Part 1G
Sept 11: Unanswered Questions
Who Benefits?
by MalcontentX

for Main Page: http://www.communitycurrency.or/MainIndexMX.html

"Who benefits?"

Who could have been expected to benefit from the devastation of 9/11?

In attempting to answer this question, we must not be tempted to lay blame on someone -simply because they may appear to benefit in some way.

Some benefits may be coincidental, some intentional, and some a mixture of both.

Whether someone actively participates in a crime, or merely takes advantage of the situation, by covering over, (or ignoring) what may be unpleasant for the public to hear, it is the nature of the question that we attempt to make the distinctions clear.


It must first be absolutely clear to any thinking person, that the attacks of Sept. 11 have not benefited those in the Moslem world who are violently opposed to American foreign policy, (i.e. the "terrorist" community).

Nor could it have been otherwise.

It’s one thing to blow up an American Embassy in Kenya, or the USS Cole in the Middle-East -thousands of miles away from the direct experience of the vast American public. It’s quite another to bring death and destruction down on thousands of civilians in the heart of America -in broad daylight- where it could not help but be aired on nationwide TV.

The strengthening of public resolve behind American foreign policy -against those resisting it; this would have been entirely predictable.

No doubt, there may be a percentage of people in the world who are so angry at America, as to be irrational about it; that is, to think that killing thousands of American civilians in broad daylight will somehow "even the score," (for a multitude of grievances); or, that it might bring about a change in American foreign policy.

Clearly, such people are not operating with a full deck.

That such irrationality might be mixed in with a complex, covert operation of "stunning precision" -requiring a careful build-up over many years, and the execution of cold-blooded operatives- may make us wonder to what extent dupes, (of varying degrees) may have had the help of "skilled professionals" -to gain access to U.S. soil, airplanes, and training, etc.

As such, we may then wonder why such skilled professionals would use fanatics to such an end; for clearly, (from the point of view of those opposing American foreign policy) it was a predictably stupid thing to do.

On the other hand, in spite of the trauma and suffering that Sept 11 has brought to the American people, (and much of the "western" world) there is clearly no doubt that the Sept. 11th attacks have greatly benefited the prestige and power of the Bush Administration, and of the American military machine in general.

Again, this would have been entirely predictable.

The rush of patriotic fervor behind the President has put aside nagging complaints with economy. The slide into recession, (which was already happening anyway) are now largely blamed on the attacks.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, Bush has been allowed to push through legislation and initiatives which he would not have been able to do otherwise -such as his tax giveaway to huge multinational corporations, camouflaged as a "Stimulus Package"

or his welcoming of China into the WTO.

Before Sept 11, this embrace of China, (whose slave-labor camps represent a powerful point of investment for "western" capital) would have seen massive protests from the anti-globalization movement.

This movement, which only a few months previous, (in Genoa, Italy) had gathered over two-hundred thousand in protest, represents a powerful -though as yet, loosely organized- force of resistance to the neo-liberal policies of the major "western" countries, (which lies behind the creation of the World Trade Organization, or WTO).

The next mass demonstration was planned for Washington DC in late September, (a meeting of the IMF/World Bank, it was subsequently held in Ottawa, Canada, on Oct. 16th, under extremely subdued conditions).

By Jan. 2002, Bush had won important "fast-track" veto powers in regard to the WTO, (Trade Authority Promotion Bill, passed in Congress, 215 for, 214 against); and interestingly enough, the organizers of the World Economic Forum, (WEF) the next anticipated scene of mass protest chose... New York City... as the location for their February meeting.

The attacks have also provided for a far-reaching curtailment of civil liberties, (powers of detention, military tribunals) which dovetail nicely with a "law and order" president, (famous for the number of executions he presided over as Governor of Texas) and a cabinet largely drawn from the CIA and Department of Defence.

"The Vice President is an oil executive and former Secretary of Defense. The national Security Advisor is a director on the board of a transnational oil corporation and a Russian scholar. The Secretary of State is a man with no diplomatic experience whatsoever, and the former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff... Donald Rumsfeld... former CEO of Searle Pharmaceuticals... [along with Cheney was] featured speaker at the May, 2000, Russian-American Business Leaders Forum. So the consistent currents in this cabinet are petroleum, the former Soviet Union, and the military."

Presently enforced on immigrants and foreign nationals, one could confidently predict it would only be a matter of time before such powers would be used to suppress dissent amongst American citizens, under the guise of "patriotism."

"Attorney General John Ashcroft is rounding up or interrogating thousands of immigrants in what will go down in history as the Ashcroft Raids. The FBI and secret service are harassing artists, activists... publishers are firing anti-war columnists and cartoonists. University presidents are scolding dissident faculty members."

"They [secret service] said they had several reports of anti-American activity going on here and wanted to see the exhibit."

"On November 1, the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression (ABFFE) sent a disturbing letter to its members.

'Dear Bookseller, Last week, President Bush signed into law an anti-terrorism bill that gives the federal government expanded authority to search your business records, including the titles of the books purchased by your customers... There is no opportunity for you or your lawyer to object in court. You cannot object publicly, either. The new law includes a gag order that prevents you from disclosing 'to any person' the fact that you have received an order to produce documents."

Taken from, "The New McCarthyism," by Matthew Rothschild, "The Progressive" magazine.

NATO, the American-led international military force, has found a new, expanded purpose on the global stage. It now leads a multi-national coalition whose expressed purpose is an ongoing "war against terrorism", which finds legitimate expression in the invasion of any country it deems guilty of "harboring the terrorists", (without regard to international law, the U.N. or any other body).

In this regard, two additional comments from the Confirmation Hearing of General Myers may be relevant,

CLELAND: "...about the role of America in the wake of the Cold War being over and that, in many ways, we were hyperextended. We were overextended. Our forces were spread thin.

And I personally, like you and others in this body here, have been to see where we have spent $300 million in defending, with Camp Bonnestille (ph), Kosovo; where throughout the continent of Europe; where last August I was up on the DNZ; where we've got 37,000 troops in Korea."

SESSIONS: President Bush this year is proposing -- and will achieve, I believe -- a $38 billion increase, over $30 billion."

So before 9/11, hyperextended military power; after 9/11, huge increase in military spending.

Senator Cleland adds,

"For this hyperextension of American power, all around the globe, it does seem ironic to me that we can't defend New York and Washington."

All this can only be good for defense contractors, of course, and for the protection of "western" corporations -milking the sweat off impoverished workers in the developing world.

For those familiar with the behaviour of modern nation-states and superpowers, one could have seen this coming -even as the planes were seen striking the towers.

Beneath the screams of the September innocents, one could faintly hear the echo of the screams to come, (which would not be heard) -in the prison cells, the solitary confinements, beneath the veil of loyalty oaths imposed, of neighbours no longer talking.

In the words of General Wesley Clark, (Supreme NATO Commander, speaking at the time of the the Serbian invasion of Kosovo) all this would have been "entirely predictable."

Again, none of this "proves" that members of the Bush Administration, the military, etc. intentionally allowed the Sept 11th attacks to occur. We are simply asking the question:

Who has benefited? And in what way?

The people of Afghanistan have certainly not benefited from the attacks, (though we wouldn't know much about that -by the way the media has steadfastly ignored the reports of civilian casualties; which, by late December, had exceeded the number of deaths in the Sept. 11th attacks. see Democracy Now, archives, Dec. 10).

If we look more-closely, we can see that it is actually certain American, British, and other "western" interests that have much to gain from the ensuing conquest of Afghanistan.



Afghanistan is located next to a number of Russia’s faltering former republics, Uzebekistan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan -which represent a critical point of entry (for "the west") into the undeveloped resources of Central/East Asia.

The Caspain sea area is said to be one of the world’s richest untapped sources of oil and natural gas.

Afghanistan is the logical route for an oil pipeline from the Caspain sea to SouthEast Asia, which the Unocal company has been lobbying Congress on for years.

So long as the volatile Taliban remained in power, the pipeline would not get built.

To some observers, the massive Afghan opium trade also holds strategic importance.

There’s even plenty of information to suggest that, not only does the administration have a motive for finding Bin Laden and co. at fault, (in order to justify an intervention) but that they were already planning for an intervention into Afghanistan well before Sept 11th.

Former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, Niaz Naik, says that senior American officials in mid-July [told him] that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October. (BBC, Sept 18).

"India Reacts," (June 26) reports that India, Iran, and Russia were talking with American officials, (Powell) about "plans for ‘limited military action’ against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime."

As of October, 2001, the U.S. administration began admitting that they’re not after Bin Laden, so much as they want to get rid of the Taliban; then they’re suddenly willing to include Taliban "moderates", (who were previously only worthy of "no negotiations") in a new, [U.S. controlled] Afghani coalition, (Washington Times, October 9, 2001)

For those of us aware of U.S. foreign intervention over the last one hundred years, the pattern rings familiar.... as the motivating force, driving behavior.

More disturbing still, is how the demonizing of Bin Laden and the Taliban, (by the Bush Adminstration, Congress, the military, and the media) may be partly driven by the desire to cover-up the close ties between "the enemy," the CIA, and the American establishment.

bin Laden and the CIA


By Washington’s own admission, the U.S. invested some $6 billion in covert weapons support, (through Pakistan) to the Afghani rebels fighting the Soviet Union, (1979-89). This was the largest covert operation in history.

In this context, the American government encouraged the most extreme Islamic, (Saudi Arabian) factions.

Between 1982 and 1992, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 43 Islamic countries would come to fight with the Afghani Mujahadeen.

Contrary to mainstream presumption, U.S. support for Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban didn’t end with the Soviet withdrawal, or the Gulf War of 1991.

Numerous well-documented articles on Bin Laden and the CIA are available at:

It was American, (and through them) Pakistani funds which created the massive expansion of the Taliban schools in the first place; this support ensured the victory of the Taliban over the other Afgani tribes, in the vicious civil war which followed the pull-out of the Soviets.

I can still remember a remarkable film shown on TV soon after the Sept 11 attacks: an old follower of beloved Afghani leader Ahmed Massoud, (assassinated two days before Sept 11 by Pakistani hit-men) bitterly rages at the Pakistani army for its support of the "foreign invaders" (Taliban)... re-igniting the fighting after a ten-year battle.

They were on ‘our’ team.

According to "The Washington Times," "The Canberra Times," (Australia) "The Charleston Gazette," and numerous other publications, Osama Bin Laden and co. were directly involved in pro-American "terrorist" organizations in Bosnia, Kosovo, (KLA) and Macedonia -right up until the summer of 2001.

"But, one may protest, "this doesn't make sense. Why would the U.S. military support anti-American movements?"

The critical geo-political component to recognize here is this: de-stabilization.

In the conquest and control of a foreign territory, progress often proceeds in stages.

If the opponent's central government is strong, then it must first be weakened, by inciting dissaffection amongst those groups who already feel marginalized -exacerbating long-standing ethnic and cultural suspicians- giving arms to the most extreme, criminal factions, even committing acts of sabotage to create unrest.

This can then provide the pretext for a broader, full-scale invasion.

Even nominally "anti-American" governments, (i.e The Taliban) can be tolerated if the military support and adherence to U.S. policy is maintained through a third party, (i.e. Pakistan).

These same terrorist cells are also said, (by some, see to be active in the Chechen separatist movement -perhaps responsible for the bombings of apartment buildings in Moscow in 1999.

Equally disturbing may be the growth in the Afghani opium trade alongside American/Pakistani involvement.

Citing numerous reports, University of Ottawa professor Micheal Chossudovsky says that, "prior to theSoviet/Afghan war, the opium trade was directed to small regional markets. There was no local production of heroin.... within two years of.. the CIA operation in Afghanistan, 'the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderlands became the world's top heroin producer, supplying 60 per sent of the U.S. demand…With the disintegration of the Soviet Union, a new surge in opium production has unfolded. (According to UN estimates)."

On July 12, 2000, (at a U.S. Congressional Committee Mtg) Rep. Dana Rohrabacher bitterly "charged the U.S. State Department with pretending to oppose bin Laden and the Taliban while actually secretly supporting them." (ibid, see "Congressman").

As late as May, 2001, the Bush Administration pledged "another $43 million to Afghanistan, [Taliban] raising the total yearly aid to $124 million," (Washington Post).

So women's right's organizations, protesting the barbarity of the Taliban, should not be fooled by the sudden expressions of sympathy for the plight of Afghani women, by the Bush Administration and the media.

Then, the Oct. 10th 2001 edition of the Wall Street Journal quotes The Indian Times as saying that, Pakistan’s "Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmad had been fired as head of Islamabad's Inter-Services Security, [ISI] agency after U.S. linked him to a militant allied with terrorists who hijacked an Indian Airlines plane in 1999."

The article states: "Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the ‘evidence’ India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 was wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahumd." [My emphasis].

It further turns out that this same general had arrived in the US on the 4th of September, a full week before the terrorist attacks. He had "a regular visit of consultations" with his US counterparts at the CIA and the Pentagon during the week prior to September 11, and meetings at the State Department after the attacks. (This is fully confirmed by Reuters, N.Y. Times, Newsweek. For full documentation, see

"The evidence we [the Government of India] have supplied to the US, [as to Pakistan’s involvement in anti-western terrorism] is of a much wider range and depth than just one piece of paper linking a rogue general to some misplaced act..." Agence France Press (AFP)

Is this not shocking?: the head of the Pakistani secret service, (the force that is most-directly serving U.S. interests in the region) who is meeting with top U.S. security officials in Washington, (before and after the Sept 11th attacks) is "let go" in Oct. because he’s linked to sending $100,000 to the supposed ring-leader of the terrorist attacks!?!

There was no meaningful discussion of this in the mainstream press.

Then there’s the report of the Wall Street Journal, Sept 27th 2001, (amongst others) which states that the Bin Laden family is part owner of the Carlyle Group, (the world’s largest private equity firm specializing in arms sales) for which former President George Bush sr. is a consultant, while numerous members of Bush’s former cabinet are either partners or directors. (The Bin Laden’s have since divested themselves).

So at the same time that President Bush was declaring war on "the evildoers," he makes no mention of all the intimate connections between them and the American establishment.

None of these facts make Osama Bin Laden into a "nice guy," (or absolve him of possible involvement in Sept 11); but they do cast any involvement or knowledge he might have had into a different light; that is, elements of the American empire were using him and his network to achieve certain policy ends -right up to the summer of 2001, (and probably beyond).

As an "asset," (or dupe) of American foreign policy, in certain aspects, (usually funded and armed through a third party, like Pakistan, the KLA, etc.) Bin Laden also served as a convenient way to brand-name all those opposed to that policy, ("look ma, bloody hands"); and now, as "evildoer": to divert attention away from the American security lapses that allowed the attacks of Sept 11 to occur.

The "collateral damage" which Pentagon playmakers often refer to, (as the number of unintended casualties they are willing to tolerate -in the interests of certain policy gains) could just as well refer to the soldiers killed in the bombing of the U.S. Cole, or the U. S. Embassy in Kenya, as it does to:

dead civilians in Afghanistan, Isreal, or Rwanda,
disappeared trade-unionists in Columbia,
torture victims in Turkey, and so on.

Sometimes this is referred to as "blowback"; or it's just part of

"doing business."

We must further concede at least the possibility that, the existence of a "terrorism" which supports "western" (NATO) foreign policy doesn’t necessarily end with that foreign policy.

At any rate, there’s simply no question that the above documentation does cast serious doubt, as to the Bush, (and Clinton) Administration’s sincerity, in presenting Bin Laden as "the enemy".

Our exploration here, of "who benefits," has not yet pointed to specific characters who may have intentionally abetted the attacks of Sept. 11; the evidence simply suggests that there are many interests within a dominant world-power, (economic, military, political) who have much to gain with the creation of an ongoing, global, military campaign, while ensuring a compliant U.S. population.

These gains have now been realized, compliments of the "war on terrorism."

If you have any doubts about these conclusions, test the links for yourself.

Do your own research.

Make your own conclusions.

Blaming bin Laden


The centerpiece of the government/media spin, of course, surrounded the blaming and demonizing of Osama Bin Laden.

This began at full throttle within an hour of the attacks, with CNN’s own "national security correspondent"David Ensor.(CNN "Breaking News," 11am).

Government hawks like Gen. Wesley Clark, (11:28) John McCain and Orin Hatch, (12:40) appeared soon after, pointing a trembling, accusatory finger.

On Sept. 12th, George W. Bush caused a bit of a sensation by referring to the attacks as "acts of war," "bracing the nation for a long fight against terrorism." (Nashua Telegraph, Sept 12)

Within two days CNN was already leading every show with the caption: "America’s New War." (see "CNN Transcripts,"

In less than a week, Bush had declared war on Bin Laden, The Taliban, Afghanistan, and "all those who harbor terrorists" -and the burning question of ‘how could such a breakdown in security have occurred?’ was completely over-shadowed.

In the aftermath of national emotional shock, the American people found themselves swiftly moving to an expanded military posture, (at home, and abroad).

Few could find a reason to argue in such a moment of national grief and anger.

There was no room given for careful public debate or investigation -to which the mainstream media passively (and/or hatefully) complied.

Under the pretext of "national-security," the Bush Administration made not even a pretense of providing evidence of Bin Laden’s guilt -while issuing demands of the Taliban government which they knew the Taliban could not possibly meet.

Now, any intelligent person understands that if you want to negotiate with someone, (in order to avoid an all-out war) even "pathological liars," (as Rumsfeld described the Taliban) have their negotiating points.

Even if we were to threaten an opponent with all-out war, surround the country with troops, or make a demonstration of power, we must still leave them some room to move towards our demands; or war then becomes "entirely predictable."

Although the Taliban were amongst the world's most brutal of religious extremists -a vicious mercenary army ultimately funded by the CIA- what moral standing they assumed in the Moslem world was based on their adherence to Islamic law.

An important principle of the Islamic faith, (as some in the media informed us) is, ‘one must never expose one’s guest, visitor, to the hands of their enemy.'

To demand that the Taliban "hand over" Bin Laden within a few days, without even the pretense of respecting Islamic custom, codes of international law, etc.; it was a foregone conclusion that the Taliban would not comply.

In the aftermath of the death, outrage smouldering in the ruins of the two towers, the terms "no negotiations" may have seemed reasonable to some Americans, (at first); yet to those of us thoroughly-seasoned to the slice of past American campaigns, (Noriega, Saddaam Hussein, Milosevic) it seemed quite clear that the Bush Administration was intentionally being beligerant because they didn't actually want Bin Laden handed over; rather, they wanted a pretext for invasion.

One wonders, (if the Taliban had been smart enough to realize that their former benefactors were suddenly going to serve them up a buffet of beligerance beyond even their dictatorial comprehension): what would they have had to do to satisfy the superpower, and avoid annihilation?

Alas, the Taliban were, in the larger scheme of things, small-time brutes: blinded by the powers their petty fiefdom enshrined; and so, their response, again, was "entirely predictable."

Then in comes England’s Tony Blair, vying for the title of imperial sidekick, toady, millenial lick-spittle... with claims of providing "overwhelming," "incontrovertible" proof -as to Bin Laden’s guilt.

This turns out to be little more than loose-fitting conjecture and hearsay.

Upon investigation, we find the all-important phrase: "There is other intelligence we cannot disclose of an even more direct nature indicating guilt." (BBC Online).

Then in mid-December, with the initial conquest of Afghanistan coming to a close, the U.S. happens to find a video "confession" of Bin Laden in some bombed-out village.

It’s supposed to "close the book" on any lingering doubt’s about Bin Laden’s guilt.

At first, many observers call the evidence "damning"; yet substantive doubts soon begin to appear from all quarters and angles:

The possibilities of "Hollywood effects"-type manipulation, (a la Forrest Gump)

The problems of translation, sound-quality

The quality of Bin Laden’s nose-job,

At any rate, (and as per usual) the actual content of the conversation, does not appear to be nearly as damning as officials first claimed, (and as media then assumes).

Whether Bin Laden knew about the attacks beforehand, (and could care less about American civilians) is rather irrelevant to the question of:

Who masterminded these attacks? (upon which America has justified its invasion of another country)


Have the members of the Bush Administration, the military, and the media -who are presenting this as evidence- proven themselves to be trustworthy advocates of the truth?

The fact that this "smoking gun" has only unleashed more controversy than it sought to contain,,6903,619480,00.html

suggests that the real questions remain unanswered.

Stock Market


Another related, (though perhaps, as yet, not central) aspect of the September 11th breakdown in air defense, is the question of whether some elements within society, (besides the terrorists) had advance knowledge of the attacks.

Of particular interest is the activity of the stock-market, in the days and weeks before Sept 11.

Obviously, if one had advance knowledge, one could have predicted that certain airline stocks would plummet after the attacks.

On Sept 13th, The San Francisco Chronicle reports that a massive trade of United Airline (and related, insurance) stocks had taken place on the three days before the attack. (I can no longer locate this article online; but the following source goes into the trading in some detail, discussing banking interests closely connected to the CIA):

This was followed up by Reuters reports, (9-20-1)

Chicago traders on Wednesday cited unusual activity in airline options up to a month before attacks on U.S. landmarks, and German bankers reported brisk activity in reinsurer Munich Re shares, adding to speculation that those behind the attacks tried to profit from their acts.

By Laura Jacobs and Thomas Atkins

and (9-22-1)

"Bundesbank President Ernst Welteke said that in addition to strange movements in airline and insurance shares there were signs of suspicious dealings in gold and oil around the time of the September 11 attacks.
``There is lots of speculation and rumors at the moment so we have to be careful. But...that there are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets which must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge,'' Welteke said during a break in an EU finance ministers' meeting.

`With the oil price we have seen before the attacks a fundamentally inexplicable rise in the price, which could mean that people have bought oil contracts which were then sold at a higher price,'' he said.
Gold markets also saw movements ``which need explaining.''
Welteke said the first evidence of unusual price movements emerged last Thursday, two days after the attacks.

By correspondent A. Chalomumbai

These extreme irregularities were soon transformed into questions of how "the terrorists" (Bin Laden, Al Quieda) may have profited from the attacks; the possibility of any other "interests" profiting from them quietly faded into the background of the "internal" investigation.

Summary of Spin


Now that we have included in our analysis of the Sept. 11th attacks, an exploration of a key area, foreign policy, (which the U.S. government and mainstream media have completely left out of the discussion framework) we can clearly see that

the Bush Administration and Department of Defense, (et al) are guilty of transfering the rage that many Americans felt over the attacks, into a pretext for attacking and annexing Afghanistan.

This must cause us to pause and consider with what speed and efficiency the American military found its ground after being so "confused" on Sept. 11th; and further, how the Pentagon could claim to be so caught off-guard during an actual military emergency, then be able to so quickly and effectively create a cover-story with all the precision and scope of a military campaign.

Minions in high places were dispatched to repeat the sacred mantras of "too few planes," "no authorization to shoot down," "we simply weren't aware," and transponderitis.

"Official spokesmen" speaking on condition of anonymity, the Secretary of Defense and staff working diligently away in Pentagon isolation tanks, planes "desperately" flying "like a scalded ape," indestructible passports and porn-loving Moslems: each of these explanations we have examined and found to be little more than flimsy spin.

And yet, with all the apparent deficiency of these arguments, we may marvel at their effectiveness in satisfying public opinion; and we may be moved to ask: are we, "the people" just stupid?; or does the apparent aquiesence of the public cause us to doubt the worth of our conclusions?

We must first remark that it is the mainstream pollsters who are telling us that the American people are solidly accepting the government's version of events.

The unified consensus which appears to prevail amongst the mainstream press, the military, government, and the public occurs within the context of an increasing concentration of power into fewer and fewer hands.

This is occurring in banking, (de-regulation) business, (privitization, mergers) media, and government, (executive orders, "national-security directives").

The control of the television set, (the primary means of national communication) allows a relative few to project an image of agreement amongst all which -if the majority is unable to project an alternative image- becomes "reality"; yet this should in no way persuade us to believe it to be of lasting substance.

History is rich with examples of ruling elites which become so successful at controlling public debate, that they delude themselves, feeling impervious, unstoppable -only to suddenly be de-throned within a short period of time.

We are entering a period of history where the mass of the population is so completely shut out of the "info-tainment" machine as to be like a silent, sleeping giant -audible only to those who are able, (themselves) to turn that machine off.

Secondly: so long as the general public is utterly absorbed with the struggle to survive, and the psychological stress that comes from living in the midst of social, moral, and spiritual crises, relatively few of us are in a position to stop the treadmill of info/consumption which feeds us the illusions -bearing short-term comfort.

Thus, it doesn't really matter that the explanations for the air-defense failure of Sept 11th are flimsy: they're simply designed to satisfy people for a short period of time, long enough to keep our attention span moving away from the questions which have the capacity to generate a critical mass of independent thought.

On a practical, surface level, (the level that power brokers undertsand best) there is only a short period of time at which the attention of the public is ripe for seeking real answers. After that, the public adjusts to the new reality, and they/we don't really care about the flimsiness of the arguments anymore, (should a critical voice happen to break through).

Thus, he who has the last spin is he who has the organizational power to pull others along, until they/we move by our own consensual motion.

Such power brokers and spin-doctors, however, are quite incapable of understanding the inner, human condition; whereby, after a long period of development, millions of people "suddenly" begin to arrive at fundamental conclusions at a similar point in time.

For the moment we are, realistically speaking, largely at the mercy of the governments we elect, and the media monoploies which claim to inform us.

Powerful interests within government, military, media, money, clearly benefit from this.

In fact, while making obscene profits at the expense of others remains, (for some) a time-honoured tradition, it could be said that an equally powerful, underlying motivation for regressive government policy, inane television shows, and the like, is that:

it actually "pays" to punish people -to keep them down, treat us like we're stupid, ignore needs, blame, ridicule, etc.

Thus we are taught from an early age in school to be robotic sponges; and every effort is made, (at the highest levels) to keep young people from getting the tools and attention they/we need to become independent-thinkers, self-aware, esteemed, empowered.

When an opportunity comes along to amplify the fear factor tenfold, just look at how the various dominant interests tighten up the notch of hatred, vengeance, and a blind allegiance to the state apparatus -falling over themselves, in the attempt to compel others to agree more strongly with whatever punishment is to be meted out, (on whomever it is decided is the next incarnation of Hitler).

While this mass indoctrination looks imposing, rest assured: the curve has an apex -after which the sales of urinal cakes with Bin laden's face on them begin to drop off dramatically; and while history has not yet proven to be an indicator of decreasing atrocities, such a day will soon come.

It has been heart-breaking to see and feel the window of inquiry surrounding the events of Sept 11th closing down into a tighter and tighter circle, (all the while struggling to get these facts in front of you, as quickly as possible); yet more-comforting still, has it been to feel the critical mass finally taking hold.

Strands of independent thought which could once be so delicately broken have now formed formidable roots in fertile minds.

You who have seen through the web of diversions -spun across the TV screens and newsprint in all their graphic splendour- are now as free to see the cage as few could have imagined, a generation ago.

May you use your gift wisely.

Return to
  • top
  • this Page.

    Continue on to the final section
  • Part 1H:

  • Summation, Conclusions, Appeal.