A crime so monstrous as 9/11 can become an obsession, a time sink, so that merely for reasons of personal serenity and happiness, it is best not to dwell on it. Further, it is dwarfed in comparison to the crimes that the US has committed in the wars that 9/11 enabled, the very purpose of that crime. So even though 9/11 pales in comparison to maybe 1.2 million killed in Iraq (probably more and ongoing), millions more forced to flee to other countries for safety, 9/11 itself was the trigger. Exposure of that crime explains all that follows, and will perhaps bring some sanity to our crazy existence before the madmen who run the country bring the world to its knees in violence.
Writings such as this are greeted with silence, of course. The assumption is that I have gone off some tangent, had hallucinations or have become cynical and world-weary, perhaps even paranoid and delusional. Since I, of course, am not the best judge of those matters, I cannot say “not so!” with any authority. I can only assure the reader that I believe in the essential goodness of my fellow humans, almost all of us. I know the many weaknesses of our individual makeups. I share those weaknesses. I am capable of envy, avarice, arrogance and false conclusions based on misread evidence. Confirmation bias is a riding companion for all of us. I see how we form groups based on personal prejudice to reinforce our own beliefs. We are, all of us, works in progress. We all want to move forward, understand better, and live in a community where our own rights are respected as we respect those of others. No one is out to “get” me personally or conspiring to harm me in any way. I’ve led a charmed and fortunate life. If it all goes away tomorrow, that’s life. Nothing is ever guaranteed, and billions of other people would take my life over their own, would love to be so fortunate.
So to sit here and say that the leaders of our country are evil monsters who commit ungodly crimes is to invite ridicule. I understand that. Not a problem.
The question often asked is how such crimes are committed in the open without anyone stepping forward to leak or confess. This much is understood: Most who participated did not know what was up. Once they realized it, they also knew that to speak up was foolish, as people who would kill 3,000 with such ease would quickly dispose of anyone who spoke out. Other punishments work as well – Dr. Jones of BYU, who spotted nanothermites in the dust of the WTC debris, lost his tenured position. A lowly marine was recently thrown in a mental hospital. These acts serve as warnings to others who are contemplating speaking up. STFU or pay the consequences. (Mere loss of pay, prestige, retirement and position is usually enough incentive.) There are thousands in the military, aviation, engineering, fire fighting, law enforcement and among the families who lost loved ones (and who were mostly bought off) who know tangential details and who sit quietly. Contrary to popular belief, the government can keep secrets.
I have met a few people who, like me, simply know without much thought that something awful was afoot. We don’t know ‘how’ so much as why. And we realize that it is not, in broad historical context, terribly unusual.
Why don’t people speak up on their death beds? I do not know, but absence of conscience is not a feature that disappears in the final moments of life. I do know of one person who spoke up, and only in a seedy manner as he groveled for a job. He explained it all to us, and his work has survived through the ages. It’s called The Prince. His name: Niccolò Machiavelli.
Other questions: Was George W. Bush part of it? (No. He is cruel, but was too dumb to trust, the classic puppet leader.) What’s up with the anthrax attacks? (Who knows – they appeared to be aimed at specific individuals and as a warning to others.) Does Obama know? (After the fact. He is not a brave man, but is a smart man*.) Has the rest of the world figured it out? (For the most part, yes.) Will it happen again? (Scary thought, but yes, if a booster shot seems necessary, it can happen again. These ugly and vile sacks of human bones and tissue have access to immense power.) Will I be punished for writing these things? (No. I don’t matter. I get 2-400 hits a day, perhaps two dozen actual reads on a good day when I write something really short. And anyway individual psychology has immunized most people to the thoughts I express. Most people reject them outright.)
_______________
* The occupants of that office appear to become its captives – at some point they realize that their tenure and legacy depend on acquiescence to embedded power, and that to fight that power leads to “scandals” that at least threaten to remove them, or in the case of Nixon, actually remove him. Beyond that, the selection process for occupants is not natural – men like Obama are culled from the herd and allowed to succeed by means of doctored backgrounds, seemingly self-written and insightful books and favorable media coverage, while more qualified candidates are marginalized and ignored. All of this results from excessive influence of money in our politics. The process results in the office of the president being no more than a pressure release point, having little influence on government policies, but allowing the population to vent negative emotions and do and occasional chicken dance in delightful vanquishing of opposition. Such was the emotional release valve we all enjoyed in 2008, only soon to realize that little had changed except some faces.
Piece of Mindful 
Actually, I find this stuff fun to read. Such was not always the case, however. Years ago, I thought you were just another garden variety commie, and I reacted like a junkyard dog. As time passed, I began to realize that you were suffering from complex of mental disorders, probably brought on by having five children to raise. During that time, I tended more toward making fun of you, somewhat like pulling pranks on a retarded kid. Finally, and this is the point I have reached today, I see you as a nearly inexhaustible source of entertainment. Frankly, I am fascinated by your ability to mold and reshape reality into all these weird configurations.
[About your footnote claiming that nothing has changed in the last four years: We have trillions more in public debt now, maybe representing $50,000 to $60,000 for every man, woman, and child; we have a whole generation of financially ruined and unemployable college kids now; we have 47 million people on Food Stamps; and we have the highest continuing unemployment in over 60 years. I would say a lot has changed.]
— Max Bucks
LikeLike
I’ve had trouble understanding who or what you are – you used to travel the blogs under several names, settling on MB. It’s a mask more than a pseudonym, I think. But if you are indeed the person who glories in making money above all else, yours is a starved life from my view. Once a person reaches a certain level of comfort, life takes off in new directions. For most.
Regarding debt, it was interesting to watch the opinion makers reshape the “issues of the day” in 2009. Where debt, private and public, has been fueling the economy since 1980, it only became substantively important
inat that time, when Obama took office. The reason is easily understood – it’s a lever by which social programs will be undone. The real causes of our debt – military spending, tax cuts and recession (probably a depression by now) remain untouched.Unless you can show me that you were worried about debt before Obama, especially under Reagan when deficits were a larger % of GDP, please be quiet, tool.
LikeLike
“Glories in making money above all else”? Golly, that sounds almost Biblical, besides being false in my case.
What you do not know about me is that I got rich by accident. OK, so perhaps I did certain things that would inevitably lead me to becoming rich, but I had no idea that would happen when I did those things.
What did I do? Thomas Mann’s character in his first novel, Johann Buddenbrook, sums it up best: “Work, save, and pray.” Essentially, that is all I did. (Not being the religious type, I never prayed. But I did seek financial guidance in thousands of secular books.)
If I glory in anything, it is the life of the mind. My world is filled with art, literature, and music, which to me are the only worthwhile things produced by this otherwise pathetic race. Having more money that I will ever need merely removes the distraction of having to earn a living and being subjected to currents that toss the masses about. Thus, I can concentrate on the things that I believe are most important in this life.
///
On indebtedness, public and private, you need to get over your Reagannomics 1980s trauma.* According to my analysis, the American economy reached its post-Depression peak in 1966. Expansionary monetary policy fueled Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” programs, along with his “Guns & Butter” politics, which set the stage for the inflation and unemployment of the 1970s, also known as stagflation. It was Paul Volker who brought back stable money and the prosperity we enjoyed for the next 15 or 20 years. Ronald Reagan had nothing to do with this story, unless you are one of those simpletons who believe that the President controls the economy.
Money is the fundamental commodity in all advanced economies. The men who control that commodity control the economy. The President, the Congress, tax policy, welfare programs—none has any effect on what will ultimately happen to the economy. They merely reflect or react to whatever the monetary (credit) cycle happens to be, i.e., either expanding, stable, or contracting. People, and governments, will naturally go into debt when credit is abundant. They will borrow like there is no tomorrow, until tomorrow finally comes. And then everything falls apart.
Basically, you are barking up the wrong tree. You should be watching the Federal Reserve, not the President, the Congress, the political parties, or the corporations. Those are just sideshows.
As for me, personally, I do not worry about debt, neither my own, since I have not had any for about 40 years, nor the government debt, because I know it will never be paid with honest money. Rather, the public debt will be paid with depreciated money, which will effectively be a hidden tax on all the working people. So you are the one who ought to be worried about your president’s debt splurge, not me.
— Max Bucks
___________________________________
* Back then, I had a custom T-shirt that said, “Reagnomics Is Depressing.” I made the mistake of wearing it in a redneck bar and nearly got the hell beat out of me. Not that the locals understood the economic message, they just knew it was derogatory.
LikeLike
I see where you think that I am focused on elected officials, given what I wrote. I was writing more about opinion and perception management than anyone who happens to be in office at any time. And I regard money as a tool, a device, nothing more, and certainly not a “commodity” since it can be created at whim. Production and demand are what drives the economy. It is inevitable when financial products become an end in themselves that we have bubbles, the last one near devastating and still unresolved.
The debt is a political device, deliberately driven so high as a means of attacking the social safety net. One good solid growth spurt, as we had in the 50’s and 60’s, would wipe it out, but paying it back with devalued currency works as well, as you say. But it is the current drumbeat, and while tax cuts and wars are sancrosanct, social programs are in serous jeopardy.
I sense some Thomas Fergason in your words. Am I right about that?
LikeLike
Without a quick and dirty Google, I cannot say I ever heard of Thomas Fergason. But I am a fairly big fan of Niall Ferguson, if that is who you mean.
///
Real money is, in fact, always a commodity or is always based on a commodity. Fiat money is not, because, as you said, it can be created out of thin air.
Leftists have historically supported central banks and their ability to create money simply by printing it. This is so because the left is comprised mainly of the debtor class (borrowers), and they naturally desire to pay off their obligations with depreciated money. Rightists have historically opposed central banking and fiat money. This is so because the right is comprised mainly of the creditor class (lenders), and they naturally desire to be repaid with good money.
If you study the history of panics and depressions, you will discover that “financial products” are not automatically the object of speculative bubbles. Everything from tulip bulbs to canals and railroads have been turned into bubbles. And of course, there is always real estate, from the South Seas Bubble, which nearly took down the Bank of England, to the Florida Land Bubble of the mid-1920s, wiped out by a hurricane; to the Subprime Bubble of recent times. Financial products are generally easier to blow into bubbles (1929, 2000) because they are highly liquid and widely traded, but they are hardly the only species of bubbles.
What you need to understand is that easy money (credit) creates bubbles, not Wall Street or Main Street. When money is easy it will always find its way into a speculative object. Look to your central bank as the root of the problem.
As for your proposition that national indebtedness is some kind of a deliberate, self-imposed punishment to avoid spending money on social welfare, I think that is a little too silly to address.
— Max Bucks
LikeLike
Paying debts in depreciated money is not as much a tax on the working class or debtors as it is offset by the reduction in value of their debts.
LikeLike
Oh my. So you are one of the few honest men on the planet. Tsk. Such a burden.
You know, if you are so dialed about the secret cabal that REALLY runs the
country, why don’t you give some names and evidence? We could form a posse/militia and confront these people in public with the facts, or shoot them in the head if that is what it takes. If it is really a worthy cause, people are willing to face death.
You tell us that most people are decent, but then you muse that most everyone has been bought off by the power structure for a few baubles, or for fear of losing employment. Which is it?
You sound too much like the Coast to Coast AM cohort of alien anal probe victims: unverifiable calamities.
LikeLike
I won’t waste my time debating someone who has not exposed himself to the evidence except to say this: you seem willing to accept authority in judging matters of fact.
LikeLike
I’m asking YOU what evidence you have of a secret cabal that has the real power. I want to know who I should petition for real change.
It is fine and good to raise doubt, but what is your alternative explanation that doesn’t have more holes than the first explanation?
And with that evidence, let’s call for a better investigation, build up some consensus among a large group of people, including some subject matter experts. You’ve got this “lone wolf” thing going on, where only you can see the aliens, only you can feel the probe.
LikeLike