Maybe it's just me, but this subversion of the 911 Truth Movement to support "regime rotation" seems to be reaching
a nauseating pitch, what with the Republic National Conference coming up this weekend, and it will only continue through November,
wittingly or unwittingly, unless we stop it. I'm speaking of activists being urged to hurry up and get the word out about
Bush & 9/11 before November, so that Bush will lose some votes he otherwise would have gotten as if that matters.
But that's not the goal of the Truth Movement, is it? The goal of the truth movement must be to destroy the "war
on terror" pretext the attacks engendered. (See, Why We're Here at http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id20.html ). And
because Kerry has promised to prosecute the bogus "war on terror" even more vigorously than Bush, who will be in
the White House is irrelevant.
To those who believe a Kerry regime would be the lesser evil, I refer you to Michel Chossudovsky "regime rotation"
article at: http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO310B.html, and suggest also that you google Stephen Gowans for his many
humorous and insightful articles demonstrating that the two-party system in this country is another myth that must be destroyed.
And those in the movement who believe the Bush Administration are the perpetrators of 9/11 should remind themselves that
9/11 was in the planning stages long before Bush, that manufactured terror against Americans is nothing unique to Republican
Administrations (think WTC in '93, and think Oklahoma). The Bush Administration isn't the true culprit of 9/11, they were
just following orders (as Clinton did, as Kerry will do) while accepting the carrots (oil, war profiteering, etc.) offered
to them. Carrots and sticks can always be tailored for any particular administration. The Bush Administration were just the
foot soldiers of the 9/11 moment, with new foot soldiers waiting in the wings.
How have we become Kerry supporters? How have some of us actually been convinced that the 911 truth is more likely to
be exposed under Kerry when there is absolutely zero to point to which would support such a notion? You are very well aware
of the millions of things Kerry could have said about Bush and 9/11 that would guarantee him the election, but he hasn't.
Why should we use our movement and our energy to add just another nail in the coffin of George Bush when the coffin of Kerry
will be just as dark? What we need to stay focused on doing is putting nails in the coffin of the "war on terror"
pretext even while the presidential elections are staring us in the eye. In fact, we should be exposing both parties and the
"bipartisan" Kean Commission for their crimes.
Now, half of the American population has already caught on to the election farce that is repeated every four years and
thus don't bother to vote. These are the people I have found who are not shocked by 9/11 inside-job allegations. They wouldn't
put it past the government or global elite, and already have their own suspicions about the "war on terror".
But what about these "anybody but Bush" protestors who will be protesting the RNC this weekend in the hundreds
of thousands? They are definitely people we also need to reach and the RNC protests will make that easier than usual because
so many of them will be in one place at one time. These people are not only unhappy with the status quo, they also believe
that people can make a difference and are willing to go out of their way to say so. So, please do target your efforts at the
"anybody but Bush" crowd, but be careful about it.
And that means you should first examine whether the 9/11 materials and information you are distributing inadvertently
sends out a regime rotation message & if they do, modify it and distribute or talk about something else instead. When
it comes to demolishing the 9/11 official story, there are millions of things that can be focused upon. If your materials
happen to focus on Bush, however, your "anybody but Bush" recipients and listeners will naturally assume that getting
him out of office solves the problem when, of course, it does not. And since that is the plan of the anti-Bush protestors
anyway, to get Bush out of office, they will assume nothing else need be done in addition to what they're already doing, that
they're on the right track already and for additional reasons that they weren't even aware of previously. This will NOT help
grow the 911 Truth Movement. Instead, focus your information and materials on the real enemy that will keep us at war throughout
our lifetimes, the "war on terror" pretext, and do not help feed the vicious lie that elections matter in this country.
Below, in addition to recent posts of mine, I've copied with permission some posts of Nico Haupt and Brian Salter to the
Yahoo newsgroup 911truthaction which touch upon this topic in addressing the planning and underpinnings of the 9/11 attacks
which I thought should get wider dissemination.
Subject: Bush & the neocons & 9/11
Bush and the so-called neocons weren't in office a year yet before 9/11. The attacks had to have been planned before that.
Manufactured terror attacks against Americans aren't restricted to Republican administrations or neocons. Think WTC '93 and
Don't fall for the neo-cons legend either. See:
"Neo-conservatives not the problem"
"This is a pleasing fiction moderate Republicans, and equally Democrats and progressives, use to insulate themselves
from reality, for it says the invasion of Iraq was an aberration, not a manifestation of a deep-seated tendency in US foreign
policy that spans liberal Democrat to neo-conservative Republican administrations. It's a comforting idea, from which springs
forth an illusion: if you want US war-making to stop, all you have to do is vote the neo-conservatives out. Forget about radical
change. There's nothing wrong with the system. It's just that the American people occasionally vote for the wrong people."
"The Neocons made me do it!"
"The neocon myth is nothing more than a rehash of the old Democrats-aren't-as-bad-as-Republicans myth, with anti-semitism
tacked on. In the '60s, most people Left of Center voted for Kennedy because, we were warned, Nixon would go to war with the
communists. So Kennedy escalated in Vietnam and helped to almost end Western civilization during the Cuban missile crisis.
Then we were told to vote for the Democrat, Lyndon B Johnson, because Republican Goldwater would *really* escalate in Vietnam,
so we did, whereupon Johnson *really* escalated beyond Goldwater's fondest dreams. Then we got Nixon who continued Johnson's
escalation, and so people said: "See? The Republicans *are* worse!" The notion that Bush's militarism represents
a great departure from Clintonian moderation requires only one word of refutation: Yugoslavia. . . "
Subject: Re: Another Good Flyer Posted
I read this flyer through, and I wouldn't lay 9/11 at the doorstop of the Bush admin which this does. (Like mentioned
in earlier post tonight, 9/11 was in the plannings long before they took office. Manufactured terror attacks in the u.s. aren't
confined to republican administrations, think WTC '93 & Oklahoma). Doing so only feeds into regime rotation, something
I definitely don't want to feed to RNC protestors who already believe in "anybody but bush" with their whole hearts.
From Nico Haupt:
...with all due respect, my patience, to listen to any "theories" at this late date, that the planning of 9/11,
started only right after 2000, is wearing thin.
My research points to a starting year of 1998. I have a huge pattern about that, to be described in:
The lost War drill ? (Chapter 6-8)
-The 1998 pattern
Also, ideologically, the first footsteps of 9/11 were earlier in 1997 with PNAC and in 1993 with IASPS (their predecessor)
plus WTC Bombing 1.
I also can trace back a whole pattern of well promoted "anti-islamism", started by Daniel Pipes and John Miller
(ABC) plus Vince Cannistraro, since 1993 ("Green Peril"). Chaim Kupferberg once wrote a great investigation about
Green Peril-articles and traced them back to only 10-12 journalists, 3-5 tied to CIA or contractors.
I agree, that both "saudi- and paki-terror" are just their helpful distractions, including a series of helpful
patsies and visa idiots (Jeddah-CIA connection) and have zero to do with the day itself, because they were later replaced
with some stand-ins for the plane swappings, covered by these other drills.
Also, please forget the myth, that the CIA and FBI were actively involved on that day. The CIA is the puppet club No.1
from NSA and NRO, with everything pointing to NRO-contractors (like Titan Corp., BTG Inc. and BoozAllen) AS THE real perpetrators
of that day, with some moles at NEADS and FAA.
The whole negligence blame game between CIA and FBI was carefully scripted from the beginning, to keep us busy for 2.5
years. We shouldn't get fooled by this any longer.
The bigger picture is to privatize intelligence and military anyway.
Also, the idea of this new intelligence czar is part of the show. (My guess, it will be Stephen Cambone, who basically
runs the NSA, NRO and NIMA/NGA already anyway)
Also, I sometimes have the feeling that the idea of bringing Porter Goss in as the new CIA boss, smacks of the similar
setup of Kissinger for the 9/11 panel. Once the outrage about Goss is loud enough, they might replace their choice with something
worse, maybe James Baker, William Owens, other hardcore Neocons or still-Guiliani -if he will not become a running mate for
If someone has bad feelings from seeing Clinton as being part of the bigger picture, I can assure you that he also just
worked as a puppet, but was involved in the early orchestrations of the pharma/scare-program reg. Anthrax (attack)/West Nile.
No doubt about that either.
However, major parts of the day itself have been tested after 2000 (Miniature pentagon building, Amalgam Virgo 01 and
Subject: Re: Another Good Flyer Posted
From: Brian Salter
while its clear to me that the bush admin has had a special role in planning & carrying out the 9/11 job, they are
not the only ones to blame for the 'war on terror' frame-up in general. we're in a lot of trouble if this doesn't become widely
understood, because IMO the 'war on terror' is itself only one of a number of manufactured world 'crises' that the elites
have up their sleeves to keep manipulating humanity.
Subject: Re: Another Good Flyer Posted
I think another one of these manufactured world crises will be the plague/infection disease threat, like SARS (see http://angie.911review.org/id13.html
) or the more recent 'bird flu conversion to human flu' trial balloon.
Subject: Re: Another Good Flyer Posted
From: Brian Salter
It goes back further, i think the ideological footsteps for a general "terrorism" world crisis started in the
late 70s and early 80s, with the brzezinski / bernard lewis idea of igniting an 'arc of crisis' extending from the middle
east to central asia, and with the efforts of reagan's sec. of state george schultz laying the groundwork of 'terrorism' as
the next big global threat. the 'rogue states' threat was also being cooked up at that time... a US invasion of iraq was already
being war-gamed in the mid-70s, according to former Fairchild industries exec carol rosin. and then of course there's the
notorious 'kissinger plan', which emerged at the same time as the establishment of the post-bretton woods 'petrodollar' system
and the club of rome's first 'peak oil' propaganda coinciding with the manufactured 1973-4 'oil shock'. i think the 9/11 plot
just represents an implementation, not an idea in itself.
and it wasn't PNAC or any of the recent 'neocon' suspects who first came up with the idea of using the US as an 'enforcer'
of world order. this idea has been lurking around for more than half a century as the 'back up plan' in case the gradualist
/ 'multilateral' approach to
new-world-order geopolitics doesn't do the job. pre-neocon james burnam, and bertrand russell [!!], both endorsed this
idea in the form of the so-called "baruch plan" for insta-world govt via the threat of "preventive" atomic
war against the soviet union. this was just after WW2:
neocons are real but they're just one tentacle of the octopus.
From Brian Salter:
you might want to add to your website this famous quote from historian carroll quigley, who identified the origins of
the 'regime rotation' tactic in the early 20th century rise of the rockefeller-morgan led "eastern establishment":
> The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the
process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms,
although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war
cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). . . The argument that the two parties should represent opposed
ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire
and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the
rascals out"; at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. Either party in office becomes
in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary,
by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic
policies. [Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 1247-1248.]
and perhaps also make mention of the way that the clinton
administration failed to tie up the loose ends of all the reagan/bush era scandals, like BCCI, iran-contra, october surprise,
etc. instead, the clinton justice department basically sat on all this while the culprits carefully re-organized their power
behind the scenes. this was only a few years ago, there's no excuse to be fooled again!
going back a few more years, there is the 1976 version of regime rotation. following is an excerpt from william engdah's
book "a century of war" which shows many disturbing parallels to the current political scene:
At a private, closed-door gathering convened in Tokyo in April 1975, a group of hand-picked policy spokesmen organized
by Chase Manhattan Bank chairman David Rockefeller, and Bilderberg founder George W. Ball, met
to discuss a special project. Lord Roll of lpsden, chairman of S.G. Warburg bank, and a director of the Bank of England
was present. David Ormsby Gore, Lord Harlech, London's Ambassador to Washington during the fateful Kennedy years of the early
1960's, also attended. Barclays Bank chairman, Sir Anthony Tuke, was also present in the secretive Tokyo
discussions that April, together with the Earl of Cromer, George Baring, a man closely tied to Morgan Guaranty Trust in
New York and to Royal Dutch Shell, who had been Ambassador to Washington during the time of Kissinger's oil shock, when the
U.S. Secretary of State acknowledged his unusually close policy coordination with the British Foreign Ministry. Also present
in the fateful Tokyo talks was John Loudon, chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, who also sat on the Advisory Committee of David
Rockefeller's Chase Manhattan Bank.
What concerned the hundred or so influential policy-makers at the April meeting of Rockefeller's newly-formed Trilateral
Commission, was the dangerous risk to the Anglo-American establishment of continuing the offensive U.S. foreign policy stance
against the rest of the world
associated with Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and the Republican administration. Kissinger's hard-line "divide
and rule" tactics had been adopted to isolate one country after another, whether European, developing sector or OPEC,
portraying OPEC as the villain to developing countries whose economic growth had been destroyed by Kissinger's 1973 oil shock
By 1975, his thinly-veiled "thug" approach to international di-plomacy risked creating an enormous international
backlash. A new "image" was needed to sell the world on the need for conti-nued American hegemony. Therefore, at
the Trilateral Commis-sion Tokyo gathering of that April,
little more than a year-and-a-half from the 1976 American presidential elections, David Rockefeller introduced a man to
his influential international friends as the next president of the United States. Few Americans, not to mention foreigners,
had ever heard of the small-town
Georgia peanut farmer who preferred to be called, "Jimmy" Carter. Following his initiation at the 1975 Tokyo
meeting, Carter re-ceived an extraordinary public relations media buildup from establishment media such as the liberal New
York Times. That newspaper hailed Carter as a dynamic exponent of America's "New South." In November 1976, despite
allegations of large-scale voting irregularities, Carter did become President.
Carter brought with him such a large number of policy advisers who were members of the Trilateral Commission, that his
presidency was dubbed the "Trilateral Presidency." Not only was Vice President Walter Mondale, like Carter, a member
of the elite secret Trilateral organization—Carter's National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, Secretary of
State Cyrus Vance, Treasury Secretary Michael Blumenthal,
Defense Secretary Harold Brown, United Nations' Ambassador Andrew Young, State Department senior officials Richard Cooper
and Warren Christopher were all part of the exclusive Trilateral club.
The public profile of Carter's presidency was "human rights" for the Third World, "negotiation, not confrontation."
He portrayed himself as an "outsider" to the Washington power establishment, but the content of
U.S. policy under Carter, with his pre-selected crew of establishment advisers, was to maintain the American Century at
all costs. Under the rhetorical facade of "re-forming the old order" of U.S. foreign policy,
the Carter Administration continued the basic Anglo-American neo-malthusian strategy initiated by Kissinger at the National
Security Council under National Security Study Memorandum 200. Third World development was to be blocked, and a "limits
to growth" post-industrial
policy was to be imposed in order to maintain the hegemony of the dollar imperium. Carter's "human rights" would
soon become a bludgeon to justify unprecedented U.S. intervention into the internal affairs of targeted Third World nations.
(F. William Engdahl, A Century of War—Anglo-Americn Oil Politics and the New World Order. Dr. Böttinger Verlags-GbmH,
1993. pp. 185-187)
here's an article i posted a while back about how a democrat /republican "good cop-bad cop" show was cleverly
used to pass the 1913 federal reserve act, one of the most significant events of the 20th century. this was an early example
of what quigley was talking about:
How Punch and Judy built the Fed
one other thing to keep in mind is that even for those who maintain faith in the two-party electoral system, there is
still every reason to avoid giving the impression of a partisan slant to any 9/11 truth movement activities anyway.
all this said, i do have some disagreements with some arguments being made that polarize the issues in a way that misses
some of the nuances. for instance, stephen gowans makes some good points but he also seems to reduce the big picture to either/or
-- "either you buy into the present two-party system, or you buy into marxist revolution". this
misses a lot of intermediate factors, such as the fact that the real control is not the presidental election itself, but
in the primary process. and the fact that some of the things which are causing political representation to fail to function
better, such as neoliberal privatization or the continued private control of national monetary systems, do not require an
all-out immediate revolutionary transformation of all social classes or the total rejection of the current form of government
in order to be changed. and i do not see 'regime rotation' as determinist or inevitable -- an anomaly in this regard is the
fact that so many "gatekeeper" types very prematurely sounded the call to rally around kerry and the demo, many
way before the dem convention. why do such a thing? this tells me that there was a danger to the establishment that the
electoral process might actually bring up a candidate who would not reliably serve their crucial near-term interests. note
how the gatekeepers suddenly started
acknowledging kerry's faults and voicing support for nader as soon as kerry's nomination was clinched. and there is the
example of what happened to dean, who for me might have been an acceptable "hold yer nose" democrat.
as for the 'neocons', one does not have to go as far as jared israel in claiming that they are just phantom patsies who
don't really exist or have any real specific influence of their own. this is not necessary for supporting an argument about
'regime rotation'. many of those who
have been watching the socalled 'neocons' closely have been noting recently that their lead figures are positioning themselves
to transition into a kerry administration, both politically and ideologically. william kristol has recently been very clearly
expressing this, and praising "liberal hawks" over the paleo-con right. so the bottom line argument is, regardless
of what the neocons do or
do not really represent, and who is *really* behind them, there is no solid reason to believe that they and their type
of ideas will simply disappear along with the bush admin. that thinking is one of the big errors of the ABB crowd.
You can contact me at AngieSept11@yahoo.com
911 Truth Movement Musings (Watching the Watchers)
http://Angieon911.com or http://www.Angieon911.com