Interview With `The World Is Turning' Author Don Paul
New Orleans-based Rebuild Green co-founder and Chief Prosecutor for the "San Diego Citizen's Grand Jury on the Crimes of 9/11" Don Paul was recently interviewed about the Obama Administration's first 100 days and about his "The World Is Turning: `9/11,' The Movement for Justice & Reclaiming America for the World" book.
Why did you decide to write your new book, "The World Is Turning"?
Don Paul [DP]: It seemed like it might be helpful. You know, build a better door-stoop. In truth, I wanted this new book to be a fairly comprehensive resource into the crimes of 9/11/01 and their connections to predicaments that surround us, the world's working-class people, in 2009.
Let me tell a little story that relates to your question. Last November I was a guest of Venezuela's National Library (the CENALO for the 6th annual Ferra Internacional del Libro en Venezuela (the FILVEN). Cuban national radio interviewed me after one panel. After ten or so minutes of hearing my emphatic particulars about holes in the Official Story for 9/11/01, the Cuban journalist asked, as I recall: "Why are you so obsessed to bring light to this obscure situation in the United States?"
"Because," I replied, "the Big Lie of 9/11 remains the foundation for the War on Terror, and the War on Terror is headed directly toward the financial Establishment of the Western world's pathological dream of a New World Order. So, by exposing the true perpetrators of the horror of September 11, 2001, we can turn their psychological-operation against them." Readers can hear the full interview on Cuban national radio, if they like, at www.wireon-fire.com/donpaul/wit.html.
Since 2008 there have been four substantial, peer-reviewed papers which detail and corroborates that nano-thermites are present in dust and chips from the World Trade Center Twin Towers and Building 7 destruction sits—nano-thermites being ideal, high-tech means for the demolition of those three buildings.
9/11 is still the Big Lie behind the United States' endless wars in the 21st century. The Obama Administration now wishes to call the "War on Terror" "Overseas Contingency Operations"—a term that may remind some of "collateral damage" for civilian deaths in Vietnam—but this lie of a War remains the same damned deceit that kills tens of thousands of people and costs hundreds of billions of dollars and that more represses civil liberties each year.
Last February, at a press-conference to announce the increase of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by 17,000, the new President said about Afghanistan "The bottom line though—and I just want to remember the American people, because this is going to be difficult—is this is a situation in which a region served as the base for an attack that killed 3000 Americans." That is, he endorsed the fairy-tale that al-Qaeda orchestrated the "Attack on America"—with that attack's demolition of the three WTC skyscrapers and its distraction of North American air defenses—from command-centers in Afghan caves.
Nonsense! A bogey-man story of the Other, the Enemy, that serves a corrupt agenda instead of courageously examining obvious realities.
Finally, "The World Is Turning" is meant to directly connect orchestrators of "Attack on America" and the 9/11/01 mass-murder in Lower Manhattan with orchestrators and beneficiaries of 2007-2009's "New Depression".
When Barack Obama was campaigning for U.S. President last year he claimed that he would bring "change," "peace" and "prosperity" to the United States and the world--if U.S. voters elected him. With regard to responding to the 9/11 Truth Movement's demands for a full investigation of what actually happened on September 11, 2001, do you think the Democratic Obama Administration has brought sufficient "change" during its first 100 days in office?
Don Paul [DP]: I don't know of any change between the current U.S. Administration's lack of response to such demands and the prior U.S. Administration's lack of response to such demands.
Let me add that I think it would be useful to take Presidents and skin-tones out of the picture if we're trying for accurate analysis. To me, Barack Obama is clearly the most gifted U.S. President since JFK. To me, Barack Obama can be a very appealing person. In my view the personal attributes of U.S. Presidents never affect the agendas they've been installed to fulfill—unless they rebel, as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, James Garfield and John F. Kennedy rebelled at control of our Government by financiers.
Jeffrey Davidow is Obama's chief advisor for Latin America—and Jeffrey Davidow at the U.S. Embassy in Chile, 1971 to 1974, approved the fascist Pinochet regime and its mass murders after the overthrow of Salvador Allende. Paul Volcker heads Obama's Economic Recovery Advisory Board—and Paul Volcker as Chairman of the Federal Reserve System in the Carter and Reagan Administration brought interests rates up to 21.5% in the early 1980s, thereby bringing ruin to millions of farmers and other manual workers around the world. Timothy Geithner as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from 2003 to 2008 oversaw exactly the excesses and criminality that have brought misery and crises to working-class and middle-class Americans. And we'll simply note the old-school Trilateralists who endorse this Administration—Zbignew Brzezinski, who advised Obama at Columbia University in 1983, and Henry Kissinger, who employed Geithner at his consulting firm from 1985 to 1988.
These operatives have nothing to do with idealistic beliefs in Barack Obama—beliefs in "Hope" for "Change"—beliefs that helped to make Obama the first African-American U.S. President. A wish for belief in ideals is still the true hope of millions—or billions—of people around the world. Such a wish, or love, or belief in potentialities, has kind of animated and tortured me for decades. I have to say now that while the shell of the ship the United States wears a new face, its secret compartments hold the same old goods, weapons, and elitists' bills of ownership.
When Barack Obama was campaigning for Democratic presidential primary votes in Louisiana last year he seemed to be promising U.S. voters that he would do a lot to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and elsewhere--if he were elected president. As a writer-activist who has spent a number of years living in New Orleans in the post-Katrina period, do you think the Democratic Obama Administration has done enough to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina in its first 100 days?
Don Paul [DP]: Well, again I hate to say but have to say: I know of nothing new and significant that's been done by the current U.S. Administration to help victims of flooding in New Orleans and elsewhere in southern Louisiana. About 1/3 of New Orleans' pre-2005 flood natives are still not back in the city—despite widely expressed desires to return by these tens of thousands of dispossessed people—and the percentage is at least 2/3 in the Lower 9th Ward and St. Bernard Parish. Lack of communication to pre-flood natives—lack of education, health-care, temporary lodgings, and living-wage employment altogether—are the main reasons so many are still not back. And the Federal, State and City Governments are all to blame.
What's remarkable and heartening is how much has been done despite the failings of Government—done through work by thousands of volunteers here and done through the seven-days-a-week efforts of pre-flood natives who have formed new, post-flood organizations that are like New Orleans' long-lived mutual-aid Social and Pleasure Clubs.
That said, the city and the whole Gulf Coast region remains a colossal sitting-duck, more vulnerable to Hurricanes than in 2005, and nothing proposed by any level of Government comes remotely close to meeting needs. Last September Hurricane Gustav veered west in its last 36 hours before landfall and so its main strength missed New Orleans. Still, with winds of only 80 miles per hour and a storm-surge of only nine feet, both walls of the Industrial Canal between the Upper and Lower 9th Wards were overtopped by water.
Immediately after Gustav, we formed a "Levee, Wetlands and Jobs" working group. We came up with a Plan that recommended three broad measures. One builds up levees to a height of 25 feet or higher to protect New Orleans and other communities that are threatened along the Gulf Coast. Two, plant 50 million cypress trees and bunches of spartina grass to restore wetlands lost due to oil-and-gas channels through lower Louisiana. Three, employ at least 50,000 people in the enactment of measures One and Two, giving preference in hiring to those who lived in the region before 2005's Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Levees. Wetlands. Jobs: simple, urgent broad measures that arrive at fundamental and necessary solutions.
In September and October 2008, Barack Obama expressed support for the Wall Street bail-out bill. And since Obama's inauguration, the Democratic Obama Administration has continued to give corporate welfare grants to Wall Street firms like Citigroup and A.I.G.
Yet in a September 25, 2008 article that is reprinted in The World Is Turning book, you wrote "Now, September into October of 2008, we face a Bail-out Bill and other U.S. Government funding of speculator Corporations' bad debts that already total more than $1 trillion;" and "the almost unbelievable arrogance of the still expanding Bail-out Bill grants unilateral and `unreversable' powers of limitless lending to the Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve System, and the U.S. President, accomplishing a coup 'd'etat by legislative declaration even more extreme than 2002's similarly USA PATRIOT Act." And in an October 31, 2008 article that is reprinted in your book, you wrote: "The first two weeks of October 2008 have seen the most bare-faced and brazen, yet sly and secretive, theft of a nation proceed, robbing the public of the United States of both rights and posterity."
Could you explain further why you think that last fall's bail-out bill was bad for people in the United States and against the economic interest of most people in the United States? And, if bailing-out Wall Street firms like A.I.G. and Citigroup was, in fact, an economically stupid and undemocratic idea, why would Barack Obama support such an economic plan?
Don Paul [DP]: The "Bail-out Bill" of last October and the much greater, predictable giveaways that have followed it—so that even Bloomberg News is setting the total bail-out around $10 trillion-and-counting—is clearly insane, at best, if its intention is the U.S. people's well-being.
The public is being driven over a cliff, much as it was between 1929 and 1933 in North America.
Amounts far in excess of the nation's annual Budget are going to Banks and other speculative institutions that in their turn produce nothing but more debt for the people, even greater and more irremediable toils and pitfalls of debt.
Why would an intelligent and seemingly compassionate person such as Barack Obama support such ruinous insanity? We know that he and John McCain were main movers in persuading legislators to pass the Bill after it first failed last Fall—while others in the Government, such as Secretary Treasury Paulson, were threatening "martial law" if the Bill again failed to pass.
The simple answer for Obama and McCain's support for the Bailout Bills is that the biggest bettor/debtor Banks and their like are the principal influences, at best, on our Government. They're actually the principal force in our Government, I think, through their apparatus of the Federal Reserve System.
Three of the top seven donors to Barack Obama's 2008 Presidential campaign were Banks, led by Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan Chase gave Obama two to four times more than they gave McCain.
How Barack Obama goes—what he's able to perceive and to do—we'll soon see. Will he continue to be financiers' actor, speaking for the expenditure of trillions of dollars into supranational bankers' rat-holes, or will he emerge as a champion of the people who produce the world's food and other life-giving goods?
One thing for certain is that he's most likely to change for the better if pressured by righteous mass movements from us.
Recently some Big Media attention has been focused on the American International Group [A.I.G.] because it used a lot of its U.S. taxpayer-provided bail-out fund money to just give big bonuses to A.I.G. executives. But your book seems to indicate that A.I.G. also apparently profited from what happened on September 11, 2001 in Downtown Manhattan. Besides learning more about how A.I.G. may have profited from what happened on 9/11/01, what other kinds of information about the 9/11/01 events which the Big Media or U.S. left alternative media generally never mention, will U.S. anti-war readers find in your new book?
Don Paul [DP]: The insurance pay-outs from demolition of the three World Trade Center Building is dwarfed by profits realized by grants in the insurance and re-insurance businesses since 9/11/01. The biggest of these are the American International Group [AIG] and holdings of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway company, including General Reinsurance. Because these giants were able to raise premiums as much as 2000%, their revenues rose about 40% in the three years after 9/11. For the year 2004—before it dove into the global grand casino of "derivatives" and Credit Defaults Swaps et cetera—AIG reported a profit of $9.73 billion.
The giant insurance corporations also got great breaks from Congress post-9/11. Maurice Greenberg, then CEO of AIG, and his son Jeffrey, then CEO of March & McClennan, an insurance-firm that lost 295 employees due to demolition of the South Tower, went to Congress less than two weeks after 9/11. The insurance industry came away with a new law, the Terrorism Risk Prevention Act of 2002, by which the public would absorb 90% of insurers' losses up to $100 billion after a minor deductible of $5 or $50 million. The TRPA remains in effect under the Obama Administration.
In your new book you also write that "another financier linked to major events of the 9/11/01 day, Warren Buffett, spoke to shareholders of the Berkshire Hathaway company that he heads;" and "Berkshire Hathaway was a big financial winner after 9/11/01." How would you evaluate the way the Big Media and most left alternative media cover the role that Warren Buffett has played in U.S. history in recent years?
Don Paul [DP]: So far as I can tell, mass media is generally fawning toward Warren Buffett, while almost all of what's called left media ignores the integral roles played by Warren Buffett and similarly mega-financiers in directing society.
In your book you also note that "Warren Buffett was photographed with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lord Jacob Rothschild at a meeting on Rothschild's English estate of investors in Buffett's NextJet Company" and you seem to emphasize the special influence that banking families like the Rothschilds have played in determining the direction of world history. What kind of information about the Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, the Federal Reserve Bank and the Big Banks do you think anti-war readers will find in your book that they wouldn't generally find from just watching CNN and PBS or just listening to left alternative media radio shows like "Democracy Now!'?
DP: Corporations such as CNN and PBS—Corporations that are dependent upon systems of private money-lending as the method of sustaining national economies—that is, Corporations that are ultimately dependent upon the status quo Central Banks such as the Federal Reserve System, the Bank of England, Bank of France, Bank of Canada—completely fail to report the defrauding, life-sucking realities of these private Central Banks.
So-called "Left" media likewise ignore these most fundamental realities, for all of its fuss about scandals and crises. The volume of Project Censored that presents the "Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007-08"—years of bail-outs totaling more than $1 trillion!—has only one instance of misdeeds that involve the Federal Reserve System: the Fed's shipping of $12 billion of bank notes to the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq (L. Paul Bremer) over one year between 2003 and 2004.
Then there's the role of families and Corporations' Foundations in exercising social control through their funding of media and other agencies of the "Left"--that are supposed to expose and combat inequties--and "Right."
Do you think any of the liberal establishment foundations on whose boards sit board members of Wall Street firms like A.I.G, the Federal Reserve Bank or the Big Banks are likely to give you a literary grant to write your next book--after they read what you write about banks in The World Is Turning?
DP: Not likely. A grant from any Lord or arm of the empire is as unlikely a prospect for me as suicide. But—you never know. There is no Other in the sea of us and we all may hope to be subjected to more enlightenment.
How can folks who wish to read your new book obtain a copy, if they can't find a copy of your book in their local library or at the local corporate bookstore chain outlet?
DP: Well, readers can—if they're so moved—request that Public Libraries obtain a copy of The World Is Turning. Ingram or another distributor can bring the book to Public Libraries through standard channels. I love Public Libraries.
If someone wants to order the book for direct purchase, I recommend going to the http://www.wireonefire.com/donpaul/wit.html
sub-site and using the means there. It's also available there as an e-book and a three-CD audio book.
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion