September 11, 2001

A day that changed the world, and we have yet to hear any tacky or dirty jokes, it was that bad. Yet, the fact that I just made the statement I did refers to my "status quo" reality - that all disasters are measured by their humor quotient, or people's ability to recover from disaster in a creative way.

Frankly, I've never wanted to talk about 9/11 on this site - just too huge a subject, and what do I know, etc. Yet, something compels me that being who I am, and that I am so vocal on other matters, it seems I'd better speak up on this subject, even if I am no authority. I guess when a disaster changes the world, then everybody's an equal, and everybody's an expert.

I never saw it coming. Yet, somehow, I wasn't surprised. I was more offended that someone close to me referred to the terrorists as "sand niggers" (because racism begets racism, and racism leads to violence and more racism) than I was about two big buildings burning down and several thousand people being killed. But, I've never been to New York, and not only did I not know anyone who died that day, I don't even know anyone who knew someone else who knew someone who died that day.

I felt the grief; the whole world felt the grief. Yet, one cannot take a monument and turn it into a shrine. If it is a monument, it must be a monument to the truth, not a shrine to righteousness nor segregated morality. But, 9/11 has become a shrine, and unfortunately, a shrine being exploited as a monument to American politics.

I'd like to backtrack at this point to say that I had an epiphany, if you will, during the 1999 election campaigning process between Bush and Gore. I really hadn't known much about either of them, except that it was Gore's wife who was gung-ho on music censorship, which turned me off mightily. However, when I was watching this debate between Bush and Gore, what I noticed was: Gore listened to what was said, and responded directly to what was said. Bush did NOT listen to what was said, would interrupt his opponent, would wave his arms and get red in the face and scowl, and called his opponent names or otherwise implied that he was beneath contempt.

What I got out of that: Bush was no diplomat. It's one thing for one Texan to holler at another Texan; it's another for an American president to be at a state dinner in another country and call someone's emir, or premier, or prince (or whatever) a "jack-ass" because we disagree with policy. This isn't diplomacy; it's bullying, not to mention arrogance.

I told the people close to me I was voting for Gore for that reason. (I had, up to that time, basically voted Republican.) I said that if Bush was elected president, we would have a war. So I voted for Gore. Bush won by a questionable majority.

Then 9/11 happened, and that night President Bush declared a war on terrorism. I was overjoyed. I understood, from the speech, that he was going to go after the punk, petty stuff, that it was not about a "nation" (as in, singling out a nation for revenge), that it was about "little, evil people" (like kidnappers, extortion artists, woman and child sex slave traders... in other words "terrorist acts" that threaten more than 65% of the world population on a daily basis.) Because, it it's the "little, evil people"  that make up the composite elements of the organized militaristic terrorist groups.

I thought, when I heard Bush Junior's speech, that he really had his finger on the pulse, and that he really understood the fundamental structure and motivation of just what "makes a terrorist." My logic was flawed that day. I gave the man more credit than he deserved, because the words were so good, and because no one, up to that point, had been quite so eloquent on the subject, at least not publicly, on the fundamental principles of what constitutes an act of terrorism.

I also had no idea this holy crusade was going to be turned to focus upon one nation (Iraq) - the nation that antagonized George junior's daddy, former President Bush - which I would be able to accept, if I could just get past George Bush Senior's distinctly incestuous relationship with the CIA.

There is much speculation, and many people believe that the first war in Iraq was an oil issue, and many people who believe the current war in Iraq (which was declared "over" in May of 2003) is also about oil. There are some people who believe that the (first) war was not just an oil war, but a CIA war, because George Senior just launched a war into nowhere with a country most Americans had never heard of. And George Senior had been, at one time, the head of the CIA. Does anyone really retire from such an organization?

The war lasted 28 days, and did anything really change? Did anyone notice? Why was the war launched when it was? One element in favor of Desert Storm/Desert Shield was it was the first "public" war since Vietnam. We saw it on television every night. It looked just like the video games everybody was already playing at home. We were told we "won the war." How, by what proof? This terrible dictator, Saddam Hussein, had been severely neutralized, we were told. As far as I can tell from history since then, no one was neutralized but the citizens, the women and children.

If America was the victor, than what were we the victor of? What exactly did we win? What were we fighting about in the first place? I don't know, but looking at those blue things (certain kinds of bombs) and green things (other kinds of bombs) all over the television was really pretty impressive. Not to mention Stormin' Norman, and what a lovely, dynamic cheerleader he was. His diagrams and illustrations to keep the American public informed were quite colorful, full of personality and charisma. Oh, it was a fun war.

Another important factor, in rousing American sympathy, is since it was the first "declared war" since WWII, we, as patriotic Americans, felt it our duty to support our troops - as we still do. This wasn't just a television issue, but how Americans responded to their post-Vietnam guilt. A lot of soldiers sent to fight a war the government sent them to came home to be spat upon and otherwise denigrated. Enough time had passed that anti-war activists had become anti-war pacifists, and did not want to abuse their own sons who were sent off by their government to fight - not just a war they didn't believe in - but a war they didn't know anything about.

We have people in this country who were no more affected by the Towers' destruction than I was, but who cry about it as if they'd built the structures, or started the businesses that were lost. This sounds to me like fleas riding a rat's back, and they get all outraged and indignant when the rat dies. Their host is gone. These are the people that wars cannot be done without; self-righteous fanatics of their own order of supremacy and righteousness.

I have dreams from time to time that I do not consider prophecy, but more like synopses of questions in my own unconscious mind, and every now and then I get some interesting insights. It was probably during the War on Iraq that I was asking myself (like many Americans) if Bush was serious; was he real, or was he a fanatic?

I had a dream where I was in fairly large room, it seemed like a cafeteria, lots of tables, chandelier lighting, and yellow-pink walls. I had the impression of pink marble. The room was virtually empty, and then I saw one man eating at a table by himself. That man was President Bush. It seems like, in the dream, I went up to talk to him, knowing that the Secret Service guys were everywhere, and I didn't want to be pushy, or confrontational. The response I got was that he appreciated me being there, but he couldn't talk to me, because he couldn't trust me, because he couldn't trust anybody, he didn't know who to trust. In my dream, I sort of sailed off, and that was that.

I thought that was an interesting dream. (I have a lot of those.) Then, recently, we went to the State Fair of Texas, where one of the principal features was the dollhouse reconstruction of the White House. One of the rooms was a pink, chandelier-lit cafeteria. Just like my dream.

Oh, my heart goes out to George Junior, if this is true, because the man is so alone, and I believe, is a sincere man caught in a game that he can hardly conceive of. George Junior has what some people call "corn-pone" common sense, but he doesn't have a clue as to intrigue, myriad illusion, or sophistry of constructed events. If we asked him what he thinks of "coup d'etat," he'd probably say it's not on the menu, but he'd be willing to try it.

I've had a number of dreams since 9/11; they tell me nothing that the ridiculous color-coded message of terrorist dangers won't tell you. I would agree with this thing called Homeland Security that says people are continually plotting our demise as a nation (including themselves?), but I will say that how Homeland Security is being conducted makes people a little more sympathetic to people who want to beat the system. And as far as I can tell, the "I had an dream, or I had a vision" approach is just as realistic as what Homeland Security likes to tell us.

Cats are now demanding that rats and mice go through metal detectors before they'll eat rodents. (This is meant to be funny.)

What bothers me is that not all terrorist acts suppressed in this nation are necessarily from external terrorists. It's beginning to seem as if whatever terrorists get through, are the terrorists that are allowed to get through, because they seem to fit in with an American "master plan." How, then, can certain terrorists be convenient, except to be held up as poster boys of democracy gone to hell, and "don't let this happen to you"?

I've heard that there are some countries surveyed that had an alarming number of people (by American standards) who believe that the CIA or other American agencies could conceivably - and might have - engineered the destruction of the Twin Towers to give Americans a pretty good excuse to go after those "middle-Eastern types."

Believe me when I say I've put a lot of thought into this, and while I think it's entirely conceivable, I don't think that's what really happened. What I do think is that while the CIA, or other American agencies, were aware of the possibilities, and probabilities, but sort of sat back with a "let's see what happens" attitude; when 9/11 actually happened, it seemed more of an opportunity to use this situation - like so many situations - as a testing ground for "what if" for future generations.

As disgusting as it sounds, 9/11 was not looked at by certain higher orthodox American industrial organizations as a disaster; it was looked upon as a "learning experience."

The deaths associated with 9/11 are not being treated as military deaths; they are being treated as natural disaster deaths - tornadoes, hurricanes, thunderbolts, and other "Acts of God." If this is true, then why are we at war with a nation who doesn't believe in God, as we know it?

We've always been told that during wartime, the president can suspend certain civil rights explicit in the Constitution. Well, if we are not in a declared state of war, then why are these rights being suspended? And why are we being told that to question this logic is also somehow fundamentally un-American?

So what's wrong with this administration? Well, you probably won't believe it, but it's being run by the CIA. I have a hard time believing it myself, because I like to believe in individuality, and at the least ego; how could George Junior give up his role as president to the CIA?

Well, what if he trusts their information, as George Junior apparently has no choice but to do? And isn't that what the CIA does, is gather information? All of this I would believe, and even find conceivable, because History has a "history" of telling people what to think, going right back at least to JFK's administration - only Jack wasn't as good a puppet as they would have liked. Jack had his crafty moments; he liked to keep tabs on the people who were keeping tabs on him. It was a lark (shrug). George Junior, on the other hand, seems to be an honest, resolute American. But what if the difference between him and us is that his daddy, a former war president, is advising him - yet his daddy is still the voice of the CIA?

What if George Junior is an honest president who's being lied to by his father, a former president, and a former head of the CIA? What if the reason George Junior is apparently ignoring internal problems in the U.S., is because he's been "advised" that it's his job to look to foreign policy and root out corruption in subversive governments, and "don't worry, son - we'll keep on eye on the domestic front"?

I don't know what to think. The arguments regarding solutions to the Iraq standoff running around are, to wit:
We bombed the hell out of Iraq, so we have the options of:
1) Retreating gracefully, and leave a mess for someone else to clean up;
2) Sticking it out, and instilling democracy, no matter how long it takes; or
3) Running like coots, and exposing our bare asses for the imbeciles we have been.

If we walk away, like the imperialist scumbags we are, then it will become obvious that we thought we could milk this flea-circus, so perhaps if we can't milk the flea-circus we might be able to apply a little pressure to the testicles, and then if the gonads start screaming loudly enough, we'll hear a cry for democracy (or death.) Yet, it seems like Option #3 (running like coots, and exposing our bare asses for the imbeciles we have been) is the best one that will cost the least in the end.

I've made it clear that I have mixed feelings about the Iraqi situation, but my feelings are a lot less ambiguous since researching other aspects of American history, specifically the Philippines situation. And, to put it bluntly, we need to get the fuck out of Iraq, NOW. This is not about "protecting our boys and girls on the front"; it's about quit screwing with the infrastructure until there is simply is no infrastructure anymore. Because when you tear out an infrastructure, you tear out an organ, and it's real hard to put in a plastic bottle or a pumpkin to make a vital organ such as a heart or kidney functional again once it's been replaced with a synthetic organ.

But aside from my own "comfort zone" there is also the realization that if we don't get out of Iraq, it's going to turn into a Philippines or a Hong Kong, and we're going to wonder why. To be more explicit, they're going to turn into whore zones or international trade and trafficking in sex, drugs, prostitution, and adult and child pornography. Believe it or not, this "pristine" area of Iraq with ladies covered up by veils - it will take no time for them to replace their veils with spandex and sequins - but who will speak for them?

This situation is not okay. I don't give a damn about Bush, I don't give a damn about Saddam. What I give a damn is about two conflicting power-structures that virtually guarantees slavery for women. This "war on terrorism" is creating new wars, and new terrorism. If we don't stop this war now, we'll be paying for it for the next 80-120 years, in social services, medical expenses, education and moral reconstruction.

The "disease" of imperialism, Christianity turned upside-down into moral disintegration, and the discouragement of a masculine supportive infrastructure will degenerate into a red-light district of international proportions, with the American tax dollar being relied upon to create a welfare system of a society we helped destroy.

We've done this too many times in history, and only a few benefit. My ignorance in the past was thinking that the CIA's job was to run interference in third-world countries to defend the interests of the American bottling companies. My mistake was in not understanding that the CIA owns, or has interests in, those bottling companies.

The CIA IS the bottling company!

I'd really love to be able to blame George Junior for the problems of the world; that would be so convenient. But I have to be honest; I look at him, and I think he is honest, even if that means he is also clueless. I also worry that if he "wakes up", he'll be a prime candidate for assassination (aren't we overdue by the calendar?) History has not changed because people have not learned their history, but if they will, or do, then George Junior has a good shot at changing American history and turning America into the country it ought to be - one that truly stands for, embraces, and supports no less than democracy in its purest form.

Love, Galadriel