October 3, 2004

After reading my article “The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement”  (at id24.html ), author of the New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 book, David Ray Griffin, sent a response to me which he copied to several others.  Below, I’ve copied his response in full.  Also copied below is my reply to David Ray Griffin, along with a Postscript to the 911 Truth Community. 

Angie

-------------------------------------------------------------------

September 13, 2004

Dear Angie,

A couple of people recently sent me your piece, “The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement”  ( id24.html ) 

Being short on time, I will respond only to your theory and your paragraph about me and my associates.

I gather that you do not put me in the category of those who do not “really want the 911 truth exposed.” I am thankful for that. You put me merely in the category of those who do want it exposed but NOT “for ‘good’ reasons.” That is, I evidently “want it exposed” but am still “a bad guy.”

I must confess that, in the eyes of God, I am probably indeed a pretty bad guy. But I was somewhat surprised by the reasons you gave for warning really pure 9/11 truth-seekers to be wary of me.

One of your reasons appears to be that both I and Richard Falk, the author of the Foreword to my book, are “one world government aficionados.” It is certainly true that I am in favor of global democracy and have been working on a rather big book on this topic for many years. But I was surprised that you would assume that there is something “creepy” to what I have in mind without looking at my arguments and the particular form of “world government” that I advocate. Since you and I had corresponded some time back, if I correctly recall, I am puzzled why you, given your obvious concern for truth, did not write to find out exactly what my views are before suggesting, in a public document, that they are somehow involved in a massive conspiracy.

I might add here that I too have wondered why US officials would have apparently made it so evident that they did it. I have my own thoughts about this, but am not certain enough about them to go public with them. With regard to your own view, it is certainly possible. But it seems to me very improbable. However, even if you yourself consider your own theory highly probable, I think you should be cautious about simply assuming that there is some close correlation between it and The Truth. And you should, I would suggest, be especially careful about then quickly concluding that anything that possibly might be part of this Big Picture of What Is Really Going On, which you have constructed, is indeed part of it. I would suggest that you should be more cautions still about next, without even checking the truth of various things you have read or heard, suggesting these connections to the world. This is exactly the kind of approach that has given “conspiracy theorists” a bad name.

In any case, to look at the issues you raise: In finding the idea of global government of any sort dangerous, you are certainly endorsing the conventional view. But if you are interested, I would be happy to send you some writings in which I try to show why this conventional view needs to be rethought. Of course, I don’t know exactly why you find the very idea of global government creepy. (I have a list of 10 reasons that have commonly been given for opposing it.) But what I have in mind is a system in which the main decisions about the future of the planet would not be made by a tiny elite group in a nation with around 4 percent of the world’s population. On my own creep-o-meter, this present system of global governance gets extremely high marks. I believe that if we are in favor of democracy as the best way to govern a country, we should be in favor of democracy for human civilization as a whole.

Indeed, if I were so inclined, I could weave a conspiracy theory in which, because you oppose my solution, you are covertly working for those who want to keep the US government in control of the planet. You can see how easy and seductive this logic can be:

(1) X (the present system of global governance) is the real problem.

(2) Angie is denying that X is the real problem.

(3) In fact, Angie is criticizing people who see that X is the real problem.

(4) Therefore, Angie must be an infiltrator in our movement, working on behalf of those who are promoting X.

I myself would like to see a decline of this kind of thinking in the 9/11 Truth Movement and an increase in work that focuses on exposing the perpetrators. For one thing, if we each insist that we will not work with others if we know or even suspect that their motives, their convictions about 9/11, and their worldviews are not the same as our own, we will not have a movement.

In any case, to turn to the more particular issues you raise in relation to me and my associates, by way of suggesting that we are playing roles in your own version of What Is Really Going On:

Richard’s work helped get me started thinking about global democracy, but he has, in spite of my prodding, not been advocating the idea of global democracy in what I call the strong sense (the sense in which Einstein advocated it). You say that you find “one world gov’t. advocates creepy.” I am surprised that you would move from the perception that certain people hold ideas you disagree with to the conclusion that the people themselves are creepy. But since Richard is not advocating one world government, you need to restrict your conclusion to me alone. More generally, in any case, Richard is about the last person to whom I would apply the adjective “creepy.”

With regard to your specific statements. As to the Council of Foreign Relations, Richard became a member in about 1969, he says, and has “remained a member despite a variety of misgivings.” Although he was between trips when I caught up with him to ask him about this, I can imagine he has remained a member with the thought of perhaps having some positive influence. His field is International Law, and he is well known for trying to introduce normative concerns into international politics. He has thereby opposed “political science” insofar as it seeks to leave out all normative (i.e. moral) considerations. He has also been an opponent of “political realism,” at least the sort that maintains that power is all that counts and should count in international relations. One example of his trying to have an influence on CFR was what he describes as “a huge fight with David Rockefeller over the appointment of William Bundy as editor of Foreign Affairs.” With regard to your statement that Richard “has worked on new world order projects for the CFR, like the World Order Models Project,” he reports: “I did have a marginal relationship to the 1980s Project, which was trying to project a set of future conditions in world affairs, and was headed by Princeton colleague, Richard Ullman. It was a rather benign undertaking, and had nothing to do with the world order models project.”

You ask: “What the hell is one to make of a CFR member wanting to expose 9-11?” You seem to have a very simple view of human motivations and belongings, as if you could draw some inference from Richard’s membership in CFR--which is one of literally dozens of organizations to which he belongs and probably one of the least important in his life--and his motivation for exposing the truth about 9/11. He wants to do the latter because he has always worked to expose the truth about important things, and because, through reading my manuscript, he came to believe that the official story about 9/11 was false. To come out publicly with his support for the alternative view took courage on his part, because he had previously argued that the US government’s response in Afghanistan was correct--that it could be considered a “just response” (or could have been if the principles of just-war theory had been followed). This is the issue that he and I most disagreed about. But my point now is that Richard had the courage to say, by writing the Foreword to my book, that he had been wrong.

It would be hard, furthermore, to find many people who have worked longer and harder on behalf of good causes around the world. Because of this, I found your slurs against him the most offensive part of your essay. To suggest that Richard does not really want the truth exposed, or that he is doing this for some nefarious reason, is simply inexcusable. Perhaps John Gray will forgive you, but I confess that I will have difficulty.

I am, furthermore, puzzled as to what research you did for your information about John Cobb. He was formerly my professor and then my colleague at the Claremont School of Theology and in the Department of Religious Studies at Claremont Graduate University, where he taught from the late 1950s until he retired 15 years ago. His wife will surely be somewhat amused to find that he had been moonlighting as the “senior economist for the World Bank.”

I first thought you must have gotten him confused with Herman Daly, but then I see that you mention Herman as well. Herman actually did work for the World Bank, but he--as long the leading advocate of green, sustainable, steady-state economics--could never have been the senior economist at the World Bank. I frankly don’t know what connection he has had with the Club of Rome, but he obviously shares at least some of the concerns of what is probably the most well-known book associated with the Club, The Limits to Growth. But if you would read Herman’s writings, you could disabuse yourself of the suspicion that he would knowingly be involved with any of the nefarious schemes that you suggest are promoted by the Club. I can also tell you that I have thus far been unable to interest Herman in my ideas about global democracy.

Incidentally, you seem to think that “global governance” is simply a synonym for “global government.” But they may be very different. Those who use the language of “global governance” often speak of “governance without government.” I suspect that this is the Club of Rome position. Whether that position is coherent is another question, but if you want to speak accurately about these matters, you need to understand the difference.

Although John is not an economist by training or profession, he did, with Herman’s help, teach himself a lot about economics, and the two of them co-authored a book--For the Common Good: Redirecting the Economy toward Community, the Environment, and a Sustainable Future--which I would commend to your attention. I don’t think you will find it one bit creepy. (Indeed, they explicitly wrote against World Government, evidently having in mind the scary version of it that you share. In the meantime, John’s position has moved closer to mine, but Herman’s, as far as I know, has not.)

John also wrote a book called The Earthist Challenge to Economism: A Theological Critique of the World Bank. But, alas, even that did not get him invited to become the Bank’s senior economist.

He has, however, long been considered one of the best progressive theologians in the world, and he has been passionately concerned about the future of the earth since he awoke to the ecological crisis in the late 1960s. He is, in fact, known as the first philosopher as well as the first theologian to write a book reflecting this concern. His little book, Is It Too Late? A Theology of Ecology, is still considered sufficiently relevant to be reissued. He has in the meantime written many books and article and given countless speeches on the need to change course before we destroy ourselves and much of the rest of the life of the planet. I can assure you that the purity of his motives probably rivals that of your own.

Besides my association with these individuals, the next mark against me in your book is evidently the fact that after Cobb and I founded the Center for Process Studies, it “received support from the Rockefeller Foundation.” Had you written to ask about this, I would have gladly given you more specific information: Our first conference, held in the summer of 1974, brought together a number of distinguished scientists and philosophers to discuss problems in the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution and to consider an alternative to it. It took place at the Rockefeller Foundation’s Study and Conference Center at Bellagio, Italy. The arrangement is that if they accept your application and you can pay the way for all the conferees to get there, they give you room, board, and a meeting place for 3 or 4 days. That has been the extent of our center’s support from the Rockefeller Foundation. Cobb and I acknowledge this support in the Preface of the resulting book, Mind in Nature: Essays on the Interface of Science and Philosophy.

Incidentally, I personally, as an individual scholar, went back to Bellagio in 1992, where my wife and I stayed for about 5 weeks. It was there, in fact, that I first developed the conviction that if the world’s global problems are to be solved, we need to move from the present global structure--technically known as global anarchy--to global democracy. This past year I applied to return, with the hope of finishing a book that I started the day after 9/11. But this time my application was denied. Perhaps I was foolish to reveal my topic: global democracy as the only, or at least the best, way to overcome US imperialism (certainly better than the standard approach, which would be for the other nations to combine forces against us, which would probably be a route to global nuclear war).

You also say that I have “some unusual ideas about how humanity should think about God.” Should I infer from this that you think the usual ideas--those of traditional theism--have been good enough? Compared to traditional theism, in any case, my ideas are indeed “unusual.” But I am a member of the movement known as “process theology,” and one of the complaints leveled against it by some of its opponents is that it has become “the establishment view.” That is, to be sure, a great exaggeration. But it suggests that among informed people, the kind of ideas I advocate are no longer considered unusual. They have in particular been endorsed by many feminist theologians. You could get a brief overview in a book entitled Process Theology, which Cobb and I co-authored in 1977. Some of my reasons for preferring this view to traditional theism are explained in my 1976 book, God, Power, and Evil, and my 1991 book, Evil Revisited. For a feminist process theologian, see the writings of Catherine Keller.

You also seem to think that there is something perverse about the fact that I advocate “some type of mysticism.” You evidently are not much concerned with exactly which type. But you apparently assume that it is some reactionary type, since you say that I apparently want us “to revert” to it. But there are, of course, many different types of mysticism--or, to be more precise, types of positions that are sometimes labelled “mysticism,” whether by their advocates or their detractors.

But since you appear to be interested in this part of my position, let me say that I do indeed endorse “mysticism,” if that term is used in the descriptive sense to mean that there is a Holy Reality with which we are directly connected. According to my epistemology, it is through this direct (nonsensory) connection that we are aware of the normative status of Truth and Justice and sometimes even become committed to having those abstract values actualized. (I explain this in a recent book, Reenchantment without Supernaturalism: A Process Philosophy of Religion.) I also endorse mysticism as a practice, understood as the attempt consciously to cultivate this connection, so that our motivations and actions will be attuned to the good of the whole rather than to our own selfish good or to the good of only some portion of the whole, as in fascism and other forms of exclusivistic nationalism.

With regard to my religious and theological writings, I am glad you referred interested readers to the little interview with me that In Context published back in 1990. But of course we can never assume that we have received an adequate account of a person’s views on complex issues from a brief interview. And my philosophical and theological views are hardly a secret, but have been published in many other books, beyond the ones already mentioned (most of which can be found on Amazon.com). Some people probably wonder, indeed, if I have an unpublished thought.

In any case, given your evident concern for truth and purity of motive, I assumed that you would like to have these clarifications, so that in the future any statements you might wish to make about me and my views can be more accurate.

I was tempted to say something about the slurs you made against other people. But because of limits of time and knowledge, I will not. I do hope, however, that you will consider the possibility that what you have said and insinuated about them may be as ill-informed as what you have said and insinuated about me and my associates.

In closing, let me add that I am sure that you mean well. I would never question your motives. But I do find the kind of approach you took in this particular essay unhelpful. For one thing, you probably will cause several people in the movement to waste time responding. I at the moment, for example, am trying to finish up a book on the 9/11 Commission Report, so every hour is precious. And yet I have now wasted over an hour responding to your ill-informed allegations and innuendoes. I, of course, did not need to respond. I usually simply ignore such stuff. But I have observed how false allegations, if not corrected, often quickly become accepted as established fact. I also noticed that someone in the movement whose opinion I respect spoke favorably of your piece. So I took the time. But I hope not to need to do this again. 

Yours truly,

David Griffin

-------------------------------------------------------------------

October 3, 2004

Dear David,

I’ve received your response to my “The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement” piece ( id24.html ) which you sent to me and many others.  Also having time constraints, I’ll make my reply as brief as yours.

I saw no need to contact you about your views on a one world government because I did check them out myself before I wrote my piece.  I xeroxed from a reference library, for example, an on-point book entitled “Toward Genuine Global Governance” in which you have a chapter entitled ‘Global Government:  Objections Considered’. 

Although you speak therein of the creation of a global government as being the answer to the world’s problems in very altruistic terms, we are not in agreement on the nature of the world’s problems, the underlying premises.  You and all of your previously mentioned friend/writing/project partners (with whom you noted in your recent 911 video presentation you must share generally everything with, beliefs, etc., in common) spread the underlying odious and specious  premise created always initially by those in control of the world’s resources, which I do find even worse than creepy (what I referred to in my prior piece so eloquently as “Malthusian crap”) – that even were the resources of the world to be distributed equitably among the masses of humanity, there are soon to be insufficient resources in the world for everybody.  With this premise, we are, as Brian Salter wrote  “being pre-programmed to lie down and fail to resist genocidal depopulation and precipitous global "downsizing" by fatalistically absorbing the idea that the earth can't support the current population anyway."   This Club of Rome-like Malthusian crap is more recently pushed by things like the ROCKEFELLER, et al., supported Earth Charter Initiative. (Links regarding same are included in a postscript following this reply).

For example, to further the work that you and John Cobb created with the “Center for Process Studies” which you both founded and co-direct, you both conceived and organized (see this issue of your Center’s newsletter at http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Newsletters/PastNewsletters/Vol23No3.pdf and http://www.fordham.edu/philosophy/graduate/syllabi/phga6256_process_philosophy.htm )a coalition of similar centers called the “International Process Network”, which at its founding put out a “Declaration in Support of the Earth Charter Initiative” which described the problem or “the cause of great suffering” to be the: 

“unprecedented rise in human population and scales of human consumption overburdening ecological and social systems.  Seriously unsustainable demands are being placed on our social and ecological systems.”

The declaration went on to state that:

”Through a long participatory process, a new Earth Charter has been proposed for promoting change for a sustainable future.  We give our most sincere and profound support for this new Earth Charter.  We endorse its principles and pledge ourselves to teaching them and living our lies consistently with them.” 

That’s quite a revealing typographical error, by the way.  I assume the intended language above was living our “lives” consistently with them, rather than living our “lies”, but back to the text of your newly founded Network’s declaration in support of the Earth Charter Initiative:

“In addition, we commit ourselves to a philosophical critique of the values and understandings that have led to our present situation.  We pledge ourselves to the development of an integrative understanding of the world that undergirds and supports just and sustainable human communities in an ecologically responsible context.  We are committed to affirming and developing supportive philosophies and actions for the realization of the goals of the Earth Charter.”

Further, organizations joining the Network were advised by your co-director John Cobb that the Earth Charter provides guidance for the activities of everyone’s work:

”Many of the anticipated member organizations are committed to introducing the process perspective into fields such as physics, psychotherapy, education, ecology, and the life of the church.  Many are interested in analyzing the global situation from the process point of view and finding ways to act relevantly.  . . Organizations joining the Network should be aware of these broad commitments.  The importance of these commitments to those who voted to establish the Network was shown by their adoption of a declaration supporting the Earth Charter Initiative.  Belief was expressed that the Network can support the Earth Charter Initiative by providing a philosophical critique of contemporary values and an integrative understanding of the world that undergirds and supports sustainable human communities.  The organizers offered this declaration to the newly founded Network as guidance on the activities that may be undertaken and to the Earth Charter Initiative in support of this important effort.”

There have been other advocates of a one world governmental authority who do not rely on such detestably false premises.  See, for example, R. Buckminster Fuller’s seminal book “Critical Path”, in which a global logistical authority seems to be suggested, but only to distribute the abundant resources always available to afford every person on the planet with a high quality standard of life.  But you and your cronies are not one world gov’t advocates of this type.  So, thanks anyway for the references you have provided to your & your project partners’ work (which I am sharing with others by posting your reply to my website), but that’s the reason I have no interest in delving into your altruistic sounding theories of global governance, or your project partners perhaps somewhat different global governance plans, because they all follow a ‘sustainability’ script written by the same elites who control the world’s resources.  (Below I have a postscript to the 911 Truth community containing many links about the elite’s ‘sustainability’ myth.)

Also, as far as me not understanding the different meanings you find between terms like ‘global government’, ‘global governance’, ‘global democracy’, and the like, for the reason stated above, it’s nothing I’ll spend any time trying to master and it all appears to be, quite frankly, part of a cynical exercise.  See for example, your frequent project partner Richard Falk’s sub-chapter in that same library book mentioned earlier entitled “The Search for a Mobilizing Metaphor” in which he discusses whether the metaphor of a “global neighborhood” will catch on: 

“In an important sense, the global neighborhood metaphor creatively emphasizes the centrality of people at a time when markets and capital seem dominant, affirming, as well, the solidarity of humanity and the ethical need to promote fairness and caring . . . The implication of the word “neighborhood” as employed in the Report, is friendliness, a shared concern for the wellbeing of neighbors, a willingness to help out in times of need.  But the modern world exhibits other, far more sinister conceptions of neighborhood – gang struggles for exclusive control . . . I would be quite surprised if the phrase “global neighborhood” catches on at all, because it appears to fly directly in the face of recent political realities and is thus unlike such phrases as “common security” or “sustainable development,” which clearly struck a responsive chord at the time of their utterance. . . For example, the ambitious moves toward regional and global institutionalization . . . through the creation of the World Trade Organization as a sequel to GATT, definitely move toward global economic governance, but such labels are avoided”.

Also, before I encountered your work David, I had assumed that theologians studied various religions or were on a quest for some sort of divine truth.  You, however, are consciously seeking to mold an entirely new religion (by pulling and transforming bits and pieces from the religions that already exist) to further your goals.  You even ask me in your reply:  “Should I infer from this that you think the usual ideas--those of traditional theism--have been good enough?”  Your sort of calculated synthetic creation of a religion is something I do find to be very creepy:

“Our efforts toward global governance must be two-pronged:  at the same time as the case is being made for the necessity and possibility of global government, people in various religious and philosophical traditions need to be interpreting those traditions, probably through a combination of retrieval and reformation, so as to reveal and emphasize their support for this transition to world unity. . . My major project at present is, in fact, to develop a theology for a new world order . . .”  (from your chapter in the library book cited at beginning).

There’s documentation out there that the Rockefellers have played a role in re-engineering religion, so my mention of your Rockefeller ties was not gratuitous.  As you yourself mention, all applications to the Bellagio-Rockefeller are directly reviewed by the Rockefeller Foundation, and approved based on their content, so your organization’s conference was not merely funded by them.  And it is interesting to learn from your reply that it was actually during your five-week Bellagio-Rockefeller Study Center stay in the early 90’s that you first developed your conviction that a new global structure is a necessity.

Here’s a real life example of the destructive power of invention of a new mystical spirituality which would not “destroy the ecological order of the environment on which collective survival finally depends” sponsored by the Club of Rome connected global elite, in this excerpt of “Hostage to Khomeini”:  “The mullahs did not come to rule in Iran on the basis of their own power; they were placed in power by men more evil than they – who would use the depravity of backwardness for their own ends” at http://www.hoveyda.org/aspen77.html .

Of course you are free, David, to weave your conspiracy theories about me, that I am, for example, covertly working for those who want to keep the US government in control of the planet, but you might have a much harder time of it.  We don’t travel in the same circles, you see.  In fact, you travel in the very circles of the academic handmaidens of the murderously genocidal global elite.  But, hey, maybe some people will believe that your frequent project partner, Richard Falk, is a member of the CFR so as to “positively influence” it, as you suggest.  I’ve heard people joined, and remained, members of the Ku Klux Klan for similar reasons :-).  Lots of luck to him.  And in that “huge fight” you say he had with David Rockefeller, did anyone need medical assistance?  Just curious.

Although Falk told you, by the way, that he:

“did have a marginal relationship to the 1980s [CFR] Project, which was trying to project a set of future conditions in world affairs, and was headed by Princeton colleague, Richard Ullman. It was a rather benign undertaking, and had nothing to do with the world order models project”, 

he is listed in that same 1999 “Toward Genuine Global Governance” reference library book as “being associated with the World Order Project since its founding in the mid-1960’s”, in an on-line bio as the World Order Model Project’s “founding member”  ( http://www.transnational.org/tff/people/r_falk.html ), and elsewhere as the Research Director of its North American Team ( http://www.mediaed.org/btf/Falk/index_html ).

And as far as whether it’s fair of me to draw inferences from Falk’s membership in the CFR--which is one of literally dozens of organizations to which he belongs as you point out, some might also find it interesting that he co-wrote a piece for the CFR’s publication, "Foreign Affairs” entitled “Toward Global Parliament” in 2001, in which he offers guidance to the global elite as to how to preserve capitalism and globalization in the face of growing opposition to it:

“Furthermore, environmental trends pose severe dangers that can be successfully dealt with only through global action and treaties.  Against such a background, it is little wonder that people who believe they possess a democratic entitlement to participate in decisions that affect their lives are now starting to demand their say in the international system. . . Some business leaders would certainly oppose a global parliament because it would broaden popular decision-making and likely press for transnational regulations.  But others are coming to believe that the democratic deficit must be closed by some sort of stakeholder accommodation.  After all, many members of the managerial class who were initially hostile to such reform came to realize that the New Deal – or its social-democratic equivalent in Europe – was necessary to save capitalism.  Many business leaders today similarly agree that democratization is necessary to make globalization politically acceptable throughout the world.  As the recent large street protests suggested, globalization has yet to achieve grassroots acceptance and legitimacy. . . Standing in the wings in the United States and elsewhere are politicians, ultranationalists, and an array of opportunists on both the left and the right who, if given an opening, would seek to dismantle the global system.  A global parliament is therefore likely to serve as an attractive alternative to those people who, out of enlightened self-interest or even public-spiritedness, wish to see the international system become more open and democratic.”

I also find it curious that you deem the Foreword that Richard Falk wrote for your 911 book as some sort of corrective to his earlier published writings in support of the U.S. war on Afghanistan.  “But my point now is that Richard had the courage to say, by writing the Foreword to my book, that he had been wrong.”  Such point might be easier to follow if Falk actually in that Foreword even mentioned the word “Afghanistan” or alluded to that war, which I note he did not.   For those favoring a more direct approach and who want the real deal on the Afghanistan war and U.S. motives concerning same, read “Part 3: Afghanistan: The War the Establishment Wants us to Forget at http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/moore3.htm  and the other parts in that series.

About your other project partners, I did, in fact, mix up which of them is [was?] a Senior Economist for the World Bank.  It’s Club of Rome member Herman Daly rather than John Cobb.  I am puzzled, however, that you appear to doubt that Daly held the title “Senior Economist” because this is, in fact, how he identifies himself on his webpage:

“In 1988 he became Senior Economist in the World Bank's Environment Department. At the World Bank he helped develop policy guidelines related to sustainable development”. ( http://www.geocities.com/combusem/DALY4.HTM ).

You are correct, however, that in my piece I did not criticize the substance of your “New Pearl Harbor – Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11” book.  I myself bought the book in bulk and re-sold some and gave others away.  And like you, I also agree that those in the 911 Truth Movement should seek to “increase [the] work that focuses on exposing the perpetrators”.  I am more of the mind now though, that the movement’s focus, and your book’s, on the Bush Administration, the mere puppets & foot soldiers of the particular moment, does not truly serve that goal, for they’re not the real perpetrators.  The real perpetrators are the global elite - you know, the ones you & your friends seek funding from periodically and in whose think-tanks you work.

Your reprimanding me for sharing my speculations, clearly identified as such, so publicly (as set forth on my website at id24.html ), is kind of ironic given that you identify your 911 book as one long tract of speculations, having not independently verified any of it yourself.  Anyway, nobody likes to watch (or be a part of) a scary movie alone.  By setting forth my fears and speculations publicly, people better equipped than I may be drawn to research them – and that continues to be my hope.  There would be no 911 truth movement whatsoever if speculations weren’t shared publicly, you know.  So it’s of no moment that you are not offering your forgiveness to me, David.  I’m not asking for it. 

Angie

A Postscript to the 911 Truth Community:

I am providing here some starter links, most of which I copied from Brian Salter’s www.questionsquestions.net website for those who are familiar only with mainstream ecology/ pop. growth/ we’re running out of everything/ and one world gov’t is the solution to the ‘sustainable development’ rhetoric, which the 911 skeptic literature is surprisingly and creepily ripe with.  How many of you know that there is a rich alternative literature demonstrating this ‘sustainable development’ mantra is all a scam perpetuated by the very same global elites who ensure that the resources of the world are never distributed equitably?  Have you read any of it?  Or have you given into a knee-jerk reaction to avoiding  “conspiracy theories”, the reaction which all 911 truth movement advocates should know by now is a carefully cultivated one?  Come on, not you 911 skeptics!  Explore the possibilities and don’t dismiss them out of hand.  And realize that is exactly what each of us in the movement is asking others to do about 9-11, to entertain the possibilities, because once they’re examined with an open mind, only then can the truth be revealed.  If 9-11 exposers won’t began examining this ‘sustainability’ scam, then who will?  You’re qualified more than most because 911 skeptics generally have good reading comprehension and logical thinking skills, are not self-centered and have morals. 

All you 911 truth exposers out there must realize that 911 isn’t the only scam that needs exposing.  If 9/11 woke you up, good, but stay awake ‘cause there’s much more out there that we must teach each other.  Manufactured terror is only one tool among many in the arsenal of those who seek to manipulate & maintain a world in which a third of the population is denied, for example, access to clean water.  911 is not THE sole conspiracy, the conspiracy to end all conspiracies, just one of many of their crimes/methods of which there are great variety.  I only got into the 9/11 Truth Movement because I thought it would be one of the easiest of the crimes to help expose, one which if revealed is sure to stir those in the belly of the beast, thus providing us with some hope.  And I therefore maintain that it is suspicious and creepy that some 911 truth exposers participate in other such scams. 

Okay, here are the starter links:

-See Jim Rarey’s “Environmental ‘Angels’” article at http://www.worldnewsstand.net/MediumRare/29.htm  for a taste of this, a discussion of who it is that is behind this “mantra of sustainable development” and why.  For other tastes, see the following: 

-“The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant - For those who may have dismissed the notion of a UN Agenda for a New World religion used to usher in sweeping anti-constitutional environmental agreements, I offer the following)” at http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NWO/Earth_Charter_Ark.htm ; http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2002/ark.html