored God to help him and became a teetotalling, fundamentalist
Christian. David Frum, his speechwriter, described the
change: "Sigmund Freud imported the Latin pronoun id to describe the
impulsive, carnal, unruly elements of the human personality. [In his
youth] Bush's id seems to have been every bit as powerful and
destructive as Clinton's id. But sometime in Bush's middle years, his
id was captured, shackled and manacled, and locked away."
One of the jailers was his father. His grandfather, uncles and many
cousins attended both his secondary school, Andover, and his
university, Yale, but the longest shadow was cast by his father's
exceptional careers there.
On the wall of his school house at Andover, there was a large black-
and-white photograph of his father in full sporting regalia. He had
been one of the most successful student athletes in the school's 100-
year history and was similarly remembered at Yale, where his
grandfather was a trustee. His younger brother, Jeb, summed the
problem up when he said, "A lot of people who have fathers like this
feel a sense that they have failed." Such a titanic figure created
mixed feelings. On the one hand, Bush worshipped and aspired to
emulate him. Peter Neumann, an Andover roommate, recalls that, "He
idolised his father, he was going to be just like his dad." At Yale,
a friend remembered a "deep respect" for his father and when he later
set up in the oil business, another friend said, "He was focused to
prove himself to his dad."
On the other hand, deep down, Bush had a profound loathing for this
perfect model of American citizenship whose very success made the son
feel a failure. Rebelliousness was an unconscious attack on him and a
desperate attempt to carve out something of his own. Far from
paternal emulation, Bush described his goal at school as "to instil a
sense of frivolity". Contemporaries at Yale say he was like the John
Belushi character in the film Animal House, a drink-fuelled
He was aggressively anti-intellectual and hostile to east-coast
preppy types like his father, sometimes cruelly so. On one occasion
he walked up to a matronly woman at a smart cocktail party and
asked, "So, what's sex like after 50, anyway?"
A direct and loutish challenge to his father's posh sensibility came
aged 25, after he had drunkenly crashed a car. "I hear you're looking
for me," he sneered at his father, "do you want to go mano a mano,
As he grew older, the fury towards his father was increasingly
directed against himself in depressive drinking. But it was not all
his father's fault. There was also his insensitive and domineering
Barbara Bush is described by her closest intimates as prone
to "withering stares" and "sharply crystalline" retorts. She is also
extremely tough. When he was seven, Bush's younger sister, Robin,
died of leukaemia and several independent witnesses say he was very
upset by this loss. Barbara claims its effect was exaggerated but
nobody could accuse her of overreacting: the day after the funeral,
she and her husband were on the golf course.
She was the main authority-figure in the home. Jeb describes it as
having been, "A kind of matriarchy... when we were growing up, dad
wasn't at home. Mom was the one to hand out the goodies and the
discipline." A childhood friend recalls that,"She was the one who
instilled fear", while Bush put it like this: "Every mother has her
own style. Mine was a little like an army drill sergeant's... my
mother's always been a very outspoken person who vents very well -
she'll just let rip if she's got something on her mind." According to
his uncle, the "letting rip" often included slaps and hits. Countless
studies show that boys with such mothers are at much higher risk of
becoming wild, alcoholic or antisocial.
On top of that, Barbara added substantially to the pressure from his
father to be a high achiever by creating a highly competitive family
culture. All the children's games, be they tiddlywinks or baseball,
were intensely competitive - an actual "family league table" was kept
of performance in various pursuits. At least this prepared him for
life at Andover, where emotional literacy was definitely not part of
the curriculum. Soon after arriving, he was asked to write an essay
on a soul-stirring experience in his life to date and he chose the
death of his sister. His mother had drilled it into him that it was
wrong when writing to repeat words already used. Having
employed "tears" once in the essay, he sought a substitute from a
thesaurus she had given him and wrote "the lacerates ran down my
cheeks". The essay received a fail grade, accompanied by derogatory
comments such as "disgraceful".
This incident may be an insight into Bush's strange tendency to find
the wrong words in making public pronouncements. "Is our children
learning?" he once famously asked. On responding to critics of his
intellect he claimed that they had "misunderestimated" him. Perhaps
these verbal faux-pas are a barely unconscious way of winding up his
bullying mother and waving two fingers at his cultured father's
The outcome of this childhood was what psychologists call an
authoritarian personality. Authoritarianism was identified shortly
after the second world war as part of research to discover the causes
of fascism. As the name suggests, authoritarians impose the strictest
possible discipline on themselves and others - the sort of regime
found in today's White House, where prayers precede daily business,
appointments are scheduled in five-minute blocks, women's skirts must
be below the knee and Bush rises at 5.45am, invariably fitting in a
21-minute, three-mile jog before lunch.
Authoritarian personalities are organised around rabid hostility
to "legitimate" targets, often ones nominated by their parents'
prejudices. Intensely moralistic, they direct it towards despised
social groups. As people, they avoid introspection or loving
displays, preferring toughness and cynicism. They regard others with
suspicion, attributing ulterior motives to the most innocent
behaviour. They are liable to be superstitious. All these traits have
been described in Bush many times, by friends or colleagues.
His moralism is all-encompassing and as passionate as can be. He
plans to replace state welfare provision with faith-based charitable
organisations that would impose Christian family values.
The commonest targets of authoritarians have been Jews, blacks and
homosexuals. Bush is anti-abortion and his fundamentalist
interpretation of the Bible would mean that gay practices are evil.
But perhaps the group he reserves his strongest contempt for are
those who have adopted the values of the 60s. He says he
loathes "people who felt guilty about their lot in life because
others were suffering".
He has always rejected any kind of introspection. Everyone who knows
him well says how hard he is to get to know, that he lives behind
what one friend calls a "facile, personable" facade. Frum comments
that, "He is relentlessly disciplined and very slow to trust. Even
when his mouth seems to be smiling at you, you can feel his eyes
His deepest beliefs amount to superstition. "Life takes its own
turns," he says, "writes its own story and along the way we start to
realise that we are not the author." God's will, not his own,
explains his life.
Most fundamentalist Christians have authoritarian personalities. Two
core beliefs separate fundamentalists from mere evangelists ("happy-
clappy" Christians) or the mainstream Presbyterians among whom Bush
first learned religion every Sunday with his parents: fundamentalists
take the Bible absolutely literally as the word of God and believe
that human history will come to an end in the near future, preceded
by a terrible, apocaplytic battle on Earth between the forces of good
and evil, which only the righteous shall survive. According to Frum
when Bush talks of an "axis of evil" he is identifying his enemies as
literally satanic, possessed by the devil. Whether he specifically
sees the battle with Iraq and other "evil" nations as being part of
the end-time, the apocalypse preceding the day of judgment, is not
known. Nor is it known whether Tony Blair shares these particular
However, it is certain that however much Bush may sometimes seem like
a buffoon, he is also powered by massive, suppressed anger towards
anyone who challenges the extreme, fanatical beliefs shared by him
and a significant slice of his citizens - in surveys, half of them
also agree with the statement "the Bible is the actual word of God
and is to be taken literally, word for word".
Bush's deep hatred, as well as love, for both his parents explains
how he became a reckless rebel with a death wish. He hated his father
for putting his whole life in the shade and for emotionally
blackmailing him. He hated his mother for physically and mentally
badgering him to fulfil her wishes. But the hatred also explains his
radical transformation into an authoritarian fundamentalist. By
totally identifying with an extreme version of their strict, religion-
fuelled beliefs, he jailed his rebellious self. From now on, his
unconscious hatred for them was channelled into a fanatical moral
crusade to rid the world of evil.
As Frum put it: "Id-control is the basis of Bush's presidency but
Bush is a man of fierce anger." That anger now rules the world.
· Oliver James's book They F*** You Up - How to survive family life
is published by Bloomsbury, priced £7.99.
- Dear friends'
We have had in our time, WAR ON DRUGS, WAR ON CANCER, WAR ON POVERTY,
WAR ON HUNGER and in most cases, such as the War on Cancer, the
occult basis of the human form and the unfolding of Cancer is a
higher spiritual paradigm of human karma, was never touched, even if
Cancer Klinics existed with clear cutting edge cures, Lukas Klinic in
Dornach, Miseltoe and its profound history, its occult reality, was
mentioned once by Peter Jennings and dropped like a hot coal... It
would have meant that understanding Cancer would have led to a trail
of healing impulses right up to Dornach.
War on Terrorism has been just one more cheerleading session of rah,
rah, go team go, go nowhere. At the core of this War was always Oil
and the Oil supply of the world. Instead of having a War on Ahriman,
or at least putting our research into understanding Fear, Terror,
Greed and motives, we failed, as a country to look at Weimar where
Leo Strauss fled Ahriman. Where Ahriman as a Timely Shadow of the
Time Spirit Michael, insulted Christ in 1933, by declaring War on
Christ and the little human who knew it. That was that the War was
begun on Steiner's birthday. It is this undeclared War, this real war
that we can trace right back to Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney...Perle
and Israel's relation to the U.S. as their own pet pitbull.
There is no RoadMap for Peace. Britain is merely a puppy of the U.S.,
a pet poodle who did the U.S. bidding, so that they would get some of
the oil if things went well. They didn't go well. Israel and Britain
are merely puppets of the phony Ahrimanic shadow Time Spirit that
wells up inside of each persons head and corkscrews into their
intellects and makes way for lies, deceptions and idealism, not based
on Steiner like heroic Truth telling... but Rather on Leo Strauss'
interpretation of Plato's Philosopher Kings... Pretending to be Kings
of the World, these Kings have stolen and infested world forces so
that humanity will not see the Freedom of Michael and the True Time
Spirit that arises in every word of Dr. Steiner.
This war on terrorism is bogus
The 9/11 attacks gave the US an ideal pretext to use force to secure
its global domination
Saturday September 6, 2003
Massive attention has now been given - and rightly so - to the
reasons why Britain went to war against Iraq. But far too little
attention has focused on why the US went to war, and that throws
light on British motives too. The conventional explanation is that
after the Twin Towers were hit, retaliation against al-Qaida bases in
Afghanistan was a natural first step in launching a global war
against terrorism. Then, because Saddam Hussein was alleged by the US
and UK governments to retain weapons of mass destruction, the war
could be extended to Iraq as well. However this theory does not fit
all the facts. The truth may be a great deal murkier.
We now know that a blueprint for the creation of a global Pax
Americana was drawn up for Dick Cheney (now vice-president), Donald
Rumsfeld (defence secretary), Paul Wolfowitz (Rumsfeld's deputy), Jeb
Bush (George Bush's younger brother) and Lewis Libby (Cheney's chief
of staff). The document, entitled Rebuilding America's Defences, was
written in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank, Project
for the New American Century (PNAC).
The plan shows Bush's cabinet intended to take military control of
the Gulf region whether or not Saddam Hussein was in power. It
says "while the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate
justification, the need for a substantial American force presence in
the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
The PNAC blueprint supports an earlier document attributed to
Wolfowitz and Libby which said the US must "discourage advanced
industrial nations from challenging our leadership or even aspiring
to a larger regional or global role". It refers to key allies such as
the UK as "the most effective and efficient means of exercising
American global leadership". It describes peacekeeping missions
as "demanding American political leadership rather than that of the
UN". It says "even should Saddam pass from the scene", US bases in
Saudi Arabia and Kuwait will remain permanently... as "Iran may well
prove as large a threat to US interests as Iraq has". It spotlights
China for "regime change", saying "it is time to increase the
presence of American forces in SE Asia".
The document also calls for the creation of "US space forces" to
dominate space, and the total control of cyberspace to
prevent "enemies" using the internet against the US. It also hints
that the US may consider developing biological weapons "that can
target specific genotypes [and] may transform biological warfare from
the realm of terror to a politically useful tool".
Finally - written a year before 9/11 - it pinpoints North Korea,
Syria and Iran as dangerous regimes, and says their existence
justifies the creation of a "worldwide command and control system".
This is a blueprint for US world domination. But before it is
dismissed as an agenda for rightwing fantasists, it is clear it
provides a much better explanation of what actually happened before,
during and after 9/11 than the global war on terrorism thesis. This
can be seen in several ways.
First, it is clear the US authorities did little or nothing to pre-
empt the events of 9/11. It is known that at least 11 countries
provided advance warning to the US of the 9/11 attacks. Two senior
Mossad experts were sent to Washington in August 2001 to alert the
CIA and FBI to a cell of 200 terrorists said to be preparing a big
operation (Daily Telegraph, September 16 2001). The list they
provided included the names of four of the 9/11 hijackers, none of
whom was arrested.
It had been known as early as 1996 that there were plans to hit
Washington targets with aeroplanes. Then in 1999 a US national
intelligence council report noted that "al-Qaida suicide bombers
could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives into the
Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House".
Fifteen of the 9/11 hijackers obtained their visas in Saudi Arabia.
Michael Springman, the former head of the American visa bureau in
Jeddah, has stated that since 1987 the CIA had been illicitly issuing
visas to unqualified applicants from the Middle East and bringing
them to the US for training in terrorism for the Afghan war in
collaboration with Bin Laden (BBC, November 6 2001). It seems this
operation continued after the Afghan war for other purposes. It is
also reported that five of the hijackers received training at secure
US military installations in the 1990s (Newsweek, September 15 2001).
Instructive leads prior to 9/11 were not followed up. French Moroccan
flight student Zacarias Moussaoui (now thought to be the 20th
hijacker) was arrested in August 2001 after an instructor reported he
showed a suspicious interest in learning how to steer large
airliners. When US agents learned from French intelligence he had
radical Islamist ties, they sought a warrant to search his computer,
which contained clues to the September 11 mission (Times, November 3
2001). But they were turned down by the FBI. One agent wrote, a month
before 9/11, that Moussaoui might be planning to crash into the Twin
Towers (Newsweek, May 20 2002).
All of this makes it all the more astonishing - on the war on
terrorism perspective - that there was such slow reaction on
September 11 itself. The first hijacking was suspected at not later
than 8.20am, and the last hijacked aircraft crashed in Pennsylvania
at 10.06am. Not a single fighter plane was scrambled to investigate
from the US Andrews airforce base, just 10 miles from Washington DC,
until after the third plane had hit the Pentagon at 9.38 am. Why not?
There were standard FAA intercept procedures for hijacked aircraft
before 9/11. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the US military
launched fighter aircraft on 67 occasions to chase suspicious
aircraft (AP, August 13 2002). It is a US legal requirement that once
an aircraft has moved significantly off its flight plan, fighter
planes are sent up to investigate.
Was this inaction simply the result of key people disregarding, or
being ignorant of, the evidence? Or could US air security operations
have been deliberately stood down on September 11? If so, why, and on
whose authority? The former US federal crimes prosecutor, John
Loftus, has said: "The information provided by European intelligence
services prior to 9/11 was so extensive that it is no longer possible
for either the CIA or FBI to assert a defence of incompetence."
Nor is the US response after 9/11 any better. No serious attempt has
ever been made to catch Bin Laden. In late September and early
October 2001, leaders of Pakistan's two Islamist parties negotiated
Bin Laden's extradition to Pakistan to stand trial for 9/11. However,
a US official said, significantly, that "casting our objectives too
narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if
by some lucky chance Mr Bin Laden was captured". The US chairman of
the joint chiefs of staff, General Myers, went so far as to say
that "the goal has never been to get Bin Laden" (AP, April 5 2002).
The whistleblowing FBI agent Robert Wright told ABC News (December 19
2002) that FBI headquarters wanted no arrests. And in November 2001
the US airforce complained it had had al-Qaida and Taliban leaders in
its sights as many as 10 times over the previous six weeks, but had
been unable to attack because they did not receive permission quickly
enough (Time Magazine, May 13 2002). None of this assembled evidence,
all of which comes from sources already in the public domain, is
compatible with the idea of a real, determined war on terrorism.
The catalogue of evidence does, however, fall into place when set
against the PNAC blueprint. From this it seems that the so-
called "war on terrorism" is being used largely as bogus cover for
achieving wider US strategic geopolitical objectives. Indeed Tony
Blair himself hinted at this when he said to the Commons liaison
committee: "To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have
got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on
Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11" (Times, July 17
2002). Similarly Rumsfeld was so determined to obtain a rationale for
an attack on Iraq that on 10 separate occasions he asked the CIA to
find evidence linking Iraq to 9/11; the CIA repeatedly came back
empty-handed (Time Magazine, May 13 2002).
In fact, 9/11 offered an extremely convenient pretext to put the PNAC
plan into action. The evidence again is quite clear that plans for
military action against Afghanistan and Iraq were in hand well before
9/11. A report prepared for the US government from the Baker
Institute of Public Policy stated in April 2001 that "the US remains
a prisoner of its energy dilemma. Iraq remains a destabilising
influence to... the flow of oil to international markets from the
Middle East". Submitted to Vice-President Cheney's energy task group,
the report recommended that because this was an unacceptable risk to
the US, "military intervention" was necessary (Sunday Herald, October
Similar evidence exists in regard to Afghanistan. The BBC reported
(September 18 2001) that Niaz Niak, a former Pakistan foreign
secretary, was told by senior American officials at a meeting in
Berlin in mid-July 2001 that "military action against Afghanistan
would go ahead by the middle of October". Until July 2001 the US
government saw the Taliban regime as a source of stability in Central
Asia that would enable the construction of hydrocarbon pipelines from
the oil and gas fields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan,
through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean. But,
confronted with the Taliban's refusal to accept US conditions, the US
representatives told them "either you accept our offer of a carpet of
gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs" (Inter Press Service,
November 15 2001).
Given this background, it is not surprising that some have seen the
US failure to avert the 9/11 attacks as creating an invaluable
pretext for attacking Afghanistan in a war that had clearly already
been well planned in advance. There is a possible precedent for this.
The US national archives reveal that President Roosevelt used exactly
this approach in relation to Pearl Harbor on December 7 1941. Some
advance warning of the attacks was received, but the information
never reached the US fleet. The ensuing national outrage persuaded a
reluctant US public to join the second world war. Similarly the PNAC
blueprint of September 2000 states that the process of transforming
the US into "tomorrow's dominant force" is likely to be a long one in
the absence of "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new
Pearl Harbor". The 9/11 attacks allowed the US to press the "go"
button for a strategy in accordance with the PNAC agenda which it
would otherwise have been politically impossible to implement.
The overriding motivation for this political smokescreen is that the
US and the UK are beginning to run out of secure hydrocarbon energy
supplies. By 2010 the Muslim world will control as much as 60% of the
world's oil production and, even more importantly, 95% of remaining
global oil export capacity. As demand is increasing, so supply is
decreasing, continually since the 1960s.
This is leading to increasing dependence on foreign oil supplies for
both the US and the UK. The US, which in 1990 produced domestically
57% of its total energy demand, is predicted to produce only 39% of
its needs by 2010. A DTI minister has admitted that the UK could be
facing "severe" gas shortages by 2005. The UK government has
confirmed that 70% of our electricity will come from gas by 2020, and
90% of that will be imported. In that context it should be noted that
Iraq has 110 trillion cubic feet of gas reserves in addition to its
A report from the commission on America's national interests in July
2000 noted that the most promising new source of world supplies was
the Caspian region, and this would relieve US dependence on Saudi
Arabia. To diversify supply routes from the Caspian, one pipeline
would run westward via Azerbaijan and Georgia to the Turkish port of
Ceyhan. Another would extend eastwards through Afghanistan and
Pakistan and terminate near the Indian border. This would rescue
Enron's beleaguered power plant at Dabhol on India's west coast, in
which Enron had sunk $3bn investment and whose economic survival was
dependent on access to cheap gas.
Nor has the UK been disinterested in this scramble for the remaining
world supplies of hydrocarbons, and this may partly explain British
participation in US military actions. Lord Browne, chief executive of
BP, warned Washington not to carve up Iraq for its own oil companies
in the aftermath of war (Guardian, October 30 2002). And when a
British foreign minister met Gadaffi in his desert tent in August
2002, it was said that "the UK does not want to lose out to other
European nations already jostling for advantage when it comes to
potentially lucrative oil contracts" with Libya (BBC Online, August
The conclusion of all this analysis must surely be that the "global
war on terrorism" has the hallmarks of a political myth propagated to
pave the way for a wholly different agenda - the US goal of world
hegemony, built around securing by force command over the oil
supplies required to drive the whole project. Is collusion in this
myth and junior participation in this project really a proper
aspiration for British foreign policy? If there was ever need to
justify a more objective British stance, driven by our own
independent goals, this whole depressing saga surely provides all the
evidence needed for a radical change of course.
Michael Meacher MP was environment minister from May 1997 to June
The comments cited by "holderlin66", concerning the possibility that Roosevelt (and many others) allowed for or planned for Pearl Harbor, as a pretext to get the USA into W.W.II, puts in my mind another bit of history.
I think that the elites of the Western political economy during the 1930's did at least two things. First, using Chamberlain as their mouthpiece, they encouraged Hitler to take over parts of Europe: a.) to give Germany a "fighting chance" to keep a war going for several years, and b.) to get the eugenics program re: the Jewish people off of the ground. Second, when Hitler had committed himself irretrievably to war and to genocide, they turned against him, and, using Churchill as their mouthpiece, they then destroyed him.
At least three things were accomplished by all of this. First, the war businesses of armaments, technological innovation, and debt financing, beggaring the nation states on both (all) sides, were allowed several years to develop, resulting in great material and financial profit for many in this global elite.
Second, after the war it became "clear" that there is a "need" for a "world government". These elites had tried to make this world government appear "necessary" after W.W.I, but they could not engage the imagination of the world's people at that time. This world government was gotten off of the ground after W.W.II, and continues to develop today, to the benefit of these global elites of political economy, moving them closer to one of their aims: centralized authority in war, technology and finance, making easier, more "efficient" and more "rational" their world dominance.
Third, the murder of large numbers of the world's Jewish population: i.) taught these elites a great deal with regard to eugenics, something which continues today; and ii.) allowed the world's leaders of political economy to make "more urgent" the "need" for a Jewish state. They tried unsuccessfully to create this Jewish state after W.W.I. The purpose of Israel for these global elites is to have a firm foothold in the Middle East. This firm foothold means: i.) greater control of the world's physical energy resources, and ii.) developing a permanent state of war between two combatants (any two combatants, it does not matter), so that they can finance the war through their banking companies, sell the armaments at tremendous profit, and develop technology, by controlling both "sides" in the war.
No one goes to a baseball game, if there are no "teams" to compete. The same is true for political elections and for wars.
In my opinion, all of this kind of thing is planned, just as the ruling elites used Roosevelt and others to allow for Pearl Harbor, persuading the American populace to enter W.W.II.
It seems to me that both lucerferic and ahrimanic forces have been at work here. They have been at work in the very active movements of the global elites. They have also been at work in the more passive, yet still decisive movements of the world's majority of peoples. I include myself in that culpable mass of passive persons. A fruitful response, I think, is to focus on the meaning of the Christ in our lives. This sense of a need for developing access to the power of Christ is not a unique perception on this forum.
--- In email@example.com, lismoref@a... wrote:
Finbarr Lismore wrote;
The comments cited by "holderlin66", concerning the possibility that
Roosevelt (and many others) allowed for or planned for Pearl Harbor,
as a pretext to get the USA into W.W.II, puts in my mind another bit
I think that the elites of the Western political economy during the
1930's did at least two things. First, using Chamberlain as their
mouthpiece, they encouraged Hitler to take over parts of Europe: a.)
to give Germany a "fighting chance" to keep a war going for several
years, and b.) to get the eugenics program re: the Jewish people off
of the ground. Second, when Hitler had committed himself
irretrievably to war and to genocide, they turned against him, and,
using Churchill as their mouthpiece, they then destroyed him."
When do we become 'humans for all seasons'? From Spiritual Science
and general Rosicrucian insights we learn to freely enter science,
education, politics, religion, myth, psychology, for they all truly
impact our current Michael Age. This Michael Age is our age. It means
that we take hold of Sentient, Intellectual and Consciousness soul
impulses and as so many like Finbarr have indicated, find the etheric
gold, pan out the flawed insights and see below the surface of the
murky water, the present Christ mandate for mankind.
Stars, predestination, DNA, four blood types, How Christ altered
matter in such a profound context that our sciences remain stumped
and refuse to see that this was not merely a little nice fellow named
Jesus. It is this that limits the intelligence from grasping the
deeper issues of how science and matter were formed out of the Occult
Science regions of research that were just reviewed on this list.
But naturally, few there are who reach into the thinking region and
refuse to be limited by either the pompous dogmatism of university
trained buffoons or the overt machinations of Ahrimanic political
Deceptions. So I agree with Finbarr, it takes some maturity to
understand how the elemental beings are beinc compromised as we enter
deeper and deeper into false regions of research. This is the impact
that shapes the current Michael Age, with Christ and Brotherhood as
its focus, into the current Ahrimanic Age, with Lies and Deception as
its focus for shaping medicine, science and education into a tool to
destroy the Imageo and Divine Image of the Human Spirit. But too few
wrestle in this realm so it is up to those who hold the Watchtower,
from Dylan and Jimi Hendrix..."All along the Watchtower" to keep an
eye on Gold Rush of the new Etheric Worlds. This theme of the gold
rush of the new etheric worlds is stunning and equals in my
mind, 'Harvesting Light' and Ahrimanic Symptomology studies.
Finbarr brought up wonderful insights into the Politics that have
been attempting to direct our attention to the circus that Ahriman
has given us. Now Gore Vidal is no dwindling light but lives livingly
on the border of the Intellectual Soul and Consciousness Soul but
with a clear and resonating heart mind. Gore Vidal is warmer, warmer
by far than Noam Chomsky.
Gore Vidal wrote;
"Many commentators of a certain age have noted how Hitlerian our
junta sounds as it threatens first one country for harbouring
terrorists and then another. It is true that Hitler liked to pretend
to be the injured - or threatened - party before he struck. But he
had many great predecessors not least Imperial Rome. Stephen Gowan's
War in Afghanistan: A $28 Billion Racket quotes Joseph Schumpeter
who, 'in 1919, described ancient Rome in a way that sounds eerily
like the United States in 2001: "There was no corner of the known
world where some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under
actual attack. If the interests were not Roman, they were those of
Rome's allies; and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be
invented ... The fight was always invested with an aura of legality.
Rome was always being attacked by evil-minded neighbours."' We have
only outdone the Romans in turning metaphors such as the war on
terrorism, or poverty, or Aids into actual wars on targets we appear,
often, to pick at random in order to maintain turbulence in foreign
"Afghanistan is the gateway to all these riches. Will we fight to
seize them? It should never be forgotten that the American people did
not want to fight in either of the twentieth century's world wars,
but President Wilson maneuvered us into the First while President
Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into striking the first blow at
Pearl Harbor, causing us to enter the Second as the result of a
massive external attack. Brzezinski understands all this and, in
1997, he is thinking ahead - as well as backward. 'Moreover, as
America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it
more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,
except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived
direct external threat.' Thus was the symbolic gun produced that
belched black smoke over Manhattan and the Pentagon."
Check out this historical essay by Gore Vidal for yourselves. That is
if you are inclined to carry and sift for the gold in Intellectual
and Consciousness Soul impulses. Most cannot and that is
There are thousands of ways to approach the thoughts of others, of
the value of thinking, of seeing into the fabric of our Age. Our
communal task, as Danny has indicated, is to become Selective
Affinities beacons. Learn what Spiritual Science is and its depth and
along the way see how it relates to the wonderful wide world. The
Ahrimanic Deception, as Finbarr wrote, allowed certain researches and
financial deceptions, including removing the Gold Standard in the
Christed Prediction Window of 1933....forcing all of us into racism,
DNA, Ethnic cleansing and nuclear Fission Fire Theories that have
been used as giant Mushroom Billboards to distract ourselves from the
fact that an Elohim, responsible for matters foundations walked on
the Earth and created a new form of Fission in the melding of the
Atomic structure. These are facts and if many anthros still cannot
understand and bridge their science ideas, with Christ ideas, they
have not looked deep enough.
- Bradford comments;
Robert Kennedy, and I hope I do not have to explain who Robert
Kennedy was, wrote a book, vague and meandering, but in theme very
exciting, called, "The Enemy Within". Such a subject matter could
have been the basis for any occult investigation that would include
such riveting ideas as "The Sorrows of Satan" "Zanoni" or "Thus Spake
Zarathustra" and in particular, "The Mysterious Stranger" by Mark
Twain. These studies, which are laid out for students of Spiritual
Science who have not yet encountered the knack of seeing the
connections, would give you some ideas of everything that entails a
study of Ahriman and Ahrimanic Symptomolgy.
But Robert Kennedy failed to produce such a riveting understanding
and deep penetration into the theme of the "Enemy Within" and
everyone else has been afraid to name the fact that we have an enemy
within ourselves which opposes the current Michael age and wishes to
supplant it, as a vast Archai Being it lives in every human brain in
the world as a fact. Just as the Time Spirit Michael lives in every
human heart as the pulse of Time. Ahriman in the Brain, Michael in
the Heart... this describes the inner battle of the enemy within.
Now to go Within the Ides of March or keyed off March itself, our
Iraq and Oil conspiracy, invested with immense lies and betrayal, we
enter what Shakespeare called, Within the Tent of Brutus. Imperial
Rome and Imperialism and betrayal and lies, all come to a head and in
it we have all the motives of greed, power and the new neocon
Philospher Kings following the misguided grasp of Platonism that Leo
Strauss gave to Wolfowitz... Dick Cheney and the whole bunch can
easily be seen as Enemies Within the Tent of Brutus in Shakespeare's
play of "Julius Caesar". But for supporting Robbers!! That is exactly
the level of soul development repeated in this vivid Imagination that
is the thinking of the "Enemy Within".
"Bru. Remember March, the idea of March remember:
Did not great Julius bleed for justice` sake?
What villain touch`d his body, that did stab,
And not for justice? What! shall one of us,
That struck the foremost man of all this world
But for supporting robbers, shall we now
Contaminate our fingers with base bribes,
And sell the mighty space of our large honours
For so much trash as may be grasped thus!
I had rather be a dog, and bay the moon,
Than such a Roman. "
THE OBSERVER, LONDON
SUNDAY 27TH OCTOBER 2002, REVIEW SECTION, PAGES 1-4
The Enemy Within
Gore Vidal is America's most controversial writer and a ferocious,
often isolated, critic of the Bush administration. Here, against a
backdrop of spreading unease about America's response to the events
of 11 September 2001 and their aftermath, we publish Vidal's
remarkable personal polemic urging a shocking new interpretation of
who was to blame.
"On 24 August, 1814, things looked very dark for freedom's land. That
was the day the British captured Washington DC and set fire to the
Capitol and the White House. President Madison took refuge in the
nearby Virginia woods where he waited patiently for the notoriously
short attention span of the Brits to kick in, which it did. They
moved on and what might have been a Day of Utter Darkness turned out
to be something of a bonanza for the DC building trades and up-market
One year after 9/11, we still don't know by whom we were struck that
infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to
many civil-libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our
fragile Bill of Rights but also to our once-envied system of
government which had taken a mortal blow the previous year when the
Supreme Court did a little dance in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly
elected president with the oil and gas Cheney/Bush junta.
Meanwhile, our more and more unaccountable government is pursuing all
sorts of games around the world that we the spear carriers (formerly
the people) will never learn of. Even so, we have been getting some
answers to the question: why weren't we warned in advance of 9/11?
Apparently, we were, repeatedly; for the better part of a year, we
were told there would be unfriendly visitors to our skies some time
in September 2001, but the government neither informed nor protected
us despite Mayday warnings from Presidents Putin and Mubarak, from
Mossad and even from elements of our own FBI. A joint panel of
congressional intelligence committees reported (19 September 2002,
New York Times) that as early as 1996, Pakistani terrorist Abdul
Hakim Murad confessed to federal agents that he was 'learning to fly
in order to crash a plane into CIA HQ'.
Only CIA director George Tenet seemed to take the various threats
seriously. In December 1998, he wrote to his deputies that 'we are at
war' with Osama bin Laden. So impressed was the FBI by his warnings
that by 20 September 2001, 'the FBI still had only one analyst
assigned full time to al-Qaeda'.
From a briefing prepared for Bush at the beginning of July 2001: 'We
believe that OBL [Osama bin Laden] will launch a significant
terrorist attack against US and/or Israeli interests in the coming
weeks. The attack will be spectacular and designed to inflict mass
casualties against US facilities or interests. Attack preparations
have been made. Attack will occur with little or no warning.' And so
it came to pass; yet Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Advisor,
says she never suspected that this meant anything more than the
kidnapping of planes.
Happily, somewhere over the Beltway, there is Europe - recently
declared anti-Semitic by the US media because most of Europe wants no
war with Iraq and the junta does, for reasons we may now begin to
understand thanks to European and Asian investigators with their
relatively free media.
On the subject 'How and Why America was Attacked on 11 September,
2001', the best, most balanced report, thus far, is by Nafeez
Mossadeq Ahmed ... Yes, yes, I know he is one of Them. But they often
know things that we don't - particularly about what we are up to. A
political scientist, Ahmed is executive director of the Institute for
Policy Research and Development 'a think-tank dedicated to the
promotion of human rights, justice and peace' in Brighton. His
book, 'The War on Freedom', has just been published in the US by a
small but reputable publisher.
Ahmed provides a background for our ongoing war against Afghanistan,
a view that in no way coincides with what the administration has told
us. He has drawn on many sources, most tellingly on American
whistleblowers who are beginning to come forth and hear witness -
like those FBI agents who warned their supervisors that al-Qaeda was
planning a kamikaze strike against New York and Washington only to be
told that if they went public with these warnings they would suffer
under the National Security Act. Several of these agents have engaged
David P. Schippers, chief investigative counsel for the US House
Judiciary Committee, to represent them in court. The majestic
Schippers managed the successful impeachment of President Clinton in
the House of Representatives. He may, if the Iraqi war should go
wrong, be obliged to perform the same high service for Bush, who
allowed the American people to go unwarned about an imminent attack
upon two of our cities as pre-emption of a planned military strike by
the US against the Taliban.
The Guardian (26 September 2001) reported that in July 2001, a group
of interested parties met in a Berlin hotel to listen to a former
State Department official, Lee Coldren, as he passed on a message
from the Bush administration that 'the United States was so disgusted
with the Taliban that they might be considering some military
action ... the chilling quality of this private warning was that it
came - according to one of those present, the Pakistani diplomat Niaz
Naik - accompanied by specific details of how Bush would succeed ...'
Four days earlier, the Guardian had reported that 'Osama bin Laden
and the Taliban received threats of possible American military action
against them two months before the terrorist assaults on New York and
Washington ... [which] raises the possibility that bin Laden was
launching a pre-emptive strike in response to what he saw as US
threats.' A replay of the 'day of infamy' in the Pacific 62 years
Why The US Needed A Eurasian Adventure
On 9 September 2001, Bush was presented with a draft of a national
security presidential directive outlining a global campaign of
military, diplomatic and intelligence action targeting al-Qaeda,
buttressed by the threat of war. According to NBC News: 'President
Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against
al-Qaeda ... but did not have the chance before the terrorist
attacks ... The directive, as described to NBC News, was essentially
the same war plan as the one put into action after 11 September. The
administration most likely was able to respond so quickly ... because
it simply had to pull the plans "off the shelf".'
Finally, BBC News, 18 September 2001: 'Niak Naik, a former Pakistan
foreign secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July
that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle
of October. It was Naik's view that Washington would not drop its war
for Afghanistan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately
by the Taliban.'
Was Afghanistan then turned to rubble in order to avenge the 3,000
Americans slaughtered by Osama? Hardly. The administration is
convinced that Americans are so simple-minded that they can deal with
no scenario more complex than the venerable lone, crazed killer (this
time with zombie helpers) who does evil just for the fun of it 'cause
he hates us, 'cause we're rich 'n free 'n he's not. Osama was chosen
on aesthetic grounds to be the most frightening logo for our long
contemplated invasion and conquest of Afghanistan, planning for which
had been 'contingency' some years before 9/11 and, again, from 20
December, 2000, when Clinton's out-going team devised a plan to
strike at al-Qaeda in retaliation for the assault on the warship
Cole. Clinton's National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, personally
briefed his successor on the plan but Rice, still very much in her
role as director of Chevron-Texaco, with special duties regarding
Pakistan and Uzbekistan, now denies any such briefing. A year and a
half later (12 August, 2002), fearless Time magazine reported this
odd memory lapse.
Osama, if it was he and not a nation, simply provided the necessary
shock to put in train a war of conquest. But conquest of what? What
is there in dismal dry sandy Afghanistan worth conquering? Zbigniew
Brzezinski tells us exactly what in a 1997 Council on Foreign
Relations study called 'The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and
its Geostrategic Imperatives'.
The Polish-born Brzezinski was the hawkish National Security Advisor
to President Carter. In 'The Grand Chessboard', Brzezinski gives a
little history lesson. 'Ever since the continents started interacting
politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been the centre of world
power.' Eurasia is all the territory east of Germany. This means
Russia, the Middle East, China and parts of India. Brzezinski
acknowledges that Russia and China, bordering oil-rich central Asia,
are the two main powers threatening US hegemony in that area.
He takes it for granted that the US must exert control over the
former Soviet republics of Central Asia, known to those who love them
as 'the Stans': Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and Kyrgyzstan
all 'of importance from the standpoint of security and historical
ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and most powerful
neighbours - Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China signaling'.
Brzezinski notes how the world's energy consumption keeps increasing;
hence, who controls Caspian oil/gas will control the world economy.
Brzezinski then, reflexively, goes into the standard American
rationalization for empire;. We want nothing, ever, for ourselves,
only to keep bad people from getting good things with which to hurt
good people. 'It follows that America's primary interest is to help
ensure that no single [other] power comes to control the geopolitical
space and that the global community has unhindered financial and
economic access to it.'
Brzezinski is quite aware that American leaders are wonderfully
ignorant of history and geography so he really lays it on, stopping
just short of invoking politically incorrect 'manifest destiny'. He
reminds the Council just how big Eurasia is. Seventy-five percent of
the world's population is Eurasian. If I have done the sums right,
that means that we've only got control, to date, of a mere 25 percent
of the world's folks. More! 'Eurasia accounts for 60-per cent of the
world's GNP and three-fourths of the world's known energy resources.'
Brzezinski's master plan for 'our' globe has obviously been accepted
by the Cheney-Bush junta. Corporate America, long over-excited by
Eurasian mineral wealth, has been aboard from the beginning.
Ahmed sums up: 'Brzezinski clearly envisaged that the establishment,
consolidation and expansion of US military hegemony over Eurasia
through Central Asia would require the unprecedented, open-ended
militarisation of foreign policy, coupled with an unprecedented
manufacture of domestic support and consensus on this militarisation
Afghanistan is the gateway to all these riches. Will we fight to
seize them? It should never be forgotten that the American people did
not want to fight in either of the twentieth century's world wars,
but President Wilson maneuvered us into the First while President
Roosevelt maneuvered the Japanese into striking the first blow at
Pearl Harbor, causing us to enter the Second as the result of a
massive external attack. Brzezinski understands all this and, in
1997, he is thinking ahead - as well as backward. 'Moreover, as
America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it
more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues,
except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived
direct external threat.' Thus was the symbolic gun produced that
belched black smoke over Manhattan and the Pentagon.
Since the Iran-Iraq wars, Islam has been demonized as a Satanic
terrorist cult that encourages suicide attacks - contrary, it should
be noted, to the Islamic religion. Osama has been portrayed,
accurately, it would seem, as an Islamic zealot. In order to bring
this evil-doer to justice ('dead or alive'), Afghanistan, the object
of the exercise was made safe not only for democracy but for Union
Oil of California whose proposed pipeline from Turkmenistan to
Afghanistan to Pakistan and the Indian Ocean port of Karachi, had
been abandoned under the Taliban's chaotic regime. Currently, the
pipeline is a go-project thanks to the junta's installation of a
Unocal employee (John J Maresca) as US envoy to the newly born
democracy whose president, Hamid Karzai, is also, according to Le
Monde, a former employee of a Unocal subsidiary. Conspiracy?
Once Afghanistan looked to be within the fold, the junta, which had
managed to pull off a complex diplomatic-military caper, - abruptly
replaced Osama, the personification of evil, with Saddam. This has
been hard to explain since there is nothing to connect Iraq with
9/11. Happily, 'evidence' is now being invented. But it is uphill
work, not helped by stories in the press about the vast oil wealth of
Iraq which must - for the sake of the free world - be reassigned to
US and European consortiums.
As Brzezinski foretold, 'a truly massive and widely perceived direct
external threat' made it possible for the President to dance a war
dance before Congress. 'A long war!' he shouted with glee. Then he
named an incoherent Axis of Evil to be fought. Although Congress did
not give him the FDR Special - a declaration of war - he did get
permission to go after Osama who may now be skulking in Iraq.
Bush And The Dog That Did Not Bark
Post-9/11, the American media were filled with pre-emptory
denunciations of unpatriotic 'conspiracy theorists', who not only are
always with us but are usually easy for the media to discredit since
it is an article of faith that there are no conspiracies in American
life. Yet, a year or so ago, who would have thought that most of
corporate America had been conspiring with accountants to cook their
books since - well, at least the bright days of Reagan and
deregulation. Ironically, less than a year after the massive danger
from without, we were confronted with an even greater enemy from
within: Golden Calf capitalism. Transparency? One fears that greater
transparency will only reveal armies of maggots at work beneath the
skin of a culture that needs a bit of a lie-down in order to collect
itself before taking its next giant step which is to conquer Eurasia,
a potentially fatal adventure not only for our frazzled institutions
but for us the presently living.
Complicity. The behavior of President George W. Bush on 11 September
certainly gives rise to all sorts of not unnatural suspicions. I can
think of no other modern chief of state who would continue to pose
for 'warm' pictures of himself listening to a young girl telling
stories about her pet goat while hijacked planes were into three
Constitutionally, Bush is not only chief of state, he is commander-in-
chief of the armed forces. Normally, a commander in such a crisis
would go straight to headquarters and direct operations while
receiving the latest intelligence.
This is what Bush actually did - or did not do - according to Stan
Goff, a retired US Army veteran who has taught military science and
doctrine at West Point. Goff writes, in 'The So-called Evidence is a
Farce': 'I have no idea why people aren't asking some very specific
questions about the actions of Bush and company on the day of the
attacks. Four planes get hijacked and deviate from their flight plan,
all the while on FAA radar.'
Goff, incidentally, like the other astonished military experts,
cannot fathom why the government's automatic 'standard order of
procedure in the event of a hijacking' was not followed. Once a plane
has deviated from its flight-plan, fighter planes are sent up to find
out why. That is law and does not require presidential approval,
which only needs to be given if there is a decision to shoot down a
plane. Goff spells it out: 'The planes were hijacked between 7:45 and
8:10am. Who is notified? This is an event already that is
unprecedented. But the President is not notified and going to a
Florida elementary school to hear children read.
'By around 8:15am it should be very apparent that something is
terribly wrong. The President is glad-handling teachers. By 8:45am,
when American Airlines Flight 11 crashes into the North Tower, Bush
is settling in with children for his photo op. Four planes have
obviously been hijacked simultaneously and one has just dived into
the twin towers, and still no one notifies the nominal Commander-in-
'No one has apparently scrambled [sent aloft] Air Force interceptors
either. At 9:03, Flight 175 crashes into the South Tower. At 9:05
Andrew Card, the Chief of Staff whispers to Bush [who] "briefly turns
somber" according to reporters. Does he cancel the school visit and
convene an emergency meeting? No. He resumes listening to second-
graders ... and continues the banality even as American Airlines
Flight 77 conducts an unscheduled point turn over Ohio and heads in
the direction of Washington DC.
'Has he instructed Card to scramble the Air Force? No. An
excruciating 25 minutes later, he finally deigns to give a public
statement telling the United States what they have already figured
out - that there's been an attack on the World Trade Centre. There's
a hijacked plane bee-lining to Washington, but has the Air Force been
scrambled to defend anything yet? No.
'At 9:35, this plane conducts another turn, 360 [degrees] over the
Pentagon, all the while being tracked by radar, and the Pentagon is
not evacuated, and there are still no fast-movers from the Air Force
in the sky over Alexandria and DC. Now the real kicker: a pilot they
want us to believe was trained at a Florida puddle-jumper school for
Piper Cubs and Cessnas, conducts a well-controlled downward spiral
descending the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes, brings the
plane in so low and flat that it clips the electrical wires across
the street from the Pentagon, and flies it with pinpoint accuracy
into the side of the building at 460 knots.
'When the theory about learning to fly this well at the puddle-jumper
school began to lose ground, it was added that they received further
training on a flight simulator. This is like saying you prepared your
teenager for her first drive on the freeway at rush hour by buying
her a video driving game ... There is a story being constructed about
There is indeed, and the more it is added to the darker it becomes.
The nonchalance of General Richard B. Myers, acting Joint Chief of
Staff, is as puzzling as the President's campaigning-as-usual act.
Myers was at the Capitol chatting with Senator Max Cleland. A
sergeant, writing later in the AFPS (American Forces Press Service)
describes Myers at the Capitol. 'While in an outer office, he said,
he saw a television report that a plane had hit the World Trade
Centre. "They thought it was a small plane or something like that,"
Myers said. So the two men went ahead with the office call.'
Whatever Myers and Cleland had to say to each other (more funds for
the military?) must have been riveting because, during their chat,
the AFPS reports, 'the second tower was hit by another jet. "Nobody
informed us of that," Myers said. "But when we came out, that was
obvious. Then, right at that time, somebody said the Pentagon had
been hit."' Finally, somebody 'thrust a cellphone in Myers' hand'
and, as if by magic, the commanding general of Norad - our Airspace
Command - was on the line just as the hijackers mission had been
successfully completed except for the failed one in Pennsylvania. In
later testimony to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, Myers said he
thinks that, as of his cellphone talk with Norad, 'the decision was
at that point to start launching aircraft'. It was 9:40am. One hour
and 20 minutes after air controllers knew that Flight 11 had been
hijacked; 50 minutes after the North Tower was struck.
This statement would have been quite enough in our old serious
army/air force to launch a number of courts martial with an
impeachment or two thrown in. First, Myers claims to be uninformed
until the third strike. But the Pentagon had been overseeing the
hijacked planes from at least the moment of the strike at the first
tower: yet not until the third strike, at the Pentagon, was the
decision made to get the fighter planes up. Finally, this one is the
dog that did not bark. By law, the fighters should have been up at
around 8:15. If they had, all the hijacked planes might have been
diverted or shot down. I don't think that Goff is being unduly picky
when he wonders who and what kept the Air Force from following its
normal procedure instead of waiting an hour and 20 minutes until the
damage was done and only then launching the fighters. Obviously,
somebody had ordered the Air Force to make no move to intercept those
hijackings until ... what?
On 21 January 2002, the Canadian media analyst Barry Zwicker summed
up on CBC-TV: 'That morning no interceptors responded in a timely
fashion to the highest alert situation. This includes the Andrews
squadrons which ... are 12 miles from the White House ... Whatever
the explanation for the huge failure, there have been no reports, to
my knowledge, of reprimands. This further weakens the "Incompetence
Theory". Incompetence usually earns reprimands. This causes me to ask
whether there were "stand down" orders.'?? On 29 August 2002, the BBC
reports that on 9/11 there were 'only four fighters on ready status
in the north-eastern US'. Conspiracy? Coincidence? Error?
It is interesting how often in our history, when disaster strikes,
incompetence is considered a better alibi than ... well, yes, there
are worse things. After Pearl Harbor, Congress moved to find out why
Hawaii's two military commanders, General Short and Admiral Kimmel,
had not anticipated the Japanese attack. But President Roosevelt pre-
empted that investigation with one of his own. Short and Kimmel were
broken for incompetence. The 'truth' is still obscure to this day.
The Media's Weapons Of Mass Distraction
But Pearl Harbor has been much studied. 11 September, it is plain, is
never going to be investigated if Bush has anything to say about it.
In January 2002, CNN reported that 'Bush personally asked Senate
Majority Leader Tom Daschle to limit the Congressional investigation
into the events of 11 September ... The request was made at a private
meeting with Congressional leaders ... Sources said Bush initiated
the conversation ... He asked that only the House and Senate
intelligence committees look into the potential breakdowns among
federal agencies that could have allowed the terrorist attacks to
occur, rather than a broader inquiry .. Tuesday's discussion followed
a rare call from Vice President Dick Cheney last Friday to make the
same request ...'
The excuse given, according to Daschle, was that 'resources and
personnel would be taken' away from the war on terrorism in the event
of a wider inquiry. So for reasons that we must never know,
those 'breakdowns' are to be the goat. That they were more likely to
be not break - but 'stand-downs' is not for us to pry. Certainly the
one-hour 20 minute failure to put fighter planes in the air could not
have been due to a breakdown throughout the entire Air Force along
the East Coast. Mandatory standard operational procedure had been
told to cease and desist.
Meanwhile, the media were assigned their familiar task of inciting
public opinion against bin Laden, still not the proven mastermind.
These media blitzes often resemble the magicians classic gesture of
distraction: as you watch the rippling bright colours of his silk
handkerchief in one hand, he is planting the rabbit in your pocket
with the other. We were quickly assured that Osama's enormous family
with its enormous wealth had broken with him, as had the royal family
of his native Saudi Arabia. The CIA swore, hand on heart, that Osama
had not worked for them in the war against the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan. Finally, the rumour that Bush family had in any way
profited by its long involvement with the bin Laden family was - what
else? - simply partisan bad taste.
But Bush Jr's involvement goes back at least to 1979 when his first
failed attempt to become a player in the big Texas oil league brought
him together with one James Bath of Houston, a family friend, who
have Bush Jr. $50,000 for a 5 per cent stake in Bush's firm Arbusto
Energy. At this time, according to Wayne Madsen ('In These Times' -
Institute for Public Affairs No. 25), Bath was 'the sole US business
representative for Salem bin Laden, head of the family and a brother
(one of 17) to Osama bin Laden... In a statement issued shortly after
the 11 September attacks, the White House vehemently denied the
connection, insisting that Bath invested his own money, not Salem bin
Laden's, in Arbusto. In conflicting statements, Bush at first denied
ever knowing Bath, then acknowledged his stake in Arbusto and that he
was aware Bath represented Saudi interests ... after several
reincarnations, Arbusto emerged in 1986 as Harken Energy Corporation.'
Behind the Junior Bush is the senior Bush, gainfully employed by the
Carlyle Group which has ownership in at least 164 companies
worldwide, inspiring admiration in that staunch friend to the
wealthy, the Wall Street Journal, which noted, as early as 27
September 2001, 'If the US boosts defence spending in its quest to
stop Osama bin Laden's alleged terrorist activities, there may be one
unexpected beneficiary: bin Laden's family ... is an investor in a
fund established by Carlyle Group, a well-connected Washington
merchant bank specialising in buyouts of defence and aerospace
companies ... Osama is one of more than 50 children of Mohammed bin
Laden, who built the family's $5 billion business.'
But Bush pere et fils, in pursuit of wealth and office, are beyond
shame or, one cannot help but think, good sense. There is a
suggestion that they are blocking investigation of the bin Laden
connection with terrorism. Agent France Press reported on 4 November
2001: 'FBI agents probing relatives of Saudi-born terror suspect
Osama ... were told to back off soon after George W. Bush became
president ...' According to BBC TV's Newsnight (6 Nov 2001), '...
just days after the hijackers took off from Boston aiming for the
Twin Towers, a special charter flight out of the same airport whisked
11 members of Osama's family off to Saudi Arabia. That did not
concern the White House, whose official line is that the bin Ladens
are above suspicion.' 'Above the Law' (Green Press, 14 February 2002)
sums up: 'We had what looked like the biggest failure of the
intelligence community since Pearl Harbor but what we are learning
now is it wasn't a failure, it was a directive.' True? False? Bush Jr
will be under oath during the impeachment interrogation. Will we
hear 'What is a directive? What is is?'
Although the US had, for some years, fingered Osama as a mastermind
terrorist, no serious attempt had been made pre-9/11 to 'bring him to
justice dead or alive, innocent or guilty', as Texan law of the
jungle requires. Clinton's plan to act was given to Condeleezza Rice
by Sandy Berger, you will recall, but she says she does not.
As far back as March 1996 when Osama was in Sudan, Major General
Elfatih Erwa, Sudanese Minister for Defence, offered to extradite
him. According to the Washington Post (3 October 2001), 'Erwa said he
would happily keep close watch on bin Laden for the United States.
But if that would not suffice, the government was prepared to place
him in custody and hand him over ... [US officials] said, "just ask
him to leave the country. Just don't let him go to Somalia", where he
had once been given credit for the successful al-Qaeda attack on
American forces that in '93 that killed 18 Rangers.' Erwa said in an
interview, 'We said he will go to Afghanistan, and they [US
officials] said, "Let him."'
In 1996 Sudan expelled Osama and 3,000 of his associates. Two years
later the Clinton administration, in the great American tradition of
never having to say thank you for Sudan's offer to hand over Osama,
proceeded to missile-attack Sudan's al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory
on the grounds that Sudan was harboring bin Laden terrorists who were
making chemical and biological weapons when the factory was simply
making vaccines for the UN.
Four years later, John O'Neill, a much admired FBI agent, complained
in the Irish Times a month before the attacks, 'The US State
Department - and behind it the oil lobby who make up President Bush's
entourage - blocked attempts to prove bin Laden's guilt. The US
ambassador to Yemen forbade O'Neill (and his FBI team) ... from
entering Yemen in August 2001. O'Neill resigned in frustration and
took on a new job as head of security at the World Trade Centre. He
died in the 11 September attack.' Obviously, Osama has enjoyed
bipartisan American support since his enlistment in the CIA's war to
drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. But by 9/11 there was no Soviet
occupation of Afghanistan, indeed there was no Soviet Union.
A World Made Safe For Peace And Pipelines
I watched Bush and Cheney on CNN when the Axis of Evil speech was
given and the 'long war' proclaimed. Iraq, Iran and North Korea were
fingered as enemies to be clobbered because they might or might not
be harbouring terrorists who might or might not destroy us in the
night. So we must strike first whenever it pleases us. Thus, we
declared 'war on terrorism' - an abstract noun which cannot be a war
at all as you need a country for that. Of course, there was innocent
Afghanistan, which was levelled from a great height, but then what's
collateral damage - like an entire country - when you're targeting
the personification of all evil according to Time and the NY Times
and the networks?
As it proved, the conquest of Afghanistan had nothing to do with
Osama. He was simply a pretext for replacing the Taliban with a
relatively stable government that would allow Union Oil of California
to lay its pipeline for the profit of, among others, the Cheney-Bush
Background? All right. The headquarters of Unocal are, as might be
expected, in Texas. In December 1997, Taliban representatives were
invited to Sugarland, Texas. At that time, Unocal had already begun
training Afghan men in pipeline construction, with US government
approval. BBC News, (4 December 1997): 'A spokesman for the company
Unocal said the Taliban were expected to spend several days at the
company's [Texas] headquarters ... a BBC regional correspondent says
the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an
international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy
resources of the Caspian Sea.' The Inter Press Service (IPS)
reported: 'some Western businesses are warming up to the Taliban
despite the movement's institutionalisation of terror, massacres,
abductions and impoverishment.' CNN (6 October 1996): 'The United
States wants good ties [with the Taliban] but can't openly seek them
while women are being oppressed.'
The Taliban, rather better organised than rumoured, hired for PR one
Leila Helms, a niece of Richard Helms, former director of the CIA. In
October 1996, the Frankfurter Rundschau reported that Unocal 'has
been given the go-ahead from the new holders of power in Kabul to
build a pipeline from Turkmenistan via Afghanistan to Pakistan ..'
This was a real coup for Unocal as well as other candidates for
pipelines, including Condoleezza's old employer Chevron. Although the
Taliban was already notorious for its imaginative crimes against the
human race, the Wall Street Journal, scenting big bucks, fearlessly
announced: 'Like them or not, the Taliban are the players most
capable of achieving peace in Afghanistan at this moment in history.'
The NY Times (26 May 1997) leapt aboard the pipeline juggernaut. 'The
Clinton administration has taken the view that a Taliban victory
would act as counterweight to Iran ... and would offer the
possibility of new trade routes that could weaken Russian and Iranian
influence in the region.'
But by 1999, it was clear that the Taliban could not provide the
security we would need to protect our fragile pipelines. The arrival
of Osama as warrior for Allah on the scene refocused, as it were, the
bidding. New alliances were now being made. The Bush administration
soon buys the idea of an invasion of Afghanistan, Frederick Starr,
head of the Central Asia Institute at Johns Hopkins University, wrote
in the Washington Post (19 December 2000): 'The US has quietly begun
to align itself with those in the Russian government calling for
military action against Afghanistan and has toyed with the idea of a
new raid to wipe out bin Laden.'
Although with much fanfare we went forth to wreak our vengeance on
the crazed sadistic religious zealot who slaughtered 3,000 American
citizens, once that 'war' was under way, Osama was dropped as
irrelevant and so we are back to the Unocal pipeline, now a go-
project. In the light of what we know today, it is unlikely that the
junta was ever going to capture Osama alive: he has tales to tell.
One of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's best numbers now
is: 'Where is he? Somewhere? Here? There? Somewhere? Who knows?' And
we get his best twinkle. He must also be delighted - and amazed -
that the media have bought the absurd story that Osama, if alive,
would still be in Afghanistan, underground, waiting to be flushed out
instead of in a comfortable mansion in Osama-loving Jakarta, 2,000
miles to the East and easily accessible by Flying Carpet One.
Many commentators of a certain age have noted how Hitlerian our junta
sounds as it threatens first one country for harbouring terrorists
and then another. It is true that Hitler liked to pretend to be the
injured - or threatened - party before he struck. But he had many
great predecessors not least Imperial Rome. Stephen Gowan's War in
Afghanistan: A $28 Billion Racket quotes Joseph Schumpeter who, 'in
1919, described ancient Rome in a way that sounds eerily like the
United States in 2001: "There was no corner of the known world where
some interest was not alleged to be in danger or under actual attack.
If the interests were not Roman, they were those of Rome's allies;
and if Rome had no allies, the allies would be invented ... The fight
was always invested with an aura of legality. Rome was always being
attacked by evil-minded neighbours."' We have only outdone the Romans
in turning metaphors such as the war on terrorism, or poverty, or
Aids into actual wars on targets we appear, often, to pick at random
in order to maintain turbulence in foreign lands.
As of 1 August 2002, trial balloons were going up all over Washington
DC to get world opinion used to the idea that 'Bush of Afghanistan'
had gained a title as mighty as his father's 'Bush of the Persian
Gulf' and Junior was now eager to add Iraq-Babylon to his diadem.
These various balloons fell upon Europe and the Arab world like so
many lead weights. But something new has been added since the classic
Roman Hitlerian mantra, 'they are threatening us, we must attack
first'. Now everything is more of less out in the open. The
International Herald Tribune wrote in August 2002: 'The leaks began
in earnest on 5 July, when the New York Times described a tentative
Pentagon plan that it said called for an invasion by a US force of up
to 250,000 that would attack Iraq from the north, south and west. On
10 July, the Times said that Jordan might be used as a base for the
invasion. The Washington Post reported, 28 July, that "many senior US
military officers contend that Saddam Hussein poses no immediate
threat ..."' And the status quo should be maintained. Incidentally,
this is the sort of debate that the founding fathers intended the
Congress, not military bureaucrats, to conduct in the name of we the
people. But that sort of debate has, for a long time, been denied us.
One refreshing note is now being struck in a fashion unthinkable in
imperial Rome: the cheerful admission that we habitually resort to
provocation. The Tribunecontinues: 'Donald Rumsfeld has threatened to
jail any one found to have been behind the leaks. But a retired army
general, Fred Woerner, tends to see a method behind the leaks. "We
may already be executing a plan," he said recently. "Are we involved
in a preliminary psychological dimension of causing Iraq to do
something to justify a US attack or make concessions? Somebody
knows.' That is plain.
Elsewhere in this interesting edition of the Herald Tribune wise
William Pfaff writes: 'A second Washington debate is whether to make
an unprovoked attack on Iran to destroy a nuclear power reactor being
built with Russian assistance, under inspection by the International
Atomic Energy Agency, within the terms of the Nuclear Non-
proliferation Treaty of which Iran is a signatory ... No other
government would support such an action, other than Israel's (which)
would do so not because it expected to be attacked by Iran but
because it, not unjustifiably, opposes any nuclear capacity in the
hands of any Islamic government.'
Suspect States And The Tom-Toms Of Revenge
'Of all the enemies to public liberty, war is, perhaps, the most to
be dreaded because it compromises and develops the germ of every
other. As the parent of armies, war encourages debts and taxes, the
known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the
few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the executive is
extended ... and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to
those of subduing the force, of the people ...' Thus, James Madison
warned us at the dawn of our republic.
Post 9/11, thanks to the 'domination of the few', Congress and the
media are silent while the executive, through propaganda and skewed
polls, seduces the public mind as hitherto unthinkable centers of
power like Homeland Defence (a new Cabinet post to be placed on top
of the Defence Department) are being constructed and 4 per cent of
the country has recently been invited to join Tips, a civilian spy
system to report on anyone who looks suspicious or ... who objects to
what the executive is doing at home or abroad?
Although every nation knows how - if it has the means and the will -
to protect itself from thugs of the sort that brought us 9/11, war is
not an option. Wars are for nations not root-less gangs. You put a
price on their heads and hunt them down. In recent years, Italy has
been doing that with the Sicilian Mafia; and no one has yet suggested
But the Cheney-Bush junta wants a war in order to dominate
Afghanistan, build a pipeline, gain control of the oil of Eurasia's
Stans for their business associates as well as to do as much damage
to Iraq and Iran on the grounds that one day those evil countries may
carpet our fields of amber grain with anthrax or something.
The media, never much good a analysis, are more and more breathless
and incoherent. On CNN, even the stolid Jim Clancy started to
hyperventilate when an Indian academic tried to explain how Iraq was
once our ally and 'friend' in its war against our Satanic enemy
Iran. 'None of that conspiracy stuff,' snuffed Clancy.
Apparently, 'conspiracy stuff' is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.
As of August, at least among economists, a consensus was growing
that, considering our vast national debt (we borrow $2 billion a day
to keep the government going) and a tax base seriously reduced by the
junta in order to benefit the 1 per cent who own most of the national
wealth, there is no way that we could ever find the billions needed
to destroy Iraq in 'a long war' or even a short one, with most of
Europe lined up against us. Germany and Japan paid for the Gulf War,
reluctantly - with Japan, at the last moment, irritably quarrelling
over the exchange rate at the time of the contract. Now Germany's
Schroder has said no. Japan is mute.
But the tom-toms keep beating revenge; and the fact that most of the
world is opposed to our war seems only to bring hectic roses to the
cheeks of the Bush administration (Bush Snr of the Carlyle Group,
Bush Jnr formerly of Harken, Cheney, formerly of Halliburton, Rice,
formerly of Chevron, Rumsfeld, formerly of Occidental). If ever an
administration should recuse itself in matters dealing with energy,
it is the current junta. But this is unlike any administration in our
history. Their hearts are plainly elsewhere, making money, far from
our mock Roman temples, while we, alas, are left only with their
heads, dreaming of war, preferably against weak peripheral states.
Mohammed Heikal is a brilliant Egyptian journalist-observer, and
sometime Foreign Minister. On 10 October 2001, he said to the
Guardian: 'Bin Laden does not have the capabilities for an operation
of this magnitude. When I hear Bush talking about al-Qaeda as if it
were Nazi Germany or the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, I laugh
because I know what is there. Bin Laden has been under surveillance
for years: every telephone call was monitored and al-Qaeda has been
penetrated by US intelligence, Pakistani intelligence, Saudi
intelligence, Egyptian intelligence. They could not have kept secret
an operation that required such a degree of organisation and
The former president of Germany's domestic intelligence service,
Eckehardt Werthebach (American Free Press, 4 December 2001) spells it
out. The 9/11 attacks required 'years of planning' while their scale
indicates that they were a product of 'state-organised actions'.
There it is. Perhaps, after all, Bush Jnr was right to call it a war.
But which state attacked us?
Will the suspects please line up. Saudi Arabia? 'No, no. Why we are
paying you $50 million a year for training the royal bodyguard on our
own holy if arid soil. True the kingdom contains many wealthy well-
educated enemies but ...' Bush Snr and Jnr exchange a knowing look.
Egypt? No way. Dead broke despite US baksheesh. Syria? No funds.
Iran? Too proud to bother with a parvenu state like the US. Israel?
Sharon is capable of anything. But he lacks the guts and the grace of
the true Kamikaze. Anyway, Sharon was not in charge when this
operation began with the planting of 'sleepers' around the US flight
schools 5 or 6 years ago. The United States? Elements of corporate
America would undeniably prosper from a 'massive external attack'
that would make it possible for us to go to war whenever the
President sees fit while suspending civil liberties. (The 342 pages
of the USA Patriot Act were plainly prepared before 9/11.) Bush Snr
and Jnr are giggling now. Why? Because Clinton was president back
then. As the former president leaves the line of suspects, he says,
more in anger than in sorrow: 'When we left the White House we had a
plan for an all-out war on al-Qaeda. We turned it over to this
administration and they did nothing. Why?' Biting his lip, he goes.
The Bushes no longer giggle. Pakistan breaks down: 'I did it! I
confess! I couldn't help myself. Save me. I am an evil-doer!'
Apparently, Pakistan did do it - or some of it. We must now go back
to 1979 when 'the largest covert operation in the history of the CIA'
was launched in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.
Central Asia specialist Ahmed Rashid wrote (Foreign Affairs, November-
December 1999): 'With the active encouragement of the CIA and
Pakistan's ISI (Inter Services Intelligence) who wanted to turn the
Afghan jihad into a global war, waged by all Muslim states against
the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals, from 40 Islamic
countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and '92 ... more
than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the
Afghanistan jihad.' The CIA covertly trained and sponsored these
In March 1985, President Reagan issued National Security Decision
Directive 166, increasing military aid while CIA specialists met with
the ISI counterparts near Rawalpindi, Pakistan. Jane's Defence Weekly
(14 September 2001) gives the best overview: 'The trainers were
mainly from Pakistan's ISI agency who learnt their craft from
American Green Beret commandos and Navy Seals in various US training
establishments.' This explains the reluctance of the administration
to explain why so many unqualified persons, over so long a time, got
visas to visit our hospitable shores. While in Pakistan, 'mass
training of Afghan [zealots] was subsequently conducted by the
Pakistan army under the supervision of the elite Special Services ...
In 1988, with US knowledge, bin Laden created al-Qaeda (The Base); a
conglomerate of quasi-independent Islamic terrorist cells spread
across 26 or so countries. Washington turned a blind eye to al-
Qaeda.' When Mohamed Atta's plane struck the World Trade Centre's
North Tower, George W. Bush and the child at the Florida elementary
school were discussing her goat. By coincidence, our word 'tragedy'
comes from the Greek: for 'goat' tragos plus oide for 'song'. 'Goat-
song'. It is highly suitable that this lament, sung in ancient satyr
plays, should have been heard again at the exact moment when we were
struck by fire from heaven, and a tragedy whose end is nowhere in
sight began for us.
© Gore Vidal 2002