how september 11 has changed me

i've been asked in a another thread how my politics have changed since this event and i'm answering it here so it can have its own separate thread.

once I had changed my mind and i believed that rumsfeld, cheney, bush and meyers had planned and orchestrated the whole thing for patently obvious reasons - to embark upon their war against terrorism and create a police state – i saw that the situation had gone to a whole new level. i understand by this that the rule of law no longer exists. consequently, any ideas i had previously about ‘working in the system for change’ and so on were untenable. the corporate state is out of control and will only be curbed by its demise. it cannot be changed, improved or reformed. it must be gotten rid of because it is as hugo chavez says ‘leading us to hell’. this didn’t come so hard for me to accept b/c i had once believed in marxism which advocates the same radical therapy for change.

however there is another thing about 9/11 that has profoundly effected me even more and it's this: the state of the world today is much graver than u or I know. for the elected leaders of the world’s oldest democracy (in modern times) to have committed this act to enforce these changes there must have been some very good reasons. and why now?

some ppl say it’s about peak oil; some say it’s due to the us corporate state wanting to control the world economy and be the one and only empire; there's the view that climate change is now effecting the world’s ability to provide enough food 4 everyone. these are not conspiracy theories btw any one of those 3 possible reasons could be true: we are running out of oil b/c the earth’s resources are finite; the wars in afghhanistan and iraq and the patriot act do testify to the empire’s plan for total global control of the earth’s resources and its ppl at home and abroad; and, we have caused the weather patterns to change 4 the worst b/c of the pollution we’ve created. i think myself 9/11 came about due to a combination of some or all of these things and i think that the situation is now really q dire. how long until we reach critical mass? no idea. are we headed there? no doubt about it.

in short, it’s much much later than we think. given i believe all that my political ideologies are now redundant.

 

I don't think it has anything to do with "American Empire," because from what I can see, American sovereignty is under fire. This is all about the creation of a One World Government, and the Zionist/Elite-controlled US is being used as the primary vehicle for this agenda.

It needs to be understood that the Elite do not see things in terms of countries, since most of the westernized countries are under their control. The people most believe to be in control of the US are not in control of the US at all. They are merely high-level goafers serving an agenda of people far more powerful than they are. They are merely taking orders from on high.

People like Bush and Cheney are just puppets, and they have no allegiance to this country or its people, who they couldn't care less for. This isn't about America or the American people, it's about the creation of a fascistic New World Order/Global Government.

I believe there were several reasons for 9/11. The most obvious is the launch of the "War on Terror," which should really be called the War for World Domination. It is now known that the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was planned YEARS before 9/11 by the neocons in the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). A 2000 document by PNAC, titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses" stated that their plan for the Middle East would be a slow and tedious one without a "Pearl Harbor-style attack", to get the people behind their imperialist agenda.

9/11 also had much to do with the furthering of the police state in America (and Europe). The police state is needed not to protect the American people from "terrorists", but to protect the government elite in the instance of a Martial Law scenario, which would likely follow a massive government-orchestrated terror attack (ie: a biological or nuclear attack) and collapse of the economy. In such a situation, there would likely be much civil unrest as people find out that all their money is gone (along with their freedoms).

Lastly, 9/11 got many people behind the government, supporting big government as if it is their savior, thinking it is there to "protect" them from the "evil" bin Laden whom THEY helped to bring to power in the first place. This is exactly what they want. They want a public that is scared, submissive and complacent to the tyranny they blindly believe is "freedom."

 

whatever the nomenclature, i think it is about establishing the unified rule of an elite, yes, on a global scale, that will have total and exclusive control of the earth's limited resources, with the machine of war constantly running and at the ready for the next assignment. what i'm getting at here is something else: i'm saying that i think the day is fast approaching when we will not have enough food and water to survive. i live in a country where we've had a serious drought 4 several years now: first blamed on el nino, now blamed on the after effects of el nino. there's not enough water in the dam of the biggest city to last for more than well, nobody's saying are they? i think maybe 18 months. don't know. all any1 knows is that if it doesnt rain we're fucked.

did u see that reconstruction they did on bbc about what killed off the mayan ppl so suddenly? see http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,873075,00.html for a summary of it. the archeologists thought that it only took a few weeks until everyone was dead. how long do u think u can survive without water? a lot less than u can survive without oil that's 4 sure.

i think that whoever's running the show - and yes i agree with u that the political leadership are only the front people for the real players - they have already made their plans for such a contingency: no water, no food, bad climate, no oil: i'm sure they've all been covered and plans are made. and let me tell u rat they dont include u and me.

it may well be that when all this over ppl will look back and see 9/11 as nothing but a storm in a teacup compared to what happens when our civilisation falls apart. i hope to hecate that i'm wrong, totally dead wrong. but u know what, i get this sick feeling that i'm not.

 

But there's the fallacy; the idea that the elites who control the world (no denying they exist) are somehow consciously colluding. Of course they're not; small groups of them may meet and discuss things, they obviously know one another to some extent socially, so agreements must be made. But broadly, every man is out to help himself, whether a factory worker or a member of the 'elite'.

Conspiracy loonies talk about 'The Elite" as if it was a clear-cut thing - there's a club called "The Eleet", and every "Elite" person is an explicit member, and they have meetings and so on. That's obvious bollocks.

Part of what makes these theories so compelling to a mind that can't handle co-incidence and randomness is the fact that the politicians of this world really are corrupt amoral wankers, and the world really is run for the benefit of a few thousand very rich bankers/CEOs and so forth. But this isn't a conspiracy; it's capitalism. They don't NEED to conspire; the system just works that way. Read Chomsky.

 

rat's idea of an elite and mine are different. i'll let rat explain his idea if he wants to but by elite i simply mean a group of people who are united by mutual self-interest. any group can be that. think of a trade union for instance: it's a big group of people who consciously collude: have meetings, develop strategies, raise funds, organise action etc. they used to in my time as a shop steward also organise secret meetings: executive meetings at which anyone who was not an executive member could not come inside nor know what was said or done. of course word soon spread if there was a strike coming and that's how u have leaks. the idea of an eleet club is silly i agree. it doesn't work like that. for one reason, not everyone's self-interest is always going to be mutual. so i imagine, it's like there are lots of eleet clubs around the place and some people have membership to many of them and some don't. that's no doubt one way a pecking order among the super-rich is worked out. also some eleet clubs are powerful and some are extremely powerful. the thing is, i'm not privy to what goes on inside these clubs so i don't know i'm not one of the elite. but by looking at events and politics it's q possible to intelligently speculate. that they exist i have not the slightest doubt. that they are aware of what's going on, environmentally, say, i have no doubt.

so what's puzzling to me is given our current scientific knowledge of green house gases why is the us dragging its heels about doing something about it? are they stupid? don't they realise that if we dont act soon it may be too late? may already be too late? i'm sure they do better than we do. i'm also sure they have a plan. but they're not telling us what it is. that's what defines an elite class: all the mf who know the plan.

 

i did that b/c i hoped that left/liberal ppl would understand my motives in wanting to discuss september 11 with them. that they would see i was not a right wing conspiracy nut or a born again christian or whatever else i could well have been. and i thought that in presenting a personal aspect of my biography some would identify with that and not judge me. i wanted to declare myself to an auduience that i believed would understand where i was coming from. or at least be willing to hear me out. up until now there's been little but rancour whenever a discussion of the issues arise and it has not been possible to conduct clear and reasoned debate on the evidence. coming from the left i see how much resistance and hostility there is to even hearing about any of this stuff so in calling the thread what i did i placed first the importance of identifying with my targetted audience be4 i began to canvass things they may not want to know about. for instance jim has participated and put in constructive and intelligent posts. and so far there's been no rancour, except from you.

**

my thoughts on property pre and post...?
u know balbus u can tell a lot about a person by what they do rather than what they say they do. eg, if u saw my last 50 posts u may have noticed how i often provide free astrological advice to ppl and do many charts for free as well. this is b/c i am at heart a socialist and i really believe that information should not have to be bought (ie, is not like private property) but should be freely obtainable for those who seek it which is why i try to give it out as often as i can. this view hasn't changed. now there's a clue.

 

James

Giving free astrological advice is certainly nice of you, so what is your view on property, before and after your revelation?


**

 

.

 

if only...

 

i'm q serious actually. it is indicative of how i view private property: it's utilitarian value means more to me than owning it does. i own no property, no car, no stocks or investment, very little by way of 'things', as i see things as being what i cling to. things don't make me happy, and i only cling to things if i place a high premium on them which is contrary to path i'm now on. i have little time for the concept of private property. i think in years to come our world and our economies won't be organised around property and money anymore: they're what's led us to our current predicament. but i think what u want to know is how do i view the state in all of this?

 

HAHAHAHAH!!! I fucking laughed SO hard, at that fucking episode. Hahah, the look on the horses face is what makes it priceless.

"There he is! Beating that dead horse!!"

 

James


So you as an individual have a personal view of property, but you have associated yourself with socialist even communist ideas so it seems pertinent to ask you for your views of property in the wider communal sense.

You have also said that believing that US politicians were behind the 9/11 attacks has dramatically changed your political views so how has you political views on property changed?

 

if you'd have asked me this a few years ago i would have said: i support public ownership for services that private enterpirise can't or won't provide. i think no essential services/resources (eg gas, oil, banks, water, electricity, public transport) should be in private hands as this creates exploitation. i am not against private enterprise when it's not monopoly capitalism (what's euphemistically called 'small business') and i think ppl should be allowed to pursue their interests without undue interference from the state. i'm not in favour of nationalising ppl's toothbrushes. i also think taxation should be progressive... what else?... hmmm. enough 4 now. let me ask u a question. what are ur views on 9/11?

there may not be any property in the years ahead balbus. there may not even be any civilisation. i think things are that dire. if the state is willing to kill thousands of its own ppl to justify war and create a fascist state then what else is it capable of doing and more importantly what motivates it to do such things at this time? if this is how it handles its agenda today then what are its plans to deal with peak oil and climatic change in the near future? these things worry me than ideology. for me it's coming down to 'how will i survive when things collapse?' rather than 'are my views of property or what have you sound?'

 

that may or may not be true rat. for the ppl who have had their countries destroyed by american bombs and armies - and there are a lot of them now in asia, south america and the middle east - i'm sure that by knowing america did that to their country not 4 herself but on behalf of some other behind the scenes group in no way lessens their perception that it's the american empire who is responsible and who profited by it. for the iraqi resistance fighting now against the american occupation their guerilla war is naturally directed at the invaders and their collaborators and not the zionist/elte group that may or may not ultimately be in charge. there would be no known way they could combat such an enemy shrouded as they are in such mystery and deception. it's us soldiers who are their immediate flesh and bones, here and now enemy. given the reality of that i think it's not unreasonable for ppl to proceed from the assumption that american imperialism is driving this thing.

 

James

"if you'd have asked me this a few years ago i would have said: i support public ownership for services that private enterpirise can't or won't provide"

And now?

"i think no essential services/resources (eg gas, oil, banks, water, electricity, public transport) should be in private hands as this creates exploitation. i am not against private enterprise when it's not monopoly capitalism (what's euphemistically called 'small business')"

So you believe in nationalising gas, oil, banks, water, electricity, public transport among other things?

How would you get rid of the large "monopoly capitalism" businesses?

How do you stop a small business becoming a larger business?

**

"there may not be any property in the years ahead balbus. there may not even be any civilisation"

So what do you think people should do to improve things?

"for me it's coming down to 'how will i survive when things collapse?' rather than 'are my views of property"

Are you saying that every man for himself is the way to go and if so do you equate that with preserving civilisation?

**

As to my views on 9/11, will this do from a week ago?

"Ok lets take 9/11

My view is that the Bush admin were negligent in their behaviour and had an agenda and worldview that didn’t help them in seeing (or dealing with) such threats.

I think they are opportunists and cynically used the deaths of the people in the twin towers to advance an agenda that had nothing to do with that action and had nothing to do with decreasing the thread of future terrorist actions from the same sources.

Others have accuse them of orchestrating the attack, some claim it was the illuminati or Jewish bankers or seven-foot lizards or aliens or whatever.

I don’t want such people as Bush et al in power and I’m sure that the conspiracy theorists don’t want the illuminati or Jewish bankers or seven-foot lizards or aliens to have power either.

The forums are littered with what I think could or should be done and I’m active in my own country’s politics working to bring about change.

What I’m asking the Conspiracy theorists is, from their viewpoint what is to be done and what could make their societies better?

**

If you are against the Bush Admin (and the present political workings of the US) because you think they are a bunch of political wankers or seven –foot lizards from the planet Zog, at some point don’t you have to ask yourself – what can be done to make things better?"

Post 67

Pushing conspiracy theory? Why?

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1647331#post1647331

 

ok that's enough now. i'm not here to be interrogated by u ad naseum for what, i'm not sure. it seems to me that u don't want to discuss things with me in a friendly way balbus. you just want to have a shit fight. sorry. not interested.

 

Sorry James didn’t realise that you were so sensitive about your political viewpoint. I mean why were you so eager to tell us that you political viewpoint was “fairly left-libertarian, some would even say hard left” but that it had changed because you now believed that Bush et al were directly responsible (as in the direct planning) the 9/11 attacks. But that you now seem so reluctant to discuss your political views in any detail and how and why they have changed?

I mean you say at the start of this thread -

“i've been asked in a another thread how my politics have changed since this event and i'm answering it here so it can have its own separate thread.”

But if we don’t understand what your view were how can we understand how they have changed?

 

i'm not. if u look back at my postings u will not see a fellow who is afraid of his political viewpoint balbus. quite to the contrary: i am an out queer in a public forum, and i do mean out, love. this, as u might know, requires a fairly thick skin and not just a little bit of chutzpah. so i'm hardly a wall flower.

where i do draw the line however love is at boorish behaviour. this is disrepectful to me and in order to keep my thick skin intact and proud it's necessary for me to protect myself if i feel i'm being violated. and i'm afraid to say that this is approaching such a time if we don't sort out a few ground rules.

one such rule is if u ask the other person a question then when they answer u to their best u read the posting carefully and take in what they have to say. after one does this one may need time to reflect. it's better imho not to reply on the first wave of emotion or energy. invariably this first wave gives way to more considered views and feelings. when one's ready one politely and succinctly acknowledges what it is u think they've said. then they can respond in the same reasonable way. it can all be conducted in a pleasant and respectful manner balbus. that way u can clarify any thing u don't q understand (one point at a time is best btw) and the other person has the chance to correct or qualify what their answer is and, if everyone's willing to make it work, ppl can communicate without rancour and misunderstandings can be avoided. if one responds with a further barrage of questions and complaints it only serves to inflame the misunderstandings and make every one hot and bothered. and we mustn't have that pet. it's no good.

now i answered ur question concerning the reasons i chose to call my thread 'to all left/liberal readers of this forum' (see above posting for 24 august 2005[note: this was posted at 1 am 24 august est, australia which is 4pm 23 august gmt]). i posted that here yeseterday and i also posted the link to it in the other 'left/liberal' thread so we could avoid our discussion taking over the other thread. since then u answered my 24 august reply twice (in ur thread no 5 above & in the left/liberal thread in which u complained i hadn't answered u) not by acknowledging what i said in reply but with further criticisms and questions of what is the second part only of my reply. seems u didn't read the first part which directly addressed your question.

well let me tell u how that makes me feel... do u realise how easy it is to fire questions but how much more demanding and time consuming it is to answer them? each question has received a considered and personal response from me. it took time for me to think about what u said, reflect on the matter, then sit down and compose. then u don't read it. so from my point of view it doesn't feel very satisfactory either. further, the one question i ask u about your views on 9/11 receives a copy and paste of a posting u made be4 in another thread. u spent no new time answering me or trying to build any kind of rapport with me or mutuality. i was hoping 4 something a bit more spontaneous and generous from u. i still am.

so u see how a simple misunderstanding like this can get everyone's back up. if we were to follow my suggested ground rules above then this kind of simple misunderstanding can be avoided.

i don't think i've been reluctant to discuss my viewpoint: for example: i have defended hugo chavez vigorously on these forums and posted supportive pro-venezuela threads that have drawn attack from the right wing members (btw, i didn't see u there. could have done with a spare set of hands actually). i have argued for progressive taxation in gilligan's thread and defended the public health system against attacks from american right wing ppl. i have opposed the iraqi war and the war on terrorism in general. whenever i am able i speak in support of progressive causes and try to support others who do as well to the best of my, admittedly, limited ability.

i don't think it's that i'm relucatant to talk about how my views have changed, u may have observed by now that i never shutup. it's just that my views are in the process of changing big time atm and it's hard for me to describe the changes or say precisely what they are b/c i'm in the middle of it. september 11 truth has been a helluva shock for me, something u may have gathered from reading this thread. i'm still in shock. all i can say is that i don't feel ideology is as important to me now as it was be4. i know that's probably a piss poor answer but it's the best i can do for the moment.

 

Dear James

Look mate I don’t care if you are in, out or shaking it all about, and if in your circle being gay requires a ‘bit of chutzpah’ fair enough but in the circles I inhabit it’s not a big a deal.

“i don't think it's that i'm relucatant to talk about how my views have changed, u may have observed by now that i never shutup. it's just that my views are in the process of changing big time atm and it's hard for me to describe the changes or say precisely what they are b/c i'm in the middle of it. september 11 truth has been a helluva shock for me, something u may have gathered from reading this thread. i'm still in shock. all i can say is that i don't feel ideology is as important to me now as it was be4. i know that's probably a piss poor answer but it's the best i can do for the moment.”

So you don’t care what the people should do about your views on 9/11 and you don’t know why or even how it has changed your political views

I tell you what mate, you come back when you’ve had “time to reflect” and when you have “more considered views” and then we can continue this discussion. As it is at the moment, and as you so freely admit you don’t really know what your views are.

Yours sincerely

Balbus

 

Dear Balbus,

how would u know. are u gay?

Yours sincerely

slutter ma- no, fuck, i mean
james