I think of it all like this: either it's a hoax, or it's not.
If it isn't, things are much simpler. They hit US, US hits back, fairly
ordinary. Roosevelt and Lincoln both suspended civil liberties during war,
so there is no special evil in Bush.
If it is a hoax, one has to ask, is it anyone's duty to prove it's a hoax,
or make a fuss? It might be a good hoax, or a hoax with valid reasons. A
necessary piece of political drama. It is accepted now that the bombing of
the Maine in 1898 or so was staged. Valid, none of anyone's business, who
knows. One can't ask Mom and Dad. The Reichstag fire was a hoax.
Good hoaxes leave no alternative but acceptance. They are binding. If 911
is a hoax, Democrat politicians have to decide whether they can survive any
hollering about a hoax that everyone believes in. That German lady minister
called it a hoax, and got waxed. Don't forget who's buttering all bread if
the hoax goes through–you might get coals in your xmas stocking or razors
in your candy tonight.
As for Paul Wellstone, that's another one. If he had won the election,
which he was poised to do, Minnesota liberalism would have had a long-term
spot in the Senate. He'd have hurdled objections about his original promise
to serve only two terms. He could've become a lifer like Robert Byrd. With
more seniority, he could have gotten on some serious committees, with access
to serious intelligence. He could/would have become one serious friggin
problem. Are there secret army planes that can zap a little commuter plane
with scrambler-waves, high tech stuff, and make it crash? I bet yes.
The Wellstone crash of course could have been an act of God, not humans. If
so, it means something else.
As with all hoaxes, the question is not one of proof, but immediate effect.
The hoax only has to hold sway as real for a short bit, after which it
becomes a bygone. A "fact accomplished."
Let's assume, for the sake of argument, the worst-case situation–that 911
is a hoax, the agenda it furthers is inimical to humanity, and that people
of conscience must resist the hoax. (If it's a beneficent hoax, or
unresistable, no discussion or consideration is needed.) In this scenario,
the only matter of importance is how to resist the hoax. (Karei says, "it's
hopeless to resist–evolve and transcend, don't be vindictive or posture
one's self as a good samaritan superhero, because no one is.)
If 911 is a hoax, it's one of the best on record–we can't underestimate its
perfection. The huge majority is simply terrified, unable to question it
because of emotional/intellectual paralysis, averse even to the IDEA that it
is a hoax (Hitler "Big Lie" basics). Anyone acting on the premise that it
is a hoax will be very minority. The hoax will be protected and reinforced,
after initial inroduction, by massive consolidating prophylactics. These
will have been planned in great detail in advance, and are obviously already
underway in the most totalistic sense. Secondary "escalations" of the hoax
are in motion. Troops and weapons are mobilized, etc.
These can all be lumped together as "rejecting the hoax will bring disaster
to you, whether you are an individual or a group." This threat has very
real teeth. No one should be naive about the bloody consequences of
rejecting the hoax.
Remember, all this assumes 1. That 911 is a hoax, and 2. That it is a bad
hoax which must be rejected. Neither assumption can be proven or known in
any certainty. Any group or individual that decides against 1 or 2 will let
the hoax be accepted as a non-hoax.
If we accept 1, 2 becomes the cruncher. If it can't be rejected, or is a
good hoax, everyone should accept it. It becomes "an act of God," a fact of
existence. Unalterable, absolute, reality itself.
Myself, I think the only way to reject the hoax successfully is via a
massive increase in public use of Genius 2000. This is neither very likely,
nor widely accepted as desirable. The risks involved in even attempting
such an agenda are enormous. Just as with the hoax itself, there would be
unpredictable "collateral damage," primarily to cultural practices and
institutions. Giving the required cognitive and cultural power to Genius
2000 would, for example, damage many cultural careers and organizations
which undoubtedly have "some good in them." (Thing.net for example would
have to eat a little crow, which might be a horrid and unacceptable side
effect, depending on who you talk to.)
Anyway, the debate, if we assume 1. 911 is a hoax, 2. it is a bad hoax that
must and can be rejected, and 3. Genius 2000 is the best and hence only
option for resistance, becomes whether Genius 2000 can work well enough to
warrant its use in rejecting the hoax.
Since the situation is not academic but real-time, one must consider the
advantages and risks both tactically and strategically inherent in Genius
2000. Time is of course an exponentially important factor in any such
considerations.
So if anyone wants to discuss it, I'm willing. Frankly, I'm in doubt
whether the discussion has any value, but I feel obligated to broach it. In
my opinion, the time constraint is extraordinarily tight, because of the
upcoming US elections. It is indispensable, in my opinion, that Bush not
gain control of the Senate if Genius 2000 is to work for this problem. The
Bush administration has shifted its focus from television to radio–the
entire staff gave mass radio-only interviews from the White House lawn a
couple days back–so the US electorate is where Genius 2000 would have to
function, and this is a difficult proposal. I believe that if the Senate is
lost to Bush, the hoax cannot be resisted in any useful manner.
There is also the very very important possibility, which my own
ego-absorption may have blinded me to, that accepting the hoax is the only
means by which Genius 2000 or things like it can do any good for the planet.
(This is Karei's view, as I interpret it.)
By any assessment, 911 is a terrible injury which will require commensurably
great healing. One can certainly argue that the real value or purpose of
Genius 2000 and things like it is to deal with the aftermath in a positive
way. In this case, the adrenaline or excitement of intervening now would be
a huge mistake.
In all honesty, I am uncertain what is the right thing to do. I am not
afraid or dead-set against acting under conditions of uncertainty; John
Keats called that "negative capability" and the essence of the poetic
principle.
If the hoax is accepted, then everything thereafter will function only under
a condition of abrogation. Much like Plato's exclusion of the poet from the
polis. This might be a good thing.
Happy Halloween,
Max Herman
genius2000.net
www.geocities.com/genius-2000/maximus.JPG
++
>From: hg <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [thingist] Gore Vidal Article in Observer (full text)
>Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 15:45:18 +0100
>
>that's what I call a serious conspiracy theory (and thanks to Vidal, it's
>not Black Helicopter crap, but well written, too).
>
>Any ideas/comments/knowledge on the "Why the Air Force has been
>grounded"-question? As regular Jane's reader, maybe Blackhawk might be able
>to defuse the thing ;-)
>
>/hubert
>
>At 17:42 2002-10-30 -0600, you wrote:
> >Gore Vidal Observer Article
> >
> >
> >
> >The Observer, Sunday 27th October 2002, Review Section, Pages 1-4
> >
> >The Enemy Within
> >
> >
> >On 24 August, 1814, things looked very dark for freedom's land. That was
>the day the British captured Washington DC and set fire to the Capitol and
>the White House. President Madison took refuge in the nearby Virginia woods
>where he waited patiently for the notoriously short attention span of the
>Brits to kick in, which it did. They moved on and what might have been a
>Day of Utter Darkness turned out to be something of a bonanza for the DC
>building trades and up-market realtors.
> >One year after 9/11, we still don't know by whom we were struck that
>infamous Tuesday, or for what true purpose. But it is fairly plain to many
>civil-libertarians that 9/11 put paid not only to much of our fragile Bill
>of Rights but also to our once-envied system of government which had taken
>a mortal blow the previous year when the Supreme Court did a little dance
>in 5/4 time and replaced a popularly elected president with the oil and gas
>Cheney/Bush junta.
> >Meanwhile, our more and more unaccountable government is pursuing all
>sorts of games around the world that we the spear carriers (formerly the
>people) will never learn of. Even so, we have been getting some answers to
>the question: why weren't we warned in advance of 9/11? Apparently, we
>were, repeatedly; for the better part of a year, we were told there would
>be unfriendly visitors to our skies some time in September 2001, but the
>government neither informed nor protected us despite Mayday warnings from
>Presidents Putin and Mubarak, from Mossad and even from elements of our own
>FBI. A joint panel of congressional intelligence committees reported (19
>September 2002, New York Times) that as early as 1996, Pakistani terrorist
>Abdul Hakim Murad confessed to federal agents that he was 'learning to fly
>in order to crash a plane into CIA HQ'.
> >Only CIA director George Tenet seemed to take the various threats
>seriously. In December 1998, he wrote to his deputies that 'we are at war'
>with Osama bin Laden. So impressed was the FBI by his warnings that by 20
>September 2001, 'the FBI still had only one analyst assigned full time to
>al-Qaeda'.
> >…
>
>
>
> >——————————————————————–
> >t h i n g i s t
> >message by "Max Herman" <[email protected]>
> >archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> >info: send email to [email protected]
> >and write "info thingist" in the message body
> >——————————————————————–
>
>——————————————————————–
>t h i n g i s t
>message by hg <[email protected]>
>archive at http://bbs.thing.net
>info: send email to [email protected]
>and write "info thingist" in the message body
>——————————————————————–
_________________________________________________________________
Surf the Web without missing calls!
Will Genius 2000 Save the World?
-
Type: discussion
