portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

Corp. Globalists move in on 9-11 truth movement: spin it for national/democratic demotion

This is a review of some of the most questionable groups in the 9-11 truth movement.

Worth reading the affiliations and funding patterns of different institutions and/or biases in the huge box called 'the 9-11 truth movement.' She claims several of these groups are using the 9-11 truth issue to spin for national/democratic demotion. Some of the most well funded and snazzy even have very interesting pro-corporate globalist Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)
connections or desires.

If know thy enemy is sturdy advice, know one's enemy's who dresses in sheep's clothing is better advice. By 'enemy' I suppose I personally mean pro-corporate globalists and people who see that removing the nation state's democratic and economic underpinnings, or removing all reflections of localism, is somehow 'progressive.' However, even though I would find some other cultural aspects of globalism definiately progressive, politically and economically so far it is very regressive and feudal. I have noticed a few of her points, though I have missed a lot more of them--until now. I would make a much greater difference than she does between facts/events and spin/interpretation. There is still a lot of 9-11 truth out there, regardless of how you spin it.

Worth putting in the 9-11 archive on Portland IMC...
The Creepy Sides Of The
911 Truth Movement
By Angie angie.

Discussing first possible motivations for the 9-11 Attacks, then possible motivations of those wanting the 911 Truth exposed. New 9-11 books and film also touched upon... ____

Watch your back, ladies and gentlemen, there are some people with creepy agendas in the 911 Truth Movement, movers & shakers, and people with money.

So, you say you want to help expose 911 because you think it's the crime that will wake people in the U.S.A. up? Make them, in some vague way, rise up against it all?

Well, watch out for the people who have much more focused, organized, funded, and creepy visions of what to do once the truth is exposed. Don't assume everyone in this movement is in it for the same reasons you are. There are people who seek to expose 911 for reason X, with reason X being their true agenda. We should look at some of these reason "X's".

Previously on this website, I've cautioned that just because someone wears a 911 Truth Movement hat and identifies themselves as working for the cause doesn't mean they really want 911 truth exposed as their actions and their words may belie that label if you look close enough. And although there are more examples of that all the time, in this piece, I'm cautioning you about something different, to realize that just because someone wears a 911 Truth Movement hat AND may want the 911 truth exposed, doesn't mean they want it exposed for "good" reasons. (It's possible you could want it exposed and still be a bad guy.)

We need to know what some might have up their sleeves if what we all hope for comes true, that we succeed in getting the 911 truth exposed. In this way, we are preparing for success, preparing for the next step in the process, the process, yes, of solving the ills of the masses of humanity, by also preparing ourselves to combat the next steps of those whose solutions we feel would cause harm and who have a leg up on us in their planning.

To examine the agendas of the movers & shakers and the wealthy 911 Truth Movement activists, it helps to first examine what activists believe was the motivation for the 9-11 attacks themselves. Many in the movement have answered this question, of the motives for the attacks, differently.

Most note that the attacks have made the responding "war on terror" pretext a household phrase. We've now got a brand new war to fight, to pour all our resources into, the one that won't end in our lifetimes. And the new enemy is not located in any particular country. First, they're here, now they're over there, so it's a carte blanche enemy that the attacks have engendered, a powerful motive for those who profit from war and misery. And this new enemy may be right beside us in sleeper cells too, so we've got to watch each other and be watched, which will become more helpful to the powers-that-be as more and more of us become disgruntled.

Some believe, on the other hand, that 9-11 and the "war on terror" is really "all about oil", and to those, I recommend Jared Israel's piece debunking Michael Moore where he demonstrates that's simply not factual, see

 http://emperors-clothes.com/moore.htm .

Also, while most in the movement admit that the USA created Osama and the Mujadaheen in the 80's, they think we're talking about ancient history and that the 9-11 attacks were only staged to defame Muslims. In fact, the USA has never stopped sponsoring Islamic fundamentalist terror (as you'll see if you read the links at the end of Jared Israel's Michael Moore debunking article cited above, which also discusses the reasons for this sponsorship). And you can see how this rings true and explains a hell of a lot when you examine, for example, what's currently going on in Iraq, city after city, and also how the USA is on the one hand portraying Sadr as the enemy, while on the other, its building him up. And a devastatingly successful attack on the USA even against its Pentagon, being billed erroneously as being conducted by Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists, can aid in the USA's continued recruitment and sponsorship of same, making for an effective sales pitch to those with legitimate grievances against the belly of the beast because the cause, fighting the u.s., doesn't look hopeless after all, considering what they supposedly accomplished against the USA on 9-11.

Of course, there are many in the movement whose only agenda is to tar Bush and the rest of his Republican administration, the 'anybody but Bushies', who want nothing more than a superficial changing of the guard even though manufactured terror is nothing new to Democratic Presidential Administrations and even though the attacks must have been planned pre-Bush, see

 http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id23.html .

It's disheartening to see so many clueless. It's as if some people just started reading the newspaper or looked outside themselves beginning in 2001.

And there are those who use 9-11 seeking to advance an anti-Semitic agenda. I've never in my life come across so much anti-Semitic material as when I joined the 911 Truth Movement, and sad to say, it comes from those I would otherwise term most militant in the movement.

Common too is the pointing, by people who should know better that the evidence demonstrates 9-11 was an inside job, at countries other than the u.s. as being the true culprits, creating motivations for the u.s. to attack other countries. Think Michael Moore and the Saudis; or Pakistan and Paul Thompson, whose timeline based solely on mainstream corporate news reporting (you know, what we've all learned to trust so much :-) has just been released in book form. "Paul says either the US government was directly involved with Pakistan and other countries in the 9-11 plot and allowed it to happen or helped it to happen, or the US government was taken for fools and afterwards covered up their foolishness"


Here's to hoping that ridiculous conclusion isn't published in the Thompson Timeline book, which I've just purchased but haven't yet read.

A quick aside - I note with distress that the forward to Thompson's celebrated 590 page book was written by Peter Lance who is also making the rounds at 9-11 truth movement events himself, pushing his own new Terror Cover Up book. Here's an excerpt from an interview with Lance promoting his own new book: "Lance doesn't subscribe to the notion that U.S. authorities intentionally allowed the 9/11 attack to occur in order to justify the Bush administration's new, aggressively unilateral approach to world affairs, explaining, "I'm not some conspiracy guy, I'm a hard-bitten journalist." Instead, he attributes the cover-up to the oldest motivation in the book - covering one's ass . . . [over] screw ups".


And sad to say, here is Paul Thompson in his book's introduction, speaking not of governmental complicity or of an inside-job, but of failures: "Who in our government failed in their constitutional duty to 'protect and defend' us from these attacks? And how can we ensure that such failures will not occur again? We must find answers to these questions. The United States will remain vulnerable - we are not safe and we will not be safe - until we can answer these questions, until we can call to account those who have failed us, and until we repair institutional dysfunctions that contributed to this failure." Simply outrageous!!

There's also been another possible motive for the 9-11 attacks that I've speculated about since the beginning. Have you ever wondered why the 9-11 official story was so implausible and so sloppily put together? (you know, the simultaneous hijacking of four different planes by people armed with mere boxcutters, the suicide notes found in luggage that inadvertently didn't make it on the planes, Arabic flight manuals left in cars in the airport, and a million other things they did which seem like obvious plants, or things they didn't do or create which would have squelched many of the 9-11 skeptics early on.) It's as if they want us to see through the whole thing. Could the perpetrators, in fact, want a 911 Truth Movement to flourish? And if so, why?

Perhaps the perpetrators are deliberately setting up the U.S. to be the bad guy to the rest of the world, perhaps to give the rest of the world the notion that they'd have to consolidate to fight the sole superpower, getting us that much closer to a one world government that so many global elite long for. Perhaps the 'transparent 9-11 inside job/ mass murder deliberately painted on others for a non-ending war pretext' is just a part of that, part of the intentional plotting to have the U.S. be seen as the real rogue nation that others must get together to fight against.

Everywhere you look, it seems, the U.S. goes out of its way, against its interests, to put itself in the worst possible light. The U.S. could easily have, for example, planted weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to make itself look better, but it didn't. And the U.S. could perform identical horrible actions around the world without the seemingly intentionally abrasive and arrogant foreign policy pronouncements which alienate our allies' populations. And why has the U.S. media and even governmental officials taking a liking recently to reporting on war prisoner abuse when they've never paid such close attention to it so close in time to it before? It's hard to believe that the sloppiness of 9-11, and these other items, are just due to the incompetence of those in charge, and so I speculate.

Thus, while it is only prudent to always ask, in any movement, where the money is coming from and what are the agendas of the prominent people in it, it is also for this additional reason that I am particularly curious about those who seek to expose 9-11, in case that was part of the plan all along . . . So, each time I come across one of the 911 Truth Movement funders or movers & shakers whose raison d'etra outside of 9-11 happens to be the advocacy of a one world government, Malthusian crap, or other weird and scary stuff, it makes me stand up and take notice because it's occurred to me to ask - what if a bottom line motive for the attacks was the very EXPOSURE of the inside-job nature of the attacks so as to justify the need for the weird and scary stuff?

In other words, in the problem-reaction-solution paradigm, (where problems are intentionally created by those who seek to implement a ready made goal & their goal appears to be a natural solution to the problem they in fact created) perhaps the created problem isn't the attacks themselves, but the exposure of the attacks for what they are. To ensure that our 911 truth exposure efforts aren't actually giving the enemy what they want, we've got to closely examine what's going on.

In the 911 Truth Movement Movers & Shakers department, we've got Mike Ruppert, who will soon be releasing a new book which he says will demonstrate gov't official complicity in the 911 attacks. It's entitled "CROSSING THE RUBICON: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil", "a detective story that gets to the innermost core of the 9/11 attacks. It places 9/11 at the center of a desperate new America, created by specific, named individuals in preparation for Peak Oil: an economic crisis like nothing the world has ever seen". Ruppert appears to be a volunteer mouthpiece for the oil industry/gov't, who seeks to - through 911 truth exposure - spread the peak oil scam as well as make people believe there are no viable alternative energies worth pursuing .

(See Brian Salter's post at  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/cia-drugs/message/19884 as well as a couple of links at  http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id16.html.)

As Mike Ruppert has previously written: "[t]he truth is that the real story - the only story -- is Peak Oil and Gas, and that 9/11 was its first visible manifestation. I fight to expose Peak Oil in part by exposing 9/11 in a way that registers in the public consciousness. That is my obligation to my readers and - as I see it - to my fellow man." www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603kennedy.html

And for creepiness, get this, Ruppert also wants to inform us that because of "peak oil", "population reduction" is a necessity, the only question we have to decide, he told us all at the 911 Inquiry in San Francisco, is whether we want to do it "nice or nasty".

When I asked him at the organized Q&A session afterwards, how does one do "population reduction" nicely, I expected the same answer he had written about earlier: about how he advocated "the immediate convening of political/economic/spiritual/& scientific leaders from all nations . . . [to come up with] immediate steps to arrive at a crash program . . . to arrive at the best possible and most ethical program of population reduction"


But he cleaned that up a little by San Franciso (after critics pointed out what they thought of the nations' political and economic leaders), and this time, Ruppert indicated that he 'didn't have any plan except that everyone in the world has to decide together'. Now, he's on his book promotion tour, making speeches in which he quotes approvingly from past elite funded, sick and racist eugenics supporters like Charles Galton Darwin, whom Ruppert refers to as "distinguished".


Another mover and shaker, David Ray Griffin, is the author of the book, The New Pearl Harbor, beloved by many in the 911 Truth Movement as providing a definitive 911 skeptics account, even discussing various physical evidence claims pointing to 9-11 being an inside job. Writing his book's forward is Richard Falk. They're often a team, David Ray and Richard, both one world government aficionados (and I don't know about you, but I do admit to finding one world gov't advocates creepy) who work on the same projects and write for the same publications advocating a world government solution.

Richard Falk, in fact, is a member of the CFR, the Council on Foreign Relations. He's worked on new world order projects for the CFR, like the World Order Models Project financed by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Rockefeller Foundation. What the hell is one to make of a CFR member wanting to expose 9-11? Another frequent writing/project partner of Griffin is John Cobb, former senior economist for the World Bank. Griffin and Cobb founded the Center for Process Studies which received support from the Rockefeller Foundation. Griffin and Cobb have also co-authored some materials with Club of Rome member Herman Daly. Griffin, himself, referred to as the "well known theologian", has some unusual ideas about how humanity should think about God and apparently wants us to revert to some type of mysticism on our path to the new world order. Here's an interview of him talking about it:


Continuing in the movers & shakers vein, we've got Kyle Hence's partner, Byron Belitsos, the co-founder and Board Member of 911truth.org. Actually, we're moving into the 911 Truth Movement funders category because Byron is also a publisher. He edited and published Jim Marrs' 911 Inside Job book. (And in a Time-Warner-ish aside, Bryon writes in Marrs' book without indicating he's in any way himself connected with the organization, let alone one of its two founders: "P.S. A special note to researchers: Be sure to visit 911Truth.org, the portal site of the leading researchers, writers, publishers, activists, webmasters, and leaders in the 9/11 truth movement.")

Besides being a self-proclaimed leader of the 911 Truth Movement, Byron is another one of these one world government people and is, in fact, releasing next month a book he co-wrote urging a world government, which he indicates in his preface to Jim Marrs' 9-11 book is meant to really supplement Marrs' 9-11 book: "I also felt directed to publish a second book, which is an Origin Press companion to Inside Job. This book is entitled One Planet: A Progressive Vision of Enforceable Global Law. I saw in an instant that these two books go together, one stating the problem in stark terms, and the other offering a visionary but achievable solution to the war system--the abolition of war altogether." Here's more from Byron, who also promotes an 'alternative bible' called The Urantia Book: "In times of great crisis, opposites often arise together in pristine purity. Unleash a great evil in one place, and its nemesis arises somewhere else. Knock a dying paradigm off the world stage, and a new one kicks up out of the blue. (PNAC-ish, right?) . . . The Bush administration, representing the last gasp of imperialist unilateralism in an interdependent world, is perversely teaching us one such isolated truth: that firm enforcement of international law is needed in a dangerous world."


Byron has also published the book of another one world government promoter making the rounds in various 9-11 Truth Movement programs, Jim Garrison, president of the State of the World Forum. The book is entitled "America as Empire: Global Leader or Rogue Power?"

Let's turn to more 911 Truth Movement funders and examine whether they have agendas beyond the mere exposure of 9-11. Who funds various 911 Truth Movement organizations and projects, and why? It's actually not so easy to get details on this. Nicholas Levis, of NY(NewYork)911Truth and one of the regional directors of the national 911truth.org who also works on its website has noted, for example, that: "Donors have a right to remain anonymous. I will tell you that 911Truth.org does not accept any money with conditions attached, except that of course all money is supposed to be spent in keeping with the group's published mission statement." (For an aside on that group's mission statement, see

 http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id7.html) .

Lori Price, moderator of the 911 Truth Alliance internet riseup newsgroup, (in which I used to participate until she kicked me off), also of CLG, Citizens for a Legitimate Government, believes movement funding is not a question to be addressed publicly:

-----Original Message-----
From: Lori R. Price
Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 3:32 PM
To: Angie; 911truthalliance list; Nicholas Levis

I just want to know about it's organization, personnel and funding, something I think everyone should know about when deciding whether they want to promote an organization to others in addition to analyzing what the organization and its personnel have already put out there.

People should NOT have to reveal the funding/supporters of their website --to this list, anyway. Such a request should be sent privately, and if the website owner wants to respond, or post such info to the list, that's up to him/her to take such an action.


Well, let's see what information has been made public thus far.

Jimmy Walter of www.walden3.org, heir to his father's company's fortune, has been pouring LOTS of money into the 911 Truth Movement lately, although I don't have any dollar figures. (Last year, he spent more than $250,000 on anti-war print ads.) You know that poll of New Yorkers you've heard so much about in the 911 Truth Movement, conducted by the famous & expensive pollsters, Zogby? Well, he sponsored it. He's also put out a huge budget for a program he sponsored, a New York 911 Event to be held on 9/11/04, and also paid for press and radio advertisements for it. And on his website, he has indicated that he would send a free copy of Eric Huftschmid's 9-11 'Painful Questions' book to any fire station, police precinct, judge, or politician." [sounds fine to me!]


(If anyone lets all fire stations, police precincts & judges know of this offer, have them email  jwalter@walden3.org with their mailing address.)

So, what's Jimmy Walter's agenda? Well, check out his website, www.walden3.org, but beware that your creepy-ometer will skyrocket & the hair on the back of your neck will stand up. At least that was my reaction. It seeks to promote "rational, planned and sustainable cities" and it promotes its model to everyone, even fascists. "Libertarians, socialists, objectivists, communists, fascists, capitalists, or a combination of economic systems can use our hypothetical city-factory-machine." As Brian Salter has advised me, "Walden3 is not a new concept. It fits a history of communitarianism and "sustainable development" used as a cover for feudalism." What's involved in making these "sustainable cities" work? Here are a couple of excerpts from the website:

"The school and socialization systems train citizens in Rational Emotive Behavior Theory [REBT], the modern, scientific combination of Stoicism and Epicureanism. This teaches rational acceptance of life and one's self, and how to control emotions, preventing or correcting emotional and thinking problems early."

"When people give up these exaggerations, they acquire high frustration tolerance, which encourages them to accept (not like) life's hardships and other people's imperfections."

Previously, Jimmy Walter has put some of his stuff into practice with his Life Skills Foundation which took in over $3 million dollars in 1998 but may now be defunct. It gave "Life Skills" training to inmates at more than 60 locations in 11 states and Great Britain:

"We believe that if you change the way people think, you change the way they act and consequently you change their destiny . . . The Life Skills Foundation believes that the first step toward creating a better future is motivating people to take personal responsibility for their lives and emotions and educating them in cognitive thinking and life management skills. . . . Our successes have proven that society does not have a high school dropout problem, an education problem, a job market problem, a drug problem, a crime problem, or a street gang problem. These and countless other "problems" that society focuses on are, in reality, merely symptoms of motivation, cognitive, and life skills deficits."

No job market problem? Yep, it's all in our minds. It's how we react to those jobs which are offered, that's the real problem, I guess :-).

So, is the 911 Truth Movement taking Jimmy's money without promoting his Walden3 stuff? No, it's not. His sponsorship and website are listed in promotional material for the 911 projects he supports and mentioned at said 9-11 events, so his promotion of 911 Truth exposure will draw attention to his Walden3 "philosophy". He's also donated tons of anti-bush t-shirts which contain his walden3 web address to NY911truth which sells them to raise funds. (Another group to which he has donated these t-shirts is moderator of the 911 Truth Alliance, Lori Price's 'anybody but bush' CLG website organization. You can buy them here:

 http://www.legitgov.org/T_shirts_bush_chickenhawk_011704.html )

Thus, in return for his funds, the 911 Truth Movement is itself promoting his stuff.

Next, we've got 911 Truth Movement funder John Gray. You know him, he's the marriage counselor/author of "Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus" and other worldwide bestsellers, who does all those info-commercials. He's helped financially support the Toronto 9-11 International Inquiry, has lent money to its organizer, Barrie Zwicker, and also will be putting out television info-commercials advertising Zwicker's just released 9-11 documentary, "The Great Conspiracy", perhaps in a bundle with other films or materials. As Zwicker has noted: "John is helping out financially with various aspects of the 9/11 skeptics movement. In my own case there are no gifts. The money has to be paid back."

I saw Zwicker's new film tonight. Lots of great stuff in it, but along the way, he sells the "peak oil" scam; and that it is the primary motive for the attacks; sells Ruppert -in fact, it's an unabashed commercial for Ruppert, whom if I heard right Zwicker refers to as the very first 911 skeptic in the world; sells Ruppert's soon to be released new book; and sells the wargame confusion air force defense line

(see  http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/id8.html re: wargames),

each of which made me more than cringe.

Well, what is funder John Gray's line on 9-11? I've transcribed from audio posted on the internet his response to a question at the Toronto 9-11 Inquiry. You can listen to it here:


Question from an audience member:

"John, in conclusion of your speech, I understood you to say that we could heal ourselves by forgiving the government for letting the terrorists commit the attacks. My question to you is what makes you believe this long after 9/11 that the terrorists who committed the attacks weren't within the U.S. government?"

John Gray's Answer:

"I've written several books on forgiveness, and whenever anybody talks about forgiveness they always think, it's like if you have a good excuse, then I forgive you. Like, let's say I'm late for dinner, my wife's upset with me, and I say, but honey there was a fire on the bridge and I rescued a child, and she say's oh, okay, that's a great excuse, I forgive you. That's not what forgiveness is. That means she doesn't need to forgive me because I have a great excuse. The government doesn't have a great excuse. These are murderers. The people we really need to forgive are the Congress that allowed them to do it, because they know a lot of the details. And they're kind of like on the edge and they don't know ALL the information.

So finding forgiveness for a government doesn't mean that you say that they had good reasons for it. They didn't have good reasons for it, they're killers and there's murderers and there's a few of them, there's not a whole lot of them. So, we want to forgive the whole government because they were fooled just like we've been fooled. And for those people we forgive them as mentally ill and we put them away and we make a big show of it. I would personally like to even, I'm always out of the box a little bit, but I think that I would like to make a big show of it and demonstrate through brain scans the problems with their brains. My research in the last 10 years is about brain research, differences between men and women and brain research.

And I bet every penny I have that if we could do live brain scans, that these men who run that will have very inactive prefrontal cortex which is associated with people, and this is a fact, there's people who can't feel happy unless there's violence in front of them, unless they're dropping bombs. And let me give you one brief example of that, in America, I know the statistics there, 1 out of 5 boys, 1 out of a 100 girls, and 1 out of 5 boys is taking Ritalin for ADD symptoms, which is an inactive prefrontal cortex. But, you put 'em on a videogame with bombs and immediately the brain starts producing more dopamine which is pleasure and their brain begins functioning in a cogent, clear way. So what happens is these are smart guys, some of them, some of them aren't (George Bush), but they're smart guys, but they're unable to experience pleasure in their lives without some sort of stimulation. And I believe that before anybody could ever be elected to a high authority position that we should do brain scans on their brains, make sure that their brain chemicals are normal because these people don't have normal brain chemicals."

I wonder if any of this "forgive the whole government" stuff will be in the television infomercials.

Brian Salter and others have done some very interesting research into John Gray's background. See his "John Gray Dossier" at


You'll also read there the unfortunate manner in which this research was greeted by many in the 911 Truth Movement.

And the creepiness continues . . . Many in the movement also speak positively of another past one world government/eugenics supporter, Bertrand Russell. As Brian Salter has noted: "many in the 9/11 truth movement think that Russell should be its model... just goes to show how frighteningly behind the curve people are in understanding how subtle the manipulation and infiltration of popular movements can be, and how exacting and unbending our watchdog efforts need to be in turn.

 http://www.questionsquestions.net/docs04/russell.html .

As Brian Salter has also noted: "The other part which is even more deceptive centers on agendas like the Club of Rome and the elites' hijacking of environmental issues and organizations to create a cover for eugenics, depopulation, social engineering, and anti-development/ de-industrialization programs, as well as using "sustainable development" as a wedge issue for "global governance" . . . The difficulty these people have faced since World War II is posed by the question, "How does one resurrect the eugenics/population reduction agenda, which everyone would now associate with Hitler, in a form where few will recognize it?" This is what should guide investigation... I think that we are 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. . ."

I am not suggesting here that we should necessarily turn down all gifts to the 911 Truth Movement. But I am suggesting that we continue to look all gift horses, and prominent 911 activists, straight in the mouth, and see what we're getting ourselves into and what we may be promoting without even being aware of it.

David Ray Griffin responds 13.Sep.2004 15:42


Dear Angie,

A couple of people recently sent me your piece, "The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement."  http://www.rense.com/general57/911.htm 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 p
ublished 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

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

correct url for article 14.Sep.2004 09:57


The 'Creepy Sides of Truth Movement' article above appears on its' authors

911 Truth Movement Musing (Watching the Watchers)

You'll also find the author's correct email address there, (unlike the erroneous one above).

And Angie Replies to Griffin's response 04.Oct.2004 17:32

Angie from http://Angieon911.com

October 3, 2004

Dear David,

I've received your response to my "The Creepy Sides of the 911 Truth Movement" piece (  http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/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  http://mysite.verizon.net/vze25x9n/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.


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

-See Jon Rappoport on Malthus:  http://www.nomorefakenews.com/archives/archiveview.php?key=2033

-"Hidden in this warning about a hypothetical breakdown in global over-consumption was an urge to mobilize Western opinion against a real political spectre. People in the Third World were struggling to escape from poverty. They no longer wanted to be part of a world order where Western European and North American corporations gobbled up their natural resources and exploited their labour. That was the threat. The challenge from the oppressed nations was transformed into a myth of destruction." from 'The Stockholm Conference' at  http://www.mikaelnyberg.nu/english/greut_05.html .

-Introduction to "Population and Environment - The Third Revolution" re: Malthus, etc.: at www.cnie.org/pop/3rev/wisdom.htm

-"By the 1970s elitist intellectuals and globalist institutions had focused on population growth and industrial development as two of the most pressing enemies of the human race. The United Nations, the Club of Rome, the Tavistock and Aspen Institutes and many other organizations that served as mouthpieces for the ruling elites all began crying out that the environment was being destroyed and that industrialization was becoming a terrible menace. Technology, science and human progress were falling out of favor. The elites considered the earth's resources their possessions and they did not want to share them with an emerging and developing Third World". At  http://www.redmoonrising.com/Ikhwan/MB.htm , very long but interesting, and also with a long section on 'The Roots of Islamic Terrorism'.

- "After World War II, the eugenics movement discovered (or invented) the population explosion and whipped up global hysteria about it." "Ford, Mellon, DuPont, Standard Oil, Rockefeller and Shell . . . The population control movement was the same money, the same leaders, the same activities - with a new excuse." "Perhaps the clearest example of the power of the eugenics movement today is in China, with its one-child-only family policy." Introduction to Eugenics at  http://www.eugenics-watch.com/intro.html

-For the Bush Family, Rockefeller & other elite's ties to the Eugenics movement, see this chapter of Webster Tarpley's book at:  http://www.kmf.org/williams/bushbook/bush3.html

-See this page for a discussion of the Kissinger signed U.S. National Security Study Memorandum 200 declassified in 1989 (the text of which is widely available on the internet) on U.S. depopulation strategies:  http://www.theinterim.com/july98/20nssm.html

In private email exchanges, Brian Salter has also passed on the following about the Earth Charter, which he's graciously allowed me to share:

"The Earth Charter is being pushed by Mikhail Gorbachev through his Green Cross Organization. Gorbachev is a friend of former secretary of State George Schultz, who has been a participant in Gorbachev's 'State of the World Forum' alongside other elite luminaries like Zbigniew Brzezinski and James Baker. With that in mind, note that Schulz played a central role in assembling the foreign policy team, aka the "vulcans", of the current Bush administration! The Earth Charter launch in 2000 was ceremonially presided over by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, who was one of a few key European royals who supported the US invasion of Iraq while most of the governments of Europe opposed it. She's also an important figure in Bilderberg & the Club of Rome, and whose massive fortune came from Royal Dutch Shell. These facts present a few problems vis a vis presenting the Earth Charter agenda as part of an oppositional "solution" to what lies behind the current "Pax Americana" crisis. Making matters worse, the Dutch royal family is also connected to the roots of modern Christian Fundamentalism / Christian Zionism! According to investigative journalist Anton Chaitkin, the Dutch royals were leading sponsors of the International Christian Fellowship, whose founder Abraham Veriede was a personal spiritual advisor to Prince Bernhard. Veriede, who invented the tradition of Presidential prayer breakfasts, mentored one Harald Bredesen, who would launch the career of US Pentecostal evangelist Pat Robertson. Chaitkin has also found links between the Dutch royals and the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem, a nexus for fundamentalist 'Temple Mount' armageddonists. Vereide's convert Prince Bernhard, a former Nazi officer, was a co-founder of the World Wildlife Fund with England's Prince Philip, who once stated: "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." Thus, the sponsorship of the Earth Charter represents a second generation of Anglo-Dutch aristocrats taking a lead in Malthusian environmentalism for entirely questionable reasons, and the idea that it is necessary to create a new world eco-religion to "save" humanity from the supposed faults of traditional religion appears to me to be just another stage of the same agenda that has brought about our current disastrous state of world affairs in the first place, with the same forces guiding the two sides that Griffin and others present as the 'problem' and the 'solution'."

And see other links to "environment, malthusians, post-industrial ideology" at Brian Salter's website:



911 Truth Movement Musings (Watching the Watchers)