Who’s sowing, who’s reaping, who the hell knows?

The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”Ron Suskind, conversation with anonymous White House “aide”

The U.S. is becoming increasIngly irrational
The assumption is that the aide speaking above was Karl Rove, still in power at this time, but the words “judicially, as you will…” hit me as Cheney-talk. Who knows, who cares. Those words were a reflection of hubris, an arrogant revelation, and a mistake. They should not talk out of school.

But they highlight the problem. We only know what power is up to retrospectively. Americans, at least those who are thinking, run around trying to decide which news outlet to trust. The correct answer, “None of them!” doesn’t satisfy. Conservatives run to Fox, liberals to CNN, each getting six of one. Liberals also go to NPR, which offers CNN/Fox news with nice sound effects, and Car Talk.

I like Democracy Now!, not because they have the answers, but rather because they are at least curious about what’s really going on, even as they have no access to power. They try to fulfill the function of a news source without resources. (I send them $25 a month. I am bribing them!)

I also go to RT.com because, as a Russian propaganda outlet, they offer balance to the American propaganda outlets that dominate our senses. Knowing that the US and Russia are at odds is reassuring. However, often in history competing empires share larger objectives and merely facilitate one another, as during the Cold War.

The only thing for sure: Nothing is for sure.

The problem is that we only know in retrospect what has happened. Here’s an example: The pressure to attack Iraq goes all the way back to the implosion of the Soviet Union, and the timing of the first invasion, 1991, was no coincidence. But Iraq was known to possess chemical weapons stocks (that we had sold them), so a full invasion was out of the question.

Staged event did not go as planned
So, during the Clinton years the US and Britain starved Iraqi kids while the U.N. made sure that the weapons were destroyed. By 1998 they must have been assured that invasion was safe, and Neocon pressure on the Clintonites to launch a second attack became intense. A staged event facilitated by CNN to prep the public for the attack at Ohio State imploded when protesters infiltrated and bombarded the stage with jeers and non-planted questions. It was a bad picture. “CNN dropped the ball,” an administration source said.

Later in 1998 Clinton was entrapped when a mole, Linda Tripp, gathered evidence of his fooling around with Monica Lewinsky, and normal behind-the-scenes behavior became a “scandal” leading to near impeachment. In December of that year, the Administration launched a savage bombing attack on Iraq.

A failed propaganda effort, a fake scandal, a real but ineffective attack … in sequence. Maybe something, maybe not. We never know.

But it was not enough – bombing is a tool, but does not win wars. Only boots on the ground, tanks and bases work. A full-scale shock-and-awe attack was needed.

The problem was American public opinion, seen as “soft.” Although Americans are not known for their awareness, they are a sleeping dog that can be awakened, as Vietnam demonstrated. The problem was how to take that sleeping dog and turn him into an attack dog. 9/11 accomplished that. The Iraq invasion was facilitated by the anger and confusion in the aftermath, still extant.

It’s all reasonably easy to see, after the fact. What about now? What about Libya? Syria? Yemen? Bahrain? Egypt? Colombia? Hard to know. The only indication of American goals I have seen is the degree to which we are allowed to see the violence and unrest. If it is kept quiet, as Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Colombia and current-Iraq have been, then it can be reasonably ascertained that Americans are not facilitating the violence. If it is given wide coverage, then the likelihood is that Americans are either committing or fueling it, or both. But not always, of course.

Syria is easy. They want Assad’s government gone, the Russian base shut down, and a client state in place. But for the rest? What’s going on in Egypt? The new government was disposing of the old American-backed military brass … are Americans now fueling unrest? It is hard to know – even the attack on the embassy in Benghazi cannot be known to be a true or staged event – was it done by true dissidents or agents provocateur? Is the stage being set for another Pakistan? The Administration response is swift and violent. The question is how large it will be. If it entails widespread mayhem, then it is likely the embassy attack was an American-backed event.

There are only a few general principles that can be relied upon:

  • American media coverage is dictated by government insiders;
  • The U.S. government heavily influences, but does not control, events;
  • “Friends” and “enemies” are indistinguishable;
  • Real objectives are never stated in public.

Since the fall of the Soviet Union, and especially since 9/11, it is easy to see that the thrust of American foreign policy is total domination of all areas outside China and Russia. Specifics of this policy entail breaking up larger countries into more controllable fiefdoms – Iraq, Libya, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan into smaller states, each too weak to resist American power. Iraq was a total failure – to everyone’s surprise, it held together, even forced the U.S. to back off. (Yet another defeat, though American companies now control the oil.)

The problem is, as always, larger countries that have their own resources that cannot be conquered – Russia, India, China, and increasingly, parts of Latin America.

So much of our “reality” appears right now to be desperation. Our economy is in ruins, our military failing on every front. While military frustration may be reassuring to some, it is not to me. Desperate people do desperate things, and the maniacs who run this country possess the largest arsenal of weapons in world history.

It would be nice to know in real time, rather than retrospectively, what’s in store. Even better – to know in advance.
_____________
Photo sources: http://www.survivormind.com; http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

23 thoughts on “Who’s sowing, who’s reaping, who the hell knows?”

    1. Fred, please stop with this. I’ll start with the JCS, but you must understand the power is not showy. Back in the early 60’s it was the JCS that signed off on a plan to hijack airlines, shoot them down and blame Cuba. Air Force One took off from Miami on 9/11 without fighter escort. Why?

      Cheney that day, based on testimony of Leon Manetta, was monitoring an aircraft headed for Washington when a subordinate approached him and asked if the orders still stood. He said “of course they are. Did you hear anything different?” The time coincides with the craft that hit the Pentagon, so the order had to have been not to shoot it down, as it was not shot down.

      Ergo, naming names, Cheney.

      Like

      Reply

  2. So the JCS, a rotating group of bureaucrats, are the real power brokers? My friends in the Pentagon go up to the colonel level, and what they tell me is that the JC’s spend all their time fighting each other for a bigger slice of the defense budget. To think they have time and a secret staff to carry out your fantasies seems pretty absurd.

    Cheney? The guy up the road from you? The guy everyone in Wyoming knows? He is an evil mastermind? He seems more a convenient target to fulfill your need for an oppressor to go along with all the victims you are counting.

    I want to see more logging on federal land in western Montana. Do you suppose I could ring up Cheney and get him to do something about that?

    As far as 9/11, from what I’ve read of the debates here, Steve pretty well conveys my sentiments. I’ll add this tidbit: I studied engineering and have worked with steel and other metals my whole life. I don’t see anything in the collapse of the twin towers other than the results of a fuel loaded 767 crashing into them. The engineering profession provided competent people for the forensic team. I’ve never heard any other materials/structural engineer suggest anything other than what we saw on 9/11. If there are serious doubts about steel behavior on 9/11, there would be more buzz in the community. We have thousands of professors, design firms, consultants, etc. in the building trade and other fields, people who we trust to build the machinery of today with integrity. You walk into a building, take a major carnival ride, or drive over a bridge and depend on authority that it will stand. Engineers are fiercely honest and independent (Dilbert). That you think the profession was bought off with thirty pieces of silver on 9/11 by Dick Cheney and the JCS is absurd.

    Like

    Reply

    1. There are 1500 1708 members of [Architects and ]”Engineers for 9/11 Truth.” I brought this stuff up and am paying the price, and I’m not going to say much more about it, but all you’ve done here is make appeals to authority without addressing actual evidence, which is what I asked you not to do. You’ve also inferred that because you know some colonels, you are an inside man regarding JCS. That’s absurd.

      Here’s something for your engineers: One, 9/11 Commission says that the planes that hit the towers were flying at 560 miles per hour. A normal jet would fall apart at that speed. They can fly at that speed at 35,000 feet, but not at sea level, where air resistance is far too high.

      Second, and you really must give this some thought: The film of the jets hitting the second tower shows a jet flying in at 560 mph, and even though hitting the steel reinforcement of seven or eight floors, cut through it all like a knife through butter, not losing any speed even as the building absorbed the entire aircraft. The wings are basically air and aluminum with enough hard metal to withstand high speed flight, but not to withstand impact with steel. They should have collapsed.

      Explain.

      Like

      Reply

    3. Cheney is an elected official, aka window dressing in your book. Now he has real power?

      The explanation for the jets damaging the buildings is called kinetic energy.

      I can’t explain every detail to your satisfaction, I’m just saying that in my experience metal changes property drastically with relatively small temperature changes. Work is often scheduled depending on ambient air temperature. Many shops have seen catastrophic failure early in heating a piece of work.

      The towers were early users of high tensile steel, and I wonder if it was all “cooked” to spec. Metal alloying is as much art as science.

      Yes, there are many questions, since such forensic work involves many people, honest mistakes, CYA, and opportunists. But the vast, seamless conspiracy you tout is beyond the pale.

      Like

      Reply

    1. Re Cheney, can you think beyond black/white, all or nothing? Minetta’s testimony, which he has not retracted, is odd, no?

      Kinetic energy no more explains what happened that day than osmosis. You’re merely talking about transference of energy from one body to another, but it goes both ways. The results are no more different with plane striking building than building striking plane – in either case, the plane is crushed. For a light object like a wing, it would have to be going far far faster to achieve the knife-into-butter effect – we’re talking Star Trek numbers.

      UL certified the metal used in the towers. Metallic properties do change at various temperature, but you are talking about steel that melts at around 2800 Fahrenheit. Metallurgy and construction of high rises were well advanced in the early 20th century, and by the 1970’s, they were able to safely build massive buildings like this – you really think they just cooked up a batch of steel and forgot to test it? Good grief! Please, be reasonable. That explanation is not sensible.

      It is very easy to deconstruct official explanations of events – they are impossible, and violate the rules of physics. On the other hand, it is extremely difficult to explain official truth without doing what you have done – making vague generalizations, doing great reaches in logic, and throwing the rest out of sight – “CYA and opportunism.” I don’t think you have any clue of details, and further think that you studiously avoid them.

      I get that. It’s an aspect of human nature that befuddles me: the naked emperor phenomenon. You believe in official truth and distrust your lying eyes. You get your opinions from authority figures.

      Like

      Reply

      1. I haven’t gotten through all of Mineta’s testimony. It is tantalizing, but I would expect more buzz if there had been any shoot down/don’t shoot down orders. Military people like to talk. I heard they scrambled as quick as they could out of Otis Air Force Base.

        It doesn’t sound like you understand the physics here. Whether your frame of reference is the building or the plane, the effects are the same, and we don’t need Star Trek numbers.

        The twin towers were designed to maximize open space, and specced 50,000 psi steel over the standard 36,000 psi steel. I’m sure it was tested carefully, but every batch out of a Bessemer vessel is different, and I was just wondering if maybe it didn’t fatigue well, or something else.

        There is a curve for steel strength vs. temperature. It’s not like steel is full strength until 2800 degrees, then it goes liquid. Iron alloys are rather flat. Tungsten is prized because it holds its strength at high temperatures.

        You noted that 2000 or so architects and engineers signed on to 9/11 Truth. I’d leave out architects, who are mostly interested in aesthetics, but how many signed on because they think the physics of the situation demand the buildings should have stayed standing? I suspect most signed on because they believe the government lied to us about other things.

        You deconstruct the official line, but your explanations can be deconstructed just as well. What are you offering that doesn’t’ have as many holes? All explanations depend on appeals to authority. You cited UL testing, as if they haven’t tested stuff that later failed. Personally, I don’t believe the FAA altitude info on flight 93. When I first heard an account of the flight, I thought, “they must have been flying low, that’s why the cell phones worked. I bet air traffic lost the flight, so the bureaucrats ripped off a plausible flight path.” Should I demand proof the FAA wasn’t lying about the altitudes, and claim you are a dupe for believing what the authorities offered?

        Like

        Reply

        1. You’re still reaching. All I have to do is deconstruct, as I obviously don’t have all the answers. Of course steel doesn’t melt until a given temperature, but doesn’t begin to lose structural strength until widespread high temperatures far exceeding those produced by by jet fuel and paper are encountered …. And then it sags. It does not collapse. High rise buildings are built to absorb a shock much as a spider web absorbs a fly. The energy and heat are dispersed. The WTC’s each had 48 steel columns at the center, not indestructible, as we see with our eyes, but neither destructible by the mere force of a jet airliners high up. Further, the upper floors bear very little of the building structure, as the weight must be borne down below, so that the <10% of the structure in the areas above the impact zone, whatever hit them, would not bring down the other 90%. You need a new source of energy. Get busy on it.

          This idea that the government, the military cannot keep secrets is nonsense. It only depends on effective use of power – this is one of the reasons that Bradley Mannng was openly tortured, why they are pursuing Julian Assange with such vigor – not for secrets so much as to demonstrate to anyone thinking of talking what happens. Within the military secrecy is widely enforced by loss of pay, pension, position and be benefits. (Minetta was forced to resign after giving his testimony, which was not included in the 9/11 report.)

          The reason the field of architecture requires people of high intelligence, and why successful architects are so well known, is the ability to combine art and engineering. I could design a far-fetched building this afternoon, but would it stand up for forty years? The WTC's were built in the Ayn Rand mode 1950's-style brute presence without aesthetics, a symbol of power. (She loved square blunt city-scapes.) But they were self-contained and so air had to be pumped throughout constantly. In that regard they were outdated. But structurally they were bulwarks, and they were not only brought down, but pulverized in the process. Manhattan was engulfed in pyroclastic flow that day, and not one chair, file cabinet or adding machine survived, though one of the hijacker’s passports did.

          I understand what you are going through – I encountered this 23 years ago. You are looking into the face of evil. It is not something you are used to, so you do not recognize it, but if you do, when you do, it will put you in deep shock and your world will be upended. Say, for instance, that this had happened in Moscow in 1988 – by that time the Russian people had lost faith in their leaders so that a stunt like this would not go down. Most of them would have easily seen through it. Here in the US, where our leaders are every bit as evil, people still have faith in them and the country, and it is faith, and not science, that is driving you right now.

          Good luck with that!

          Like

          Reply

        3. Your physics and metallurgy here have the confidence of an outsider seizing on an explanation.

          [steel] doesn’t begin to lose structural strength until widespread high temperatures far exceeding those produced by by jet fuel and paper are encountered …. And then it sags. It does not collapse.

          From my experience, this is false. Many sudden failures occur at relatively low temperatures to members under load, especially if they are in any way brittle. Maybe something else did go on that day, but what we saw, jets into a building, has everything there to bring the observed result: structural failure followed by a pancaking effect. You do not have a more plausible explanation, nor do you have enough evidence to point to anything else.

          Architects work closely with engineering design firms. Usually the architects ask, “is this possible? Then what is possible?” I have a high regard for architects (really an underpaid profession. Often their fees are the same as what a realtor would get for selling the building. Man, what a discrepancy!), but I’m just saying most don’t get into the nitty gritty of sizing beams or collapse characteristics.

          Within the military secrecy is widely enforced by loss of pay, pension, position and be benefits.

          So people willing to die for a cause can be bought off? I’m familiar with secrecy in the military, but it is surprising how much is known by one and all, and look at all the amateur spies we catch on a regular basis. Look at things like Jessica Lynch and Ben Tillman: we have an official bullshit story, then things finally filter up to where the fed media brings out what everyone involved knew from the start, and they had told all their friends.

          You are anxious to have everything lead to a secret society in charge of our leadership. This speaks more of an emotional need that what actually is in place.

          Like

          Reply

          1. There is no pancake effect. The 48 columns assure us of that. Nor do you explain where the energy comes from to pulverize everything and produce the pyroclastic flow. The buildings came down at near free-fall, meaning there was no resistance. What you describe is physically impossible. I hesitate to being new problems to your table as well but building seven was not hit by anything, had some fires, and yet 82 columns gave out simultaneously. How much are you willing to swallow?

            Remember that those who kill 3,000 so easily don’t hesitate to kill anyone who speaks up. Were it me, I would shut up, collect my pension, and play with my grandkids.

            You see, this event, in the broad sweep of history, is not terribly unusual. And the reaction is not either – it is why HC Andersen wrote the Emperor’s New Clothes. People will go out of their way to accept what they are told over they see. It’s a defect. People get their opinions from 1) their groups, and 2) authority figures. Go back to your first response way above and tell me that this is it not exactly what you did

            Like

            Reply

          2. You’re working pretty hard here to sell your side. If you discredit the official line enough, then what? We have to accept your story that Dick Cheney, in his spare time, implanted nanothermites in the walls of WTC 1,2, and 7, with his special, never seen before, coordinated igniters?

            You talk like the buildings should have stayed standing no matter what the damage.

            There was plenty of potential energy in the upper floors to overwhelm the floor supports on the lower floors and initiate the cascade that brought the buildings down. It is a matter of mass and velocity. Why does the number of columns matter if the momentum overwhelms the structure?

            Remember that those who kill 3,000 so easily don’t hesitate to kill anyone who speaks up.

            Who have they killed among those who spoke up? I want some names.

            This seems like a bizarre front for attacking Iraq and gaining access to their oil. Kind of like wolves chasing a few men for several days. If the Illuminati is so powerful, I’d think they could get what they want without the rather Rube Goldbergish device of destroying buildings.

            Like

            Reply

            1. I am curious about you and how much you can absorb, how deeply bought in you are. You have military background it appears, and military people (due to boot camp, once rightly called “indoctrination) in my experience are either totally bought in or out. You seem bought in.

              The collapse of the buildings is an unnatural event, and airliners being absorbed into the structure without loss of momentum is impossible. Steel columns standing on end do not pancake, 82 of them do not give way at once. The power manifested that day in bringing down the buildings was probably nuclear, otherwise a desk or computer screen might have survived.

              There are volumes more evidence available to disentangle this monstrous crime, but people can only handle so much without rebelling, which is what creates anger at “truthers.” What is presented here is not a scientific riddle, as the science is basic Newtonian physics that even I can easily understand.. This is not about that – it is about faith. You are deeply faithful to your country. It is religious in nature, so that buying out is probably impossible. We are on opposite sides of a chasm, it appears.

              In the Soviet Union, once it was apparent that a significant portion of the public no longer bought into the lies, the concept of “glasnost” (openness) was adopted by one of the most visionary leaders of our times – Gorbachev. Glasnost was merely an unveiling of secrets, truth-telling time. They owned up to the lies, and within short order the empire collapsed.

              That is the power of truth. It will bring down our current leadership, but their hold, as evidenced by your attitude, is strong. But I hope that uncovering the events of that day is a foot in the door, a means of leveraging glasnost to reintroduce the good things that the US of A once stood for.

              Anyway, done here.

              Like

              Reply

              1. The empire came back in russia though. They had their own much more sloppily staged 9/11 before we had ours. Then they had a nice little foreign war to unite the populace and bring back the KGB/FSB into power through the then little known spy bureacrat Vladimir Putin. Unlike 9/11, you actually can name names of people the russians killed who spoke out about the 1999 apartment bombing conspiracy, like Alexander Litvinenko.

                Like

                Reply

Leave a reply to rightsaidfred Cancel reply