By: Siegfried Tischler

 

"We're taking the fight to the terrorists abroad, so we don't have to face them here at home!" G.W. Bush’s endlessly repeated declaration was finally vindicated with the London attacks. London, like Iraq and Afghanistan, is "there", not "here"[1]. From where he and America stand – and that is increasingly the problem of the world.

 

Numerologists are jeering at all those who are surprised by the fact that the sum of  2+0+0+5 makes the third seven in 7/7/7,  which will come to be as familiar a number as 9-11.  It marked the beginning of the end of the American Empire and 7/7/7 will soon attain a similar significance.  It will probably mark the end of the illusory concept that Great Britain could in any which way be a part (wanting to be leader) of a European  association of any kind[2].

            The British government steadfastly rejects any notion that 7/7/7 could in any way be causally related to Britain being the most ardent supporter of Ame-rican hegemony.  Instead they harp the mantra  that these terrorists (who ever they may be) “hate our values”.  What values?  Is it of any moral (or whatever) value to unbashingly lie (like Tony Blair and his minions)?  Is it of any value to have ennobled Alan Greenspan[3]  for his strategy of pauperizing everybody (not only those living outside of what was– not long ago– called the Affluent Society)?  Greenspan and Soros are behind all that is “driving” the War Of Terror being waged on the unwilling by the Coalition of the Willing by all means imaginable.

 

 

 “Just in time” terrorism:

 

9/11 reversed the straight drop in the economic indicators of the USA.  The “Peace Dividend” that was promised to the world after the “collapse” of the Evil Empire never eventuated and America – for the first time in almost a century - had to cope with the vicissitudes of a “peace economy”.  This was something that the “free” economy of America could not cope with. Hence since 9/11 – minutes after G.W. Bush had told the American people that they were “under attack”, the USA is back into “war-mode” and the economy was injected with new vigour.  That not a single numbered part of any of the involved airplanes was “paraded” in the aftermath should put all the nonsense about the involvement of “airplanes” in the events of that day to rest.  Normally the morbid fascination with crime lets people put the paraphernalia associated with famous killers and their actions into museums – in this case the whole lot was sold as scrap to feed the Chinese steel bubble (go figure!).

 

More than hundred Australians died in a mysterious bombing in Bali while many tens of thousands of Australians were out on the streets of Australia demon-strating against any military involvement in the Middle East.  The next day the Australian protesters had changed tune and were calling for retaliation.  That meanwhile nobody talks about the fact anymore that the Bali bomb was exploded by anybody but the patsies which were sentenced to die (or otherwise “pay”) does not remove the fact that only the war-mongers in the Axis of Terror (Washington – London – Canberra) have benefitted.  That a truck-load of the explosive said to have been used cannot punch a crater of the dimensions reported in Bali and that the burns seen on victims from the bombing were “reminiscent of the burns seen on victims from Hiroshima and Nagasaki” makes the “official” story totally in-credible.

 

When Spanish PM Aznar was at a political dead end in March 2004 and facing sure defeat in the upcoming elections, the Madrid bombing “happened”.  Immediate claims of ETA terrorism were quickly squelched and re-labeled as El Qaeda terrorism. The “perpetrators” conveniently “blew themselves up” when a group of suitable “arabic/ islamic” people were being rushed by an “anti-terror-ism” squad of the Spanish security apparatus and could not explain, how they managed to place the explosives under the structural girders of the carriages which were bent sky-high in the explosion.  Had they lived to tell this story, we would be a lot wiser. The Spanish electorate did not “buy” the “official” expla-nations and sent Aznar into the political wilderness.

 

When Australian PM Howard was facing a close election in 2004, another “just in time” bomb was detonated in front of the Australian embassy in Jakarta. The TV footage of this event shows clearly, that a slender column of pure white dust (from an “ammonium-nitrate/ fuel-bomb”?) rose straight up into the air and then formed a mushroom.  The “suicide” bombers can-not be questioned – they are – very conveniently,  very dead.  Needless to say, PM Howard won the elections in a land-slide with his promise to “fight terrorism”.  The dominant fraction of Australian voters still act like “Brits” in the face of adversity- they get a stiff upper lip and disengage the brain.

 

The “Downing Street Memo” let Tony Blair appear an increasingly lame duck; the debt-forgiveness for Africa turned from magnanimity to elistist scheme of further pauperization. Clearly, this man needed a “lift”. So there was 7/7/7!  Many of the miracles of 9/11 repeated and – very conveniently – the “suicide” bombers, who were splattered all over the place, left behind papers which identified them.  That they were carrying huge back-packs seems odd – the devastation apparent from the pictorial documentation available suggests “military grade” explosives having been used. The “shoe-bomber” intended to down a jumbo-plane with the explo-sives hidden in the sole of his shoe!  So what were the back-packs for?  That there were “terrorism-response exercises” in progress when the bombs went off was very fortunate – all required assets were in place[4] to minimise the (collateral) damage and show the world how efficient the “Brits” are when it comes to dealing with untoward happenings…..!  That the four alleged bombers had all expected to return from their outing to London that day is suggested by the fact that they purchased return tickets for the train. Even the London Police is quite open about it – the bombers were “set up”!  By whom?

 

Tube bombing survivor Bruce Lait is quoted by Cambridge News as reminiscing about his first impressions after regaining consciousness: "The policeman said 'mind that hole, that's where the bomb was'. The metal  was pushed upwards as if the bomb was underneath the train.” This sounds like the Madrid bombing in 2004 all over again.  How much longer will the London Police be in the “shooting to kill potential suicide bombers mode”? How many more innocents will have to die? [http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2005/07/11/83e33146-09af-4421-b2f4-1779a86926f9.lpf]

 

The internet is abuzz with comments on the events of 7/7/7. To repeat them here were “cheap”.  What is really required is a gaze beyond the “event horizon” which is being so artfully constructed for the hoi polloi[5]:

 

Dr Sahib M Bleher, writing for Mathaba Analysis [ http://www.mathaba.net/news/ terrorism;  15 July 2005] quotes  Mark Twain, who had mused "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes”.  ‘After 9/11 it took months before any meaningful discussion got under way  to piece together what really happened. A few days after 7/7/7 in London this discussion was already in full swing. The tolerance level of some for official lies has been lowered considerably by the slew of atrocities that is the subject of this article. Many lies have travelled the world in  the run-up to the “War on Terror”, itself a grand smokescreen for land grabs, geopolitical advances and social control. It should not be a surprise to security services to find people sceptical of their integrity after they sold the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, then told everyone to be constantly on guard because an attack was inevitable and now tell how shocked they were when it actually happened. Nor should it surprise them that any serious investigator would include them amongst the suspects’. 

 

Any realistic assessment of the “terror scene” will have to distinguish between

 

·         systemic terrorism (state-sponsored as in the case of America groundlessly attack-ing entire countries or Israel methodically displacing the rightful owners of the land that it “squats” on)  and

·         symptomatic terrorism (as in the case of people fighting with the weapon of ultima ratio against “full spectrum dominance” or other forms of intentional disen-franchisement if not genocide).

 

Man, by taxonomists given the oxymoronic species designation of Homo sapiens (sometimes a second “sapiens” is added to let the misapapropriation of this innocent word appear less idiotic), is the only animal that destroys his creations and his own kind if and when his “intellect” (one of the other misconceptions that are so typical of anything human) impels him to do so. We have come to call people “heroic” who have been extraordinarily proficient in this kind of thing. An entire “scientific” discipline has sprung up to write and re-write the stories that are “spun” around heroes into what we have come to call “history”.

 

 

Suicide  - and  “Suicide Terrorists”:

 

There have been Christian and Buddhist martyrs who used suicide as a demon-stration of belief and/or protest. All these are distinct from the unwilling martyrdom of dying in conflict. With the exception of the Kamikaze, history knows only rare documented cases where people have turned themselves[6] into (or parts of) weapons. Regardless what the myths say that are spun around personae that have been either very good at killing others or have been terminated by their “enemies” in a beastly way, the stupid saying <dulce et decorum est pro patria mori” which has been chiseled into monuments to mass-killers or masses killed,  makes it appear as if there were anything “sweet” or honourable about the killing of others or one self for anything at all!

 

While heroes and other killers find little if anything abominable in ending the lives of others (the meme[7] “enemy” has been created long ago to make it easier to do so even for cowards or people who are not naturally inclined towards that sort of thing), self-immolation is considered a universal cultural taboo. Religions all have strict prohibitions against ending something that has been started by God and should only be ended by Him (Her?).  There is a widely circulated (and thus believed) fable that “suicide bombers” yell the invocation “Allah Akbar” (God is great!) before detonating the explosives strapped around their torso.  This is such a strange tale:  does the human voice carry as far as the deadly force of an ex-plosive charge– in other words– are the witnesses to such behaviour likely to live to tell the tale? But like with other cases of induced mass-hysteria there seems to be no burden of proof – stories that have emerged from somewhere somehow are taken as gospel. Who has just read the last few lines should now ask him (her-) self, whether there was something hidden in them: most have probably “read over” the “Allah Akbar” passage unflinchingly. Why not? They do this with everything else that is written on “terrorism”.  They would surely have stumbled over “Praise-the-Lord” or any other invocation from any religion other than Islam.

This media-induced insensitivity to inconsistencies related to anything to do with “terrorism” is one of the greatest “achievements” of the pseudo-science of  propaganda (akin to the “psychology” of the Freudian ilk):  like Dr. Josef Goeb-bels (1897-1945) used to say:

 

‘the more incredible the lie, the easier it is to pass it off as a (the “official”) truth’.

 

For one reason or the other, over the last two decades a new class of “killer” has attained notoriety:  the suicide terrorist.   Many books have been spawned by the terrorism – industry; the probably most insightful one was a slim volume by Jerry Adams: <The Financing of Terror>[8] that appeared already before “suicide” became part of the memetic repertoire!  Adams calls terrorism the response to asymmetric situations [sic]. When colonial political domination “changed” into neo-colonialism of economic exploitation (when the former colonial powers realized that it was far more profitable to trade “ownership of” for “use of” people, nations and economies[9]), the people systemically terrorized had to resort to symptomatic terror as ultima ratio. While this explanation appears a most rational one, the sudden emergence of “suicide terrorism” remains beyond comprehension. As Jerry Adams (ibid.) suggests, the first question criminologists ask to fathom the rationale behind any crime also applies to “terrorism”:

 

 

cui bono? 

 

Larry Chin, Online Journal Associate Editor [http://www.onlinejournal.com/Comment ary/071805Chin/071805chin.html; 18 July 2005] writes presciently: ‚as was the case following 9/11 and all post-9/11 "terror" events, an official new propaganda legend is being constructed [after 7/7/7] to justify whatever Anglo-American-Israeli aggression that is sure to follow‘. Before we further examine the most pertinent question as to the beneficiaries of terror “events”, we have to look at one more of the automatic “links” that the hoi polloi have been conditioned to make through incessant repetition by the dumbing machine[10]:

 

Almost axiomatically we associate the meme “suicide terrorist” with the meme of “Muslim fundamentalism”[11].                                                                                         Both these neo-logisms have sprung up over recent decades and are clearly “signs of our times”. Syed Qutb had studied in the USA and found the perversions of “modern life” a danger to human spirituality as well as natural life and urged a return to a life governed by original Islamic tenets;  when he was executed by the Egyptian Nasser regime because of these views in 1956 because of his teachings,  this created a martyr and signified the begin of “fundamentalist Islam”[12].

 

Many stereotypes need to be dismantled in order to be able to objectively assess this complex situation:  only a small part of the Ummah (the sum of Islamic be-lievers) are ethnical Arabs, a solid one third of the worlds Muslims live as minorities in countries dominated by other religions; there is no one Islamic religion, just like there is no such thing as one Christian religion; whatever arguments people bring against Islam are not directed at what is written in Al Qur‘an, but what clerics have interpreted. Roy[13] argues that both Globalization and Westernisation have attained unstopable momentum and ventures that Islam will simply get „assimilated“ or „integrated“ in due course as part of the secularisation of the entire world which this author applauds. A schism has emerged between ‘political Islam’ and the modern, uprooted militants who strive to establish an imaginary Ummah which is not embedded in any particular society or territory.  With all these inner divisions inside the Ummah it seems odd that the hoil polloi speak of “Muslims” as of something as homogenous as a sports team.  How could that ever have come to be?  For this we can,  to some extent (if not largely),  blame the “Professor of Hate” Samuel Huntington, who with his <Clash of Civilizations>[14] has created a substitute for the <Clash of –isms>.  In it it is argued, that Islam has “bloody borders”: conflicts with orthodox Christians in the Balkans, Jews in Israel, Hindus in India, Buddhists in Burma and Catholics in the Phillippines are cited as factual evidence. Any objective observation of reality will show that Muslims in most (if not all) these conflicts are clearly the victims of age-old persecution, land-grabs or simply share the fate of all minorities – cause and effect are simply reversed to hide the truth! 

            The war between Iraq and Iran is often called a religious conflict by arm-chair experts:  Iraq, populated by a large majority of Shi’ites but since many generations politically controlled by the Sunni minority was fighting an almost monolithic Shi’ite Iran. Similarly the Wahhabism[15] of Saudi Arabia is called by ignorants a fundamentalist sect of Islam. As outlined in an excellent article by Peter Goodgame, <The Globalists and the Islamists> (www.redmoonrising.com /Ikhwan/Clash.htm), Globalists have had a hand in shaping and financing all the terrorist organizations of the twentieth century, including the Muslim Brother-hood of Egypt, the Hamas of Palestine, and the Afghan Mujahideen. All of this started in the eighteenth century, when a British Freemason created the Wahhabi sect of Saudi Arabia, to further Masonic imperialistic objectives. A British spy by the name of Hempher shaped the extreme tenets of Wahhabism. This was mentioned in a Turkish work, <Mir'at al-Haramain>, by Ayyub Sabri Pasha between 1933-1938. British policy in its colonies often involved the creation of deviant sects, in order to Divide and Conquer, as was the case with the Ahmadiyya sect of Islam in India in the nineteenth century. The document is a first-hand account by Hempher of his mission for his government, who sent him to the Middle East to discover ways to undermine the Ottoman Empire. Among the vices the British were to promote were racism and nationalism, alcohol, gambling, fornication, and tempting Muslim women to uncover themselves. Most important was the strategy to "insert heresies into Muslims' creedal tenets and then criticize Islam for being a religion of terror." To this purpose, Hempher located a particularly corrupt individual by the name of Mohammed Ibn Adbul Wahhab. Muslims are not permitted by their religion to kill other Muslims. In order to "use" Arabs to undermine the Ottoman Empire, a loophole in Islamic law was found whereby the Arabs could declare the Turks as apostates. Wahhab contrived the idea that, simply by the trivial act of offering prayers to saints, that their Turkish brethren had forfeited their faith, and therefore, that it was permitted to kill all who refused to adhere to his reforms, and enslave their women and children. With this "spiritual engineering" the British had created the rebellion they desired to help desintegrate the Middle East politically and created the volatity that permits them to still go and "police" the region[16]. All those who demonise all of Islam because of the excesses of Wahhabism should be told that Wahhabism is a “western” creation, while Islamic fundamentalism is autoch-thonous (home-grown)!

 

Osama bin Laden[17] is the leader of Al Qaeda, which was a “creation” of the Central Intelligence Agency at times when the USA wanted to create an internal opposition to Russian occupation of Afghanistan.  American government officials called Saudi-Arabian Osama bin-Laden (a Wahhabi!) “their” prime asset in Afghanistan. This is not remembered by people who trust in “reports” of Osama bin-Laden being the mastermind of “September 11”. What is even more astonish-ing is the fact, that there are no proven connections between Al Qaeda and the regime of Saddam Hussain, but that the dumbing machine is permitted (if not encouraged or even ordered?) to continue to publish the repetition of unproven such allegations in a matter of factly way.

It would appear, that the present politics of the Middle East is little more than pennance for old sins– as usual with pennance, the victims are also asked to re-pent for what was done to them!  With that we return to the question of “who benefits”? 

 

The ostensive perpetrators are dead, their villages, communities, tribes vilified, if not blotted out during actions of “retribution”. These actions usually are of perversely asymmetric proportions and it hence is oxymoronic to assign any “benefit” to terrorism at all.  That terrorists resort to ultima ratio in order to break down the wall of silence that is erected by the perpetrators of systemic ter-rorism around their victims is an old argument - that gets weaker as time goes by.   What would the dumbing machine “feed” us these days if there were no terrorism?  The real news – elitist machinations - are never  reported.

 

One cannot torture “the truth” out of suicide bombers – they are already (con-veniently) dead. What can be done, however, is look at foiled or aborted such “missions” and consider the testimonies of chance observers of factual situations.  When we do that, the entire quagmire seemingly dissolves into nothing, like a holograph in the course of a power failure! Symptomatic terrorism, as ultimo ratio was parsimonially described by the leader of the Algerian Independence movement (FLN) Ramdane Albane, when he said that the “terrorist bomb in the trash can is the air-force of the little man”[18]    

 

È          Robert A. Pape, associate professor of political science at the University of Chicago,  in an article that appeared in The New York Times on 19 May 2005 presented his analysis of suicide attacks around the globe from 1980 through 2003 - 315 in all. This includes every episode in which at least one terrorist killed himself or herself while trying to kill others. He points out that there were no suicide attacks in Palestine prior to Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, just as there were no suicide attacks in Sri Lanka prior to 1987, when the government invaded Tamil land and militarised the conflict asym-metrically.  Who can be surprised to learn that there were no suicide attacks in Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion by the willing coalition?  Prof. Pape sums up parsimonially that there is no religious connotation to "suicide attacks"[19]. 

È          A statistical treatment of suicide attacks will clearly show that Albane’s dictum can be easily verified using historical data (cf. Pape; ibid.).  This picture gets skewed by the tactic of  occupation forces in Iraq to booby-trap vehicles on check points and then detonate the explosive charges upon these vehicles reaching their destination. It was intrepid Internet Columnist John Kaminski, on 24 May 2005 (<Sick strategies for senseless slaughter>; available from skylax@ comcast.net) who alerted the thinking people of the western world to the fact that no Muslim will ever defile his religion by killing innocents or will desecrate a house of God by ending his life there! Al Qu’ran is adamant– no human life is to be “taken” by humans for any reason! It is only the desire of the illegal invaders to “justify” their continued occupation of Iraq by triggering a civil war that can explain the ceaseless “suicide bombings”.

È          Frank Morales, 22 May 2005 described on [http://globalresearch.ca/articles /MOR505A.html] how American soldiers on the occasion of routine checks of vehicles insert explosive charges into vehicles and let their ignorant Iraqi owners drive these “car bombs” into places where they then are remotely detonated.

È          Mufakirat Al-Islam a local Iraqi news organization  [http://www.islammemo.cc/ taqrer/ one_news.asp?IDnews=457; 17 July 2005] reports, that earlier this month US forces cordoned off a Bagdhad street under the pretence that a vehicle (a KIA) parked in the street was wired to explode. Local residents stated that the US soldiers began handing out candy and schoolbags attracting the children.  When residents, fearing for their children, asked about the KIA car, the US soldiers said that it was a 'false alarm' and that there was no bomb (but that a couple of US soldiers remained fiddling with the car). Children from neigh-boring streets came upon hearing of the sweets and free bags (as well as a rumor that Pokemon toys were being given out). After a period of about 15 minutes from them entering the street, the US forces dumped the remaining toys/ sweets in a pile in the middle of  the street and frantically drove off hitting 4 children in the process with their vehicle. Seconds later, the KIA vehicle exploded killing 32 wounding about ten others who were gathered in the street.  Residents also reported that, contrary to what the US military stated,  there were no US casualties or injuries from this blast as the US forces  had rushed out of the street just before the explosion took place. Information gathered from the Iraqi fire services stated that the  explosion did not leave the signature traces of a TNT blast as used by  the Resistance (being left over from Russian explosives used by the Iraqi army), as a TNT blast is always outward from the place of explosion and does not leave a crater as this car bomb did.

È          Jonathan Lis reports for Haaretz [http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/6015 82.html; 18 July 2005] that two Israel Defense Forces soldiers from an infantry regiment of ultra-Orthodox troops were arrested on suspicion of placing a fake bomb at the Jerusalem central bus station last week, it emerged on Monday. Since the beginning of March, right-wing extremists have planted six dummy bombs: two in a Tel Aviv train station and four in Jerusalem. In those incidents the fake bombs also bore notes reading, "The disengagement will explode in our faces."

È          Dan Williams reports for Reuters AlertNet on 18 July 2005, that British-born Mohammad Sidique Khan, who police believe blew himself up on an underground train during 7/7/7, arrived in  Israel on Feb. 19, 2003, and left the next day. Israeli daily Maariv said on Sunday that Khan was suspected of helping plan a pro-Palestinian suicide bombing by two fellow Britons of Pakistani descent on 30 April 2003. Three Israelis were killed  in the attack on Mike's Place bar in Tel Aviv.

 

In the current year not a single day goes by without several reports on “suicide attacks” against the occupying army and their collaborating local conspirators in Iraq;  at an (arbitrary) average of 3 per day that makes it around (possibly) 600 such attacks in just the first seven months of 2005.  According to Prof. Pape (ibid.) there were 315 such attacks world-wide in the 24 years between 1980 and 2003; this makes the paltry “average” of less than seven per half year!  From this we can conclude that something extremely curious has happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq: either

 

·         humanity has devolved to such an extent that – all of a sudden – there is a nearly hundred–fold increase of the willingness of people to commit crimes against their religion and humanity or

·         many if not most of these suicide attacks are “false flag”[20] operations.

 

Do we simply “buy” that (as part of the mental diet that we get served every day by the dumbing machine) or should we not start to wonder whether this diet is as harmful to the many as it is lethal to the few?

 

 

Linguistic engineering:

 

No authorative Islamic religious institution has ever bothered to declare the ceaseless repetition of “killers of infidels will go straight to heaven, will there be welcomed by 72 virgins” or similar such lines as the idiocies they represent. Why should they dignify such fabrications with any reaction? Such verbiage in the products of the dumbing machine is as representative of real Islam as the utterances and actions of  G.W. Bush (et al.) are representative of real Christi-anity (no Christian church-leader has yet bothered – or should we say dared - to condemn this blather either)! 

 

As if any further arguments were needed to make the logic behind the present fear-mongering regarding “terrorism” dissolve into puffs of “hot air”, we shall briefly consider one of the more ludicrous aspects of the whole charade:  no what-soever tangible proof (of the kind that will stand up in a court of law) has been presented to assign responsibility for any of the “just in time” acts of terrorism to any of those who are accused of having perpetrated these heinous acts. The German Supreme Court has voided the sentence passed on a 9/11 ”conspirator” by a lower court. This reduces to ZERO the results of the biggest man-hunt of all times.  That the executive could not find the perpetrators is likely due to the fact, that they did not look amongst their own! 

            By the “liberal” use of phraseology like “assumed perpetrators”, “alleged bombers”, “supposed killers” and whatnot, the spin doctors of government agencies and their handmaiden – the media – induce memetically the suspicion of guilt in the minds of the hoi polloi. Being the ultimate victim (when ever does anybody “prominent” get blown to bits? Lord Mountbatton and Rajiv Gandhi were rare exceptions[21]), fearful hysteria is implanted in the masses. 

 

Is all of this part of a “big plan”?  It is too easy (convenient?) to denigrate any such thoughts with the all-embracing catchphrase "conspiracy theory".  The fact is, that there is not any “conspiracy” – the various aspects of our present day reality that get brushed off with this epithet are carried out entirely “in the open”.   

 

The „War on Poverty“ led to exponential increase of poverty, the „War on Drugs“ to exponentially exploding drug consumption and what the „War on Terrorism“ is resulting in will be seen in the not too distant future. Back in 2002, following the trauma of 9-11, US Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld predicted there would be more terrorist attacks against the American people and civilization at large. How could he be so sure of that? Perhaps because these attacks would be instigated on the order of the Honorable Mr. Rumsfeld. According to Los Angeles Times military analyst William Arkin, writing on 27 October 2002, Rumsfeld set out to create a secret army, "a super-Intelligence Support Activity" network that would "bring together CIA and military covert action, information warfare, intelligence, and cover and deception," to stir the pot of spiraling global violence. <The Provocateur State: Is the CIA Behind the Iraqi 'Insurgents' - and Global Terrorism> by Frank Morales [http://globalresearch.ca/articles/ MOR505A.html] clearly demonstrates how Donald Rumsfeld said he was going to do exactly what is happening every day of the week now. ‘There is not now, nor ever was there ever, an Arab terror threat. That was all invented by Rothschild, Rockefeller, Kissinger, Brzezinski, Bush, Cheney, Sharon, Zakheim, Perle, Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams and Warren Buffett. These people are all traitors to not only their countries but to humanity in general, and should all be slammed and RICOed („exraordinarily rendered“) into Guantanamo immediately.’ This list of names corralls the most prominent exponents of what calls itself “Neo-Conservatism”.

 

If Morales is correct with this assessment, then there is one memetic connection which the dumbing machine is not permitting us to “make”: Neo-conservatism  is by definition a kind of terrorism (as defined by Hoffmann; cf. footnote# 18): unspeakable atrocities are perpetrated against mankind by “leaders” with the stroke of a pen; what neo-liberals (of the ilk of Bill Clinton) started continues unabated: neo-conservatism[22], as an ideology so powerful, that it tries (success-fully) to pass itself off as "modernity" while its maniacal true believers mas-querade as disinterested technocrats, can no longer claim to be a consensus. It was decisively rejected by French and Dutch voters when they said no to the EU constitution, and it can be seen how hated it has become in Russia, where large majorities despise the profiteers of the disastrous 1990s privatisations and few mourned the recent sentencing of oil oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. (Naomi Klein, writing in The Guardian, 10 June 2005).

 

 

What will the future be like?

 

Be it a huge wooden horse or the equally hollow words of American ambassador April Glaspie spoken to Saddam Hussain[23]– subterfuge will always be on the repertoire of warfare.  Maybe there is a salutary aspect to the atrocious actions of the American Destruct Machine (the bulldozing of soldiers into trenches and burying them alive[24], the torturing of arbitrarily “collected” prisoners), radio-active contamination of entire countries and so forth! The Geneva Conventions and similar treaties are little more than band-aids that hide the mortal wounds which humanity has sustained by millennia of human action.  America and its coalitioners are willing to expose the hypocracy of all those treaties that „legalize“ the biggest crime imaginable – the taking of life (human or otherwise).

As usual with situations like this,  one has to ask: how much worse will it have to get before things will get any better?

 

George Orwell has stated in <1984>  that “who rules the past controls the future; who controls the present, rules the past”.  Orwell realized, in which way age old wisdom is being used by elites. When these sentences are read in a different order, the future is simply going to be a rehash of our present and past. By tightly controlling our knowledge of the present (via “official” announcements and “reports” in the media) and past (via apodictic “historiography”) the owners of the media (who also control government/ academia directly or by proxy) will rule the world. To this dreadful formal analysis we may as well add the functional analogon, which was presented by the late humanist Sir Peter Ustinov very parsimonially:

 

“Terrorism is war of the poor; war is the terrorism of the rich.”

 

In the aftermath of 7/7/7 there is a fundamental dichotomy developing between the thinking and acting of the British government and some parts of parliament;  while in the parliament members try to understand the asymmetries created by the neo-logisms of the present,  the government still insits on terrorism being aberrant behaviour by some elements that hate “our freedoms”. The govern-ment’s solution to this problem is simply to take away the freedoms!

 

This then closes the circle:  the lateral thinker could surmise (if not even suspect), that the governments of the USA and Great Britain have “fixed” the intelligence- as the “Downing Street Memo” so clearly states- to “make the case for war” so as to be able to create an Orwellian Police State. 9-11 and the other cases of “just in time terrorism” clearly fall in the same category of subterfuge. As J.W. v. Goethe has said: “nobody is more severely enslaved than those who wrongly deem themselves free”.

Both systemic and symptomatic terror will qualitatively and quantitatively increase by way of mutual feed-backs.  Like all catastrophic events, terrorism can be best (if not solely) fought at it source. Terrorist acts may be isolated reactions against the a-symmetries of the present “order”; should the ills of our time not be remedied, there will be ever increasing “blow-backs” and at some stage, somehow, we will find out who was right:  whether the Biblical meek or the Darwinian strong will be left standing…  

 

More and more people are beginning to realize that their “here” has been turned into the Anglo-American “there” – whereto all the nasty aspects of “civilization” have been externalized. 

            Great Britain is beginning to realize, that also their “here” is “there” to their partner in crimes against humanity.  When this will finally be accepted,  it will be found, that their apartheid from Europe will return them to a – not so splendid – isolation!

 

Endnotes