the dark brown river

Friday, March 25, 2005

9/11 : the day that nearly ended in disaster.

i don't know if you are the same, but the moment i smell 'conspiraacy theory' i switch off. so let us set aside the far fetched theories about 9/11, that it was a conspiracy carried out from the pentagon, or from the caves on the afghan frontier. forget all that.

for the purposes of clarity - divide your headspace into four. number these four quarters - 0 false / 1. true / 2. true but we don't know that. / and 3. false but we don't know that. now the sections zero and one are out in the daylight, but sections two and three are concealed in the darkness so they look like one section. we know nothing of what is in there -- or do we ?

if all of that is not clear, let us take an example from 9/11 itself.

george bush is in a school in florida. one conspiracy theory says that he was in the know about the attacks on the world trade centre - another conspiracy theory says that he was not. what is the evidence from the school ? he was, after all, on camera. if george bush was surprised by the second attack ( one, after all, may prove to be an accident ) he would have jumped up and excused himself from the reading class. if he was in the know before 11 september, he would have rehearsed a reaction for this, the most important moment, knowing that he was bound to be photographed or video'd on such an occasion. so which did he do ? he did neither. he hung around like a man meeting someone at an airport when the arrivals board says ' flight delayed.'

so where were the arab hi-jackers ? if they were aboard flight 77 on their way to the pentagon, they were late. they were late because you cannot hang around for an hour in united states air space in a hi-jacked plane without meeting some suspicion, and almost certainly some active resistance to what you are trying to do. anyone would know that. so we do not have to chose between the theories. boxes 2 and 3 give off the same strong smell. we do not need to see inside. the plane was late.

the united states air force are not obliged to discuss counter terrorist operations with you, with me, or with anybody outside the loop. it would be foolish to expect that. so we can only look on and admire the heroes travelling towards the most historic day for the u s a f in american air space - at less than half speed. so they did not want to be early. after all, the plane they were meeting was late.

on flight 77's path across america it made a strange semi circular deviation and then resumed course. again we do not need to decide who was piloting the plane, or even whether it was a human or automatic pilot. boxes 2 and 3 say the same thing. if the plane had made a full turn at that point, it would have got back to washington earlier. so that may well be the point at which a delay became inevitable. someone, person or programme, failed to turn the plane 180 degrees, and instead turned 90 degrees to the right followed by 90 degrees to the left. some kind of human or mechanical dyslexic error.

that's all i have to tell. i hate hanging around at airports and i am sure you do too.

of course the guys solved it as the smart guys always do. when they got to the pentagon they did not attempt a 90 degree turn to get to the terminal they were booked into. they went around the other way and completed 270 degrees instead. phew.

9/11. the day that so nearly ended in disaster.

Thursday, March 17, 2005

the great bear raid on america


history unfolds from day to day, and people are led into wars and invasions and ethnic cleansings bit by bit. no german of the inter war period would have voted for the second world war horrors of carpet bombing, concentration camps, mass starvation, or the devastation of nations, if presented in advance with the whole picture of what was to come. such things are only possible because they unfold bit by bit, and each new step, from the sudentenland to hiroshima and nagasaki, follows on in a logical seeming progression from the previous step.

as the second world war began, in whose plan of campaign did these terrible things lie? they were probably unforeseen and unforseeable, but if they existed anywhere it must have been in the ruthless ambition and aggression of those who launched the war. much of the drive to power originates at subconscious level. if new horrors lie in wait for us in our turn, this is where they would now be - at a subconscious level in the minds of the presently ruthless and powerful.

i have been ruminating upon the conspiracy theories of those who say that the neo conservative cabal in power in america planned or permitted the events of 9/11. i have come to an unexpected conclusion. either the events came out of the blue to the neo conservatives, in which case it is a waste of time to rake over the ashes of ground zero yet again, or they were planned or permitted to happen, and we are in the grip of one of the most ruthless administrations of all time - so much so that to uncover this truth and prove it beyond doubt, would be even more disruptive to social and political life in america than to remain in denial.

our paranoia - and paranoia can be useful too - would be better employed trying to read the purpose of the current actions of the administration, not in analysing its past actions, and definitely not in giving any attention to its advertised objectives, which are largely in the nature of a smokescreen behind which to make covert moves in other directions.

all of the current actions of this administration are consistent with the conscious or unconscious perpetration of a great bear raid upon america. the relentless running of the economy into debt, the relentless insistence that over consumption - accumulating personal and national indebtedness - is a good and patriotic thing, amounts to a deliberate programme. borrowing money to get out of debt is always an illusory project. are those who regulate the united states' economy helpless in the face of their current problems, like men speeding on ice, going ever faster out of a fear of what would happen if they touched the brakes? - it is either that or that they are deliberately crashing the economy. if it is the latter, it can only be because there are things that they value even more than the national economy or the national currency, the dollar, which also happens to be the world's present reserve currency.

so here is a theory for connoiseurs of conspiracy theory. a great gulf has opened up between those who have their all invested in america, and those, such as the captains of multinational companies and international finance, who have risen above mere national boundaries. no one expects a bear raid upon america, because in most peoples' minds america, and the dollar, are the solid mainland of the global economy. they are the homeland, the place you return to after a speculative raid upon some distant island of investment opportunity, elsewhere.

but a class of players have now emerged on the global stage, to whom 'nationalism' is an irrelevance. for them it is a word that evokes a response no better than the word 'protectionism.' national boundaries and local loyalties are constraints upon the free ranging growth that they crave for their corporations. they need an act of demolition, to clear the playing field for the construction of a new world order run by companies, rather than national electorates. it is not that they do not want a reserve currency - but they want one which is much more free of any merely national electoral process. and they want one which is a 'fiat' currency, not tied to gold or some other natural, real world, balancing mechanism.

before george soros and others brought down the pound sterling, no one had imagined a bear raid against the currency of a major country. now we are in the same situation with regard to the global reserve currency, the dollar. if the dollar were brought all the way to collapse - what would succeed it? perhaps some basket of major currencies regulated by some new form of a committee of international bankers? some annual meeting of a G7, a G8, or a G22, with an american appointed chairperson? paul wolfowitz perhaps?

a bear raid against the dollar would also be a bear raid against american shares, bonds, and property. those with the insider information would be out already waiting on the sidelines, and would then come back in to buy all before them at 30 cents to the dollar, and lay the foundations of the new multinational elite of the new world order.

the attempt to base an ever growing global economy upon finite, or diminishing supplies of oil and gas, is doomed anyway to end in a financial crisis that would occur in anticipation of an imminent energy crisis. the neo conservative scenario proposes a crisis now, and a controlled crash, while geopolitical and global economic matters are still to a large extent within their control.

is there no easier way out? the crash i s the easy way out.

and how do i know all this? my paranoia tells me so. i am making a gift of today's blog to conspiracy theorists everywhere. i believe that the more extreme conspiracy theorists actually desire there to be conspiracies. this is their personal psychological reaction to fear of events of a violent, random and chaotic nature. if things appear frighteningly out of control - the conspiracy theorist feels compelled to fantasise that the unsettling events are secretly controlled, even if it has to be by a group of ruthless, malicious, powerful and self interested people.

this is how i have come to identify and name 'the great bear raid upon america.' the alternative, that we are in the grip of unplanned and uncontrolled events, facing a violent and chaotic future under leaders who are clueless, short sighted, spineless and adrift, - is more than my psyche can bear.

Monday, March 14, 2005

bush versus america


if you want to understand george bush, the first thing to do is to stop listening to what he is saying. the politician, like a conjuror, makes a lot of dramatic gestures. if you are curious as to how the tricks are done, always watch the other hand.

once you stop listening to what they are saying, the way is clear to see what they are doing. you then see that the policies pursued are largely self-reinforcing. they are positive feedback loops - and the feed in the feedback is rewards for campaign contributions. if you ask a shopkeeper why he stocks certain items, the answer is -' because that is what they are buying.' that is a fair guide to present policies. why does the administration market a certain policy? same story - because that is what the corporate customers are buying.

america inc. is being run by businessmen, big businessmen, and on business lines. right at the moment it looks increasingly like one of those companies that makes a whacking loss, but still manages to pay off the c e o and executives with share options, which they cash in, just in time, with benefit of inside information . . .

so if you now want to know where policies are leading, the answer may be to eventual bankruptcy, and in the meantime, more of the same.

the multinational companies which can afford to pay campaign contributions are interested in having a global field to play in. it is therefore logical to expect the administration to be in favour of globalisation. thus if you wish to know whether china is to be the future business partner of the united states, or to be encircled and contained as a potential rival superpower, the answer is - both, because nationalism, militarism, and america-is-number-one-ism are alive and well. but when it comes to the crunch - and crunches come - the multinationals will do all they can to avoid a descent into nationalism, war, and a retreat from trading relationships. they will not order any war that disrupts trade on a global scale.

the wars that they can tolerate, are those against minor enemies, like iraq. these also hold out the promise of contracts for reconstruction and newly cleared fields for expansion. iraq makes more sense as a takeover, business style, than as an invasion or a liberation. it may not be working, but that is the best explanation of how it was meant to work. a generals' war followed by a businessmens' occupation.

promoting the opening up of china to economic development has a similar rationale. the multinational companies see enormous markets, enormous opportunities for outsourcing basic production, and possibly, in a country not yet democratic, enormous potential for bribes and sweeteners to leaders not subject to media probing or democratic accountability.

the winners are the multinational corporations and their shareholders. the losers are the employees and ex employees of america's own manufacturing industries. how long before these workers, with real wages static for twenty years, start getting behind nationalist and protectionist politicians?

we live in a strange world, where trade has become globalised, but politics remains within national borders. at the top, the multinationals and the footloose capital that makes its home in offshore havens, are growing out of being dependent upon any one country. strange times, when the chinese and the japanese intervene massively to support the dollar and thus the health of the global economy, while the buffets and the gates have their money in other currencies, and wealthy americans buy dozens of shanghai flats and hope that the dollar takes a dive. the great bear raid on america?

in the end the clash between globalisation and nationalism will become apparent. more than communism v. capitalism, or islam v. the christian west, this is the division of our times. globalisation also implies global economic growth, and growth without new sources of oil will pose its own problems.

if you want to understand george bush, you need to appreciate that he is not in the same class as a napoleon or a hitler. when america was last at war in the far east - bush did not go. this was in the tradition of his family, who made money during, if not out of, the second world war. bush may act the patriot, but that is part of the conjuring show. to understand george bush, follow the trail of the campaign contributions. the biggest contributions come from the biggest corporations. the biggest corporations are multinational. the multinationals are committed supporters of globalisation. if and when the crunch comes between nationalists and globalisers, bush and his cabal will be found on the side of the globalisers, and however heavily dressed up in fatigues and the flag - against america.

and if you think that is bad news, there is worse. america is deliberately being driven into a debt crisis after which drastic measures will be needed. this may be intended as the cue and the opportunity for a further consolidation of the power of the cabal. some new military diversion might conveniently take place at the same time. the great strength of the neo conservatives is the refusal of the liberal side to believe that all of this is really happening. so no champion comes forward to defend the people against the purchase of politicians by corporations, the root of the problem.

that is the bad news - the worse news is that when the showdown does come between bush and america - bush may well win.