And he 'sleeps with the fishes'?
A response to 'Government Insider: Bush Authorized 911 Attacks'
May 23, 2008.
© Project HumanbeingsfirstTM. Permission granted to use freely as per copyright notice.
To: Alex Jones,
Subject: Your Interview “Government Insider: Bush Authorized 911 Attacks”
Friday, May 23, 2008.
Dear Mr. Alex Jones – Dissent-Chief Extraordinaire,
I do not know how to reach you directly, so I am writing this public letter in the hope that you will get to see it and will choose to respond.
I humbly wish to draw your kind attention to a comment that I posted on May 21st , 2008 at 5:50 pm, for the very un-forensic interview that you conducted with Stanley Hilton “Government Insider: Bush Authorized 911 Attacks”.
The most disturbing question about this interview is why should a famous gadfly like yourself, one who has become an immensely popular magnet for the most radical and overzealous of 'truth-seekers' among the dissent-space in the United States, deliberately try to push this concept of “Bush Authorized 911 Attacks” in this interview, and even attempt to give it extra credibility by prefacing the interview transcript with: “Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no two-bit internet conspiracy buff”, and yet, produce not a shard of the purported evidence? The credibility of this interview is rather straightforwardly analyzed in my comment posted on your website, and which is also reproduced below for your convenience. I hope that as the rising gadfly 'dissenting chief' of many a rebel and 'mal-content', that you will appreciate and welcome a tiny plebeian gnat on your own very prominent back!
I am entirely worried that just as the uber gadfly extraordinaire Noam Chomsky takes the opposite extreme position, of a “Bin Laden” and “Al-Qaeeda” dun-it without producing any evidence or rational analysis to support his conjectures that can withstand any forensic scrutiny, you seem to be taking the other extreme position, entirely following in his very large and distinguished footsteps. It almost appears as if, surely only inadvertently, a dialectics of infamy (also known as Ezra Pound's 'technique of infamy') is being re-constructed in the dissent-space to cater to the needs and proclivities of every breed of emergent flock and every possibility (see “Responsibility of Intellectuals – Redux”). Everything except that which might actually be true, provable, or useful in efficaciously preempting “imperial mobilization” which every American of conscience, as per all the public opinion polls over the past few years, opposes. And primarily opposes more today than yesterday, because the “economic self-denial (that is defense spending), and the human sacrifice (casualties even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are [finally becoming] uncongenial to democratic instincts.”
IMHO, only the timely institutional capitalization upon this emerging new domestic reality in America can lead to any efficacy of dissent! The window of opportunity is tiny and shrinking rapidly, bounded that it is in the initial stages of the game by the apathetic or scared and all too willing “United We Stand” public on one end, and the COG and Martial Law on the other before the “democratic instincts” very predictably begin to react towards the end-game. That public reaction too has been astutely modulated and controlled, and you know all this far better than this scribe.
And yet, all the distinguished gadflies of empire are busy with what? Cultivating more red herrings! How many have actually done any insightful analysis of what it takes to derail “imperial mobilization”? I have only mainly heard platitudes, moralizing, sky-is-falling, or rehash of the crimes of empire, with many just laughing their way to their banks in soaring book sales and speaking engagement fees! But what I don't hear is efficacious solution-spaces!
In this regard, I humbly draw your kind attention to this report by Project Humanbeingsfirst: “How to derail 'imperial mobilization' and preempt the crossing of the Nuclear Rubicon”.
And to this key passage therein:
If there is reason for the United States to nuclear decimate any country or any peoples in purported 'self-defense', the American peoples must demand a ratification of the decision to go to war through a public referendum – let its great “populist democracy” speak directly in the modernity of the 21st century before it is called upon to make its sacrifices, before it is called upon to pay its taxes to fund the war, and before it is called upon to acquire innocent blood on its hands!
You will surely agree in principle with the afore stated paragraph, that a mandatory public referendum before initiating any “'defensive' US military action” can not only immediately catalyze the much needed world Détente on the 'Grand Chessboard' by the ordinary American public themselves, but also preempt both another 911 upon America's shores, and the crossing of the nuclear Rubicon – because now, an almost insurmountable institutional road-block would have been enacted in the veritable path of “imperial mobilization” within the legal framework of governance, which in these times of 'once bitten twice shy', will surely vote a “NAY”!
This entirely eliminates the typical mobilizing impact harvested from a catalyzing “new Pearl Harbor” false flag operation, and hence the very usefulness of planning and executing a costly criminal operation that has little payback. Especially today with the American peoples already war averse! If this genuine democratic hook was today present in the system, perhaps the first 911 war on Afghanistan could not have been prevented due to its shock impact; perhaps the costly launching of war on Iraq may also not have been prevented as plebeian America was still going strong “United We Stand” through the projected “cake-walk”; but today, with this nation bleeding, gas prices over $4.00, and many perched at the edge of insolvency, it would entirely eliminate the raison d'être of another 911 that President Bush repeatedly warns the Americans about every chance he gets:
“Good morning [America]. At this moment, somewhere in the world, terrorists are planning new attacks on our country. Their goal is to bring destruction to our shores that will make September the 11th pale by comparison.” (President of the United States, George W. Bush, Feb. 13, 2008)
And which, Donald Rumsfeld so sanguinely opines in a recently disclosed 2006 video-tape, he rather have to get the peoples to take the 'threats' to America seriously because they lack “the maturity to recognize the seriousness of the ‘threats’”. With the afore-stated plebeians' hook in place, his next statement wouldn't have the grotesque import that it now has, would it(?):
“The correction for that, I suppose, is another attack.”
Direct referendum is a simple well known mechanism that can be far more potent and efficacious within the requisite timelines of urgency, than what all the Anti-War Movements, 911 Truth Movements, Impeachment Movements, Whistle-blower Movements, Book-Publishing Movements, Reformed Alcoholic Movements, Internet Rant Movements, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, have been able to preempt since 911!
Indeed, IMHO, all that these various Movements have been able to orchestrate, is a glorious trail of inefficacy, red herrings, exercise on treadmills, armchair internet activism (substitute for the mainstream's 7 o'clock news), and the very enablement of “imperial mobilization” through their impotency – as even the President of the United States had noted on the eve of the invasion of Iraq, responding to the question “Given the size of the protests in England over the weekend, do you have any concerns that Tony Blair might pay a serious political price for supporting you on Iraq?”, he had said:
“First of all, you know, size of protest, it's like deciding, well, I'm going to decide policy based upon a focus group.” (President George W. Bush, February 23, 2003)
Unless the handful of conscionable peoples who do rise-up to protest, and especially those who rise to prominent positions of leadership among them, also learn to forensically analyze their failure to be efficacious in their dissent instead of eagerly always grasping at every straw and red herring planted their way, they inevitably become part of sustaining the very same “imperial mobilization” they oppose! Dissent has thus, in effect, become an essential and very treacherous component of empire! It enables conscionable people to feel good on the treadmill, and accomplishes no useful interference with the imperial projects of empire.
This is precisely what Hectoring Hegemons of all shades and stripes count on, and the dissenting-chiefs of empire so excel in assisting them in: the ability to construct imperial faits accomplis while providing the conscionable plebeians with some astutely constructed 'blow out the steam safety-valves' through managed dissent! Even that 'safety-valve' won't be needed under Martial Law – and you must surely agree with that bit of palpable truism!
Therefore, I hope you can join me in advocating this efficacious measure wholeheartedly, if it makes sense to you for its immediate efficacy given the grotesque reality du jour. How to instrument its realization requires all of dissent-space coming together on this one singular focal point of action and not be wasting its precious time and resources chasing this and that cleverly cultivated red herring traps like the one you seem to be, surely only inadvertently, pushing in your interview of Stanley Hilton.
Please feel free to constructively critique anything I have written – I invite you to take it apart not with rants on a megaphone, but with convincing logic and rationalism with the touchstone of efficacy being the paramount yardstick of useful dissent! I don't have all the answers that still need to be uncovered to practically derail “imperial mobilization”, and am just as much concerned about the crossing of the nuclear Rubicon as the rest of conscionable thinking peoples on the planet who see its constructions in the making. That must surely remain the first priority of all peoples!
You do real good work (in most cases) and I humbly thank you for having the courage of your convictions and showing us ordinary folks the way. That said, the victims of “imperial mobilization” care little how hard the dissenters yelled in their megaphones in the streets of America! Please do keep that in mind!
Comments on “Government Insider: Bush Authorized 911 Attacks”:
After reading this bizarre article, I wrote the following note to Noam Chomsky - I wish to share an excerpt from it here because it hits at the heart of the matter: this disclosure is a bit too early in time! If these statements aren’t mere hyperbole but backed with evidence: “ … but in actually ordering it to happen. Bush personally ordered it to happen. We have some very incriminating documents as well as eye-witnesses, that Bush personally ordered this event to happen in order to gain …”, then this nice gentleman would be prematurely “sleeping with the fishes” by now (Heavens forbid – and may he live long and prosper).
While there [can be] no doubt to this overarching phrase from his statement: “And this was a direct, covert operation ordered”, at least by someone, to assert [that] there is evidence which points to the President of the United States, and then live to state it, is counter-intuitive – no different than the Government’s version that a caveman Yoda master from the Hindu Kush using mind-melding Yoga to overcome all of America’s air-defences and simultaneously “control-demolition” the towers in a “shock and awe” of his own upon the most armed to the teeth superpower national security state in the history of civilizations and conveniently [also] leave his calling card behind so that the angry-elephant will know exactly where to bomb him, is counter-intuitive.
So either there is no [accessible] evidence [which is why 'state-secrets privilege' and high-speed shredders exist in the first place], or these are mere allegations and conjectures, hearsay, hyperbolics, etc., and only in these two cases, can this person live to tell this tale.
The s/n ratio seems very weak in this interview on account of rationality of analysis. If there was any real evidence as he states, this guy would have naturally pulled an “Ellsberg”, i.e., gone the “Pentagon Papers” route – not merely talk about it [publicly]!
This Government, as with the Third Reich before it, is very ‘legality’ conscious – and if an incriminating document as suggested here can [accessibly] exist which can indict its leader: [then it is logical to presume that] if they can do a 911 like grotesque [false flag] operation and kill 3000 of their own citizens, they surely wouldn’t mind killing one more [and would do it before the 'rat' even ventured to squeal]! QED!
I wrote [the following] note to Noam Chomsky because he vehemently argues for the Government’s version [of 911] primarily because he thinks it’s too big of a lie otherwise; not because he thinks the Government is a saint (obviously). It would be interesting to see what he has to say to this supposed “insider’s revelation” which runs counter to his [publicly] stated position. I’ll ask him to post his response here (if he makes any).
———- Letter to Noam Chomsky ———-
Date: Wed, 21 May 2008 13:58:28 -0800
Subject: Interesting article in Pakistani paper for your comments!
Dear Prof. Chomsky
Please check out this article which appeared in a Pakistani newspaper. …
I am a bit surprised by this disclosure – not by what the neocons were doing at Univ. of Chicago for I have actually read some of these thesis believe it or not. One of them is very interesting, “Coup d'etat” – you may have read it already. I bought it and read it on the plane last year! I am quite well read in Straussian craft and its history by now, and also have studied Brzezinski et. al quite a bit. So none of this information is new to me. Rather I know it to be correct by first-hand study of their state-craft doctrines. However what is a bit surprising is the disclosure that I am seeking your opinion on – for it has come too soon.
I was thinking that it will be at least 50 years – and in the meantime, we will all be looking either for a “Bin Laden's” hand (that's you – which conveniently echoes the Pentagon's and White House's story-line), or another covert-hand aka “Hari-Seldon's Second Foundationers” within the existing system of governance and/or perched upon its edge with deep tentacles into both the Pentagon's DIA and NORAD which means at least a minimal civil-military collusion space, and deep pockets (and that's me – which mistrusts and distrusts any Governments' version of anything, preferring instead to rely on Ellsberg's experience of the Pentagon [Papers] era that “Governments lie”, the size of the lie is immaterial; and your own prior teachings of “outlaw” and “rogue” states).
The author, an ordinary researcher and writer on contemporary geopolitics, a minor justice activist, grew up in Pakistan, studied EECS at MIT, engineered for a while in high-tech Silicon Valley (patents here), and retired early to pursue other responsible interests. His maiden 2003 book was rejected by six publishers and can be read on the web at http://PrisonersoftheCave.org. He may be reached at http://Humanbeingsfirst.org.
All material copyright (c) Project HumanbeingsfirstTM, with full permission to copy, repost, and reprint, in its entirety, unmodified and unedited, for any purpose, granted, provided the URL sentence and this copyright notice are also reproduced verbatim as part of this license, and not doing so may be subject to copyright license violation infringement claims pursuant to remedies noted at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html. All quotations and excerpts are based on non-profit "fair use" in the greater public interest consistent with the understanding of laws noted at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html. The rights of the author to express these views are based on inalienable rights noted at http://www.hrweb.org/legal/undocs.html, and to do so freely without suffering intimidation and duress is based on the new anti-terrorism laws which presumably supersede excellent theory noted at http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html. Full copyright notice and Exclusions at http://www.humanbeingsfirst.org#Copyright.
And he 'sleeps with the fishes'? A response to