In the previous part of this essay I asked this question: How it can possibly be the case that over a decade has passed with not one guilty person, institution, corporation, or group having been made accountable, under law, either for the monstrous and treasonous crimes themselves of September 11, 2001, or for the horrendous and on-going crimes, domestic and foreign, that have been committed with impunity—and that continue to be committed with impunity—with the mammoth and transparent lie of 9/11 as excuse, fulcrum, and catalyst?
That was the question. This was the answer:
The villain, the enemy, the one responsible for so heinous a dereliction, is us. It’s we who are to blame. It’s us, the so-called liberal, progressive, and left constituency in the national dialogue. It’s us who’ve done too little—who’ve done, in fact, very nearly nothing. The ranks of the left have softened and devolved to the point where they are almost as worthless standing on their two hind legs as they would be if they fell out of existence altogether. Their eyes are faulty, seeing that which isn’t there and failing to see that which is. Their philosophic minds are simplified, their brains fuzzy with euphemism, they themselves paralyzed, while . . . [actual] courage is an echo from lost and distant days.
The group of “us” whom I’m talking about, this failed and pathologically timid omnium-gatherum of observers, analysts, journalists, and writers, is, if nothing else, large. In Part I of this essay, I discussed William Rivers Pitt in his role as a member of it, and in Part II I added Diana Johnstone, Robert Koehler, William T. Hathaway, and Professor Peter Phillips. I am now about to add another to the ranks of those who practice “impotence-writing,” a mode, as we saw last time, born out of and limited by what I call “impotence-thinking.” The addition is the writer Missy Beattie, whom I introduced at the end of Part II.
Some may remember the invitation I made, asking readers to consider Beattie’s short essay “Big Greed” as if it had been submitted in a freshman English class and were now being analyzed there. What grade would it get, I asked, if it were “evaluated for the maturity and subtlety of its premise, the sturdiness of its logic, the continuity of its thought, and its overall persuasiveness to a reader.” Would it get an “A”? Or would it get a “B-minus” or “C” as reward for being average? Or would it get a “D” or less, for being poor?
Underlying those questions was—and is—the most important one of all: Is this piece, or isn’t it, a piece of “impotence writing”?
Not many turned up to help with the task of grading, but that’s not a surprise, since many people tend to avoid work when they can, but it’s also unsurprising for a more important reason. Most people shy away when it comes to making analytic judgments about writing. They do this because they feel shaky, weak, intimidated—or also presumptuous toward those they’re “criticizing,” or even as if they’re taking unfair advantage of them—when it comes to the serious evaluation of serious writing. Understandable? Maybe. Excusable? That’s a harder question. The truth is that this wide-spread American syndrome of deficiency and self-doubt when it comes to analysis of writing is one of the crucial national deficiencies now allowing us to be led so swiftly as we are from freedom to tyranny.
One of the people who wrote in did so not to analyze the writing in “Big Greed” but to address the related and prior subject of the decay and impotence that have taken the stuffing out of what was once an active progressive left. This contributor, Randall Tillotson, recognized immediately the monumental emergency now facing us whereby we are not only losing republic, liberty, law, safety, freedom, and Constitutional rights and protections, but whereby, on top of all that, we appear to be saying good-bye to these things not with a fiercely fought resistance but willingly. Tillotson saw immediately that any means or strength that could ever hope to lead to an escape from this Gotterdammerung would have to come from one place only: From the strengths, reserves, instincts, principles, and capacities of the single, irreducible, individual self. Only if we can hang on to our individual selfhood, or only if we can reawaken our now-drugged or all but dead individual selfhood, can—or will—we ever fight back.
A people has no force and never will have force if it isn’t made up of absolute individuals. But in America today, the withering and ruinous truth is that the individual self is in a diseased, enfeebled, perverted, malignant, near-death condition. Tillotson likens this condition to one of being controlled by demons or false gods. “We are in the midst of an Armageddon of the mind,” he writes, and goes on to say that:
Buddhists would call these false gods “makyo,” or delusions. If this is true, as it appears to be, then we are in the midst of a final battle where it is up to each of us to defeat these false gods, who are actually demons that have invaded our minds. Forget about organizations and marching, which do virtually nothing but [result in] . . . a display of black block infiltrators that [make] . . . the impotent look even more foolish. It’s up to each of us to cast out the demons within our own minds, the demons of false beliefs generated by traitors and liars.
The “demons” inside the minds of Americans constitute the disease that makes necessary the writing of emergency essays like the one I’m writing here, a lengthy conversation that steps from one related spot to another a bit as if I were a lone person trying to stomp out a brush fire. What Tillotson says is true, literally and absolutely. Traitors and liars, plentiful among us, planted the demons, germinated, nursed, and harvested them—then bent themselves to the long industrious toil of planting those demons over and over again, crop after crop, not in the soil of the republic but in the minds of one generation of consumer-Americans after another, planting them all the way back, first, in the minds of those who were young in the 1950s, then those coming of age in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, on into the 90s, then through the yawning gateway of the millennium itself and at last to the perfection of the final, inevitable, diseased harvest: A nation so perverted spiritually, internally, and intellectually that it willingly, and contentedly, even eagerly, embraces its own destruction, its own transformation into an economically bankrupt terrorist police state at home, a military-terrorist gestapo aggressor everywhere abroad.
* * *
For anyone to “agree” or “disagree” with all of what I’ve just said may not matter very much, at least not right now. What does matter, though, is this question: What in the name of all the gods that have ever been imagined do these vast and appalling enormities have to do with the tiny little question of deciding on a grade for an op-ed piece called “Big Greed” that happens to have been written by one Missy Beattie?
A good question. And a question that has to do with our previous one, the one about the single, irreducible, individual self.
No mob ever won a revolution, and no mob ever founded a just nation. Only a people can do that. And, once more, there has never been any such thing as a people unless every member of it, or by far the greater number of them, has been in possession of, and aware of, a single, individual, irreducible self.
And so we come to the reason why our progressive left of today is nothing like the muscular progressive left of another time. Randall Tillotson, in his comment on Part Two of this essay, asks an enormous and enormously important question: “How is it,” he asks, “that all these American anti-war and leftist groups are such utter failures?” He then lists the failed groups he’s thinking of:
America First Committee
American League Against War and Fascism
American Peace Mobilization
A.N.S.W.E.R. (also known as International ANSWER and ANSWER Coalition)
Another Mother For Peace
Campus Antiwar Network
Campaign for Liberty
Committee for Nonviolent Revolution
Center on Conscience & War (formerly known as NISBCO)
Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors
The Council for National Interest
Code Pink: Women for Peace
GI Rights Network
Gold Star Families for Peace
Iraq Veterans Against the War
Iraq Peace Action Coalition
Long Island Alliance for Peaceful Alternatives
Military Families Speak Out (not anti-war, opposed only to war in Iraq)
National Coordinating Committee to End the War in Vietnam
National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee
Nevada Shakespeare Company
Not in Our Name
Port Militarization Resistance
September Eleventh Families for Peaceful Tomorrows
Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee
Students for a Democratic Society
The World Can’t Wait
Troops Out Now Coalition
United for Peace and Justice
Veterans for Peace
Vietnam Veterans Against the War
War Resisters League
Tillotson himself is drawn to the far from illogical suspicion that these groups are impotent because, like Occupy Wall Street and the 9/11 Truth Movement, they’ve been infiltrated by agencies, organizations, and individuals whose job it is to make certain that the “host” groups become and remain powerless. Says Tillotson, “The only reasonable conclusion to draw would be that these many organizations are simply the controlled opposition, puppets on display for the appearance of resistance.”
Maybe. Probably. Perhaps for sure. But for the purposes of our subject right here and now—that is, the subject of the single, individual, irreducible self—the foremost question isn’t whether such infiltration has or hasn’t taken place, or on what scale, but, instead, it’s this two-part question: First, why are these progressive-left groups so powerless? And, second, if they’re as thoroughly infiltrated as Tillotson suggests, why was the process of infiltration so easy?
And these questions lead to another question, one we’ve already seen. Namely: Who actually constitutes these groups? Does the membership of each group consist of single, individual, irreducible selves? Does the membership consist of people who can see for themselves rather than through the eyes of others? Does it consist of people who can think for themselves rather than copying the thought of others? Does it consist of people can act for themselves rather than merely following others? Whether In a group or not in a group, every single person, if that person hopes to exist in a condition that is a meaningful one, must be and must remain a free agent. Writers like William Rivers Pitt and Chris Hedges insist repeatedly that we must “join,” must “unite,” must “act together,” must fill the streets and be beaten on the head, maced, pepper-sprayed, and Tased, all in order to “show them what real American courage looks like.”
What presumption, tripe, and hogwash. “Leaders” of this tally-ho sort call for blindness every bit as much as they do for sightedness. Again and again they call for “groups” to form, without first giving a thought to the free-agency and individual selfhood that alone can result in a group’s possessing intelligence; they call for “groups” to form without first asking for—or thinking of—the single, individual, irreducible selfhood that, as with free-agency, makes the difference between meaningful partisan power on the one hand and the evanescent weightlessness, on the other, of crowds that are held together by hunch, by golly, and above all by feeling, this being something, however powerful it can be at times, that is guaranteed also, by its very nature, to be ephemeral.
Who are these people who keep calling us into the streets even though they’re themselves without a program or plan of action? Or, for that matter, who are we, who are us Americans, a so-called “people” that sits by and does nothing as wealth, economy, resources, Constitution, law, freedom, justice, the republic itself are stolen, taken, or outright destroyed by criminals, brigands, thieves, and con artists, all parading, in an ungodly charade, as “government,” as “leadership,” or as one kind or another of “national institution”?
Well, with all this going on and us doing nothing to stop it, we must be among the dumbest, the most debased, the most caponized, the most snookered, the most pitiable of “peoples” in the history of the world. God help us, especially now, as we seem incapable of helping ourselves.
* * *
A note on writing and the self: No tool, device, or system has ever been discovered that’s better suited than the one known as writing for purposes of revealing, accurately and thoroughly, the quality, content, makeup, or existence of the individual self of the writer.
If you happen to be timid, uninformed, or shallow, and if you happen not to want these qualities known to the world—then don’t be a writer. If you happen to be self-deluded and to suffer from a Napoleonic complex, and if you happen not to want these qualities known to the world—then don’t be a writer. If it happens that you have a deep negative prejudice toward a certain kind of—but you get the point. The truth about you will come out in what you write. It will be revealed by what you do say, and it will be revealed by what you don’t say. It will be revealed by how you write and by how you don’t write. If it isn’t revealed in your words themselves, it will be revealed through the spaces, echoes, and meanings between the words, a little bit like fresh mortar being squeezed out between newly-laid bricks. It will be revealed by words you do use and by words you don’t use; by phrasings, sentence types, and elements of style that you do use and by those you that you don’t. It will be revealed by things you emphasize and by things you neglect, by things you repeat too much and by things you fail to mention. Writing—for that matter language itself, although all the more so when it’s written—will reveal you in a hundred different ways when you don’t even know it’s doing so and when you may not even know what those ways are. To write is to take the risk of exposures great and small. Caveat scriptor.
Now, after this reminder of how complex a task it is, and how delicate, it’s clear that not enough room is left for grading “Big Greed,” and the project will have to be put off until next time. This may be a reprieve for some, if they intended to send in their evaluations but ran out of time. Now they have another chance.
I also suspect that it’s time for me to say something about the title I have given this essay, “Dr. Judy Wood and the Future of the Earth.” I chose the title carefully, mean it literally, and use it in absolute seriousness. This essay is about the future of our nation. But it is also about the future of the Earth and of all life on it.
Let me explain. The shocking but plain and simple truth about 9/11 is that on September 11, 2001, the twin towers, and some hours later WTC 7, did not collapse, were not weakened to the point of collapse by heat from burning jet fuel, and were not “brought down” in any kind of “controlled demolition” at all, whether through the use of thermate, thermite, mini nukes, or any other kind of conventional, unconventional, or high-intensity explosive material, including plain old TNT. The buildings did cease to exist, but neither explosions nor the presence of high heat had anything to do with the cause of their disappearance. What happened to them instead is that they were subjected to forces created by directed free-energy technology being used in a weaponized form. The existence of free-energy technology was well known to Nicola Tesla (1856–1943), but from a time even before that genius’ death, both the knowledge of free-energy itself and the fact of there having been continued scientific research into it have been fiercely guarded and powerfully suppressed. As a result, few Americans know very much at all about free-energy, its nature, its potential, or its applications. As a result of their scrupulously maintained ignorance, when Americans do hear about it, they’re likely to brush it off as the stuff of Hollywood movies or science fiction.
But it isn’t that. It is quite real, in fact absolutely and entirely so, as Dr. Judy Wood proves in Where Did the Towers Go: Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 911. This unique and extraordinary book has been available to readers everywhere now for approximately two-and-a half years, and during that time not one scientific fact of the many in it has been challenged, denied, or refuted. The reason for this impermeability to scientific attack is simple: The science in the book, a fact clear to all who read it, is irrefutable.
Full disclosure requires me to mention that I’m the author of a Foreword to the book; my own choice, however, leads me to mention that the first sentence of that Foreword is this one: “The book you hold in your hands is the most important book of the twenty-first century.”
My reasons for saying this are explained in the balance of the Foreword, but I can summarize them as follows: Dr. Wood’s book is thorough, masterful, scientifically irrefutable, and the implications of what it proves are of a clear, obvious, urgent, vital, worldwide importance.
Detractors of the book—whose conspiratorial motives are endlessly obscured in a shifting darkness—attempt to discredit the book by claiming that it consists of “theory” or “opinion” rather than of scientific fact, or that it represents “opinion” or “just one point of view” that must be considered only in light of other “points of view,” as if Dr. Wood were not a scientist but an op-ed columnist or quiz show contestant, or as if science itself were a popular debate of some kind rather than a matter of evidence leading to proof. More on all of these subjects later.
The fact is that Dr. Wood’s precision, thoroughness, and scrupulously maintained scientific objectivity produce a work that is at once impeccable and powerful. Her book does not consist of opinion nor does it put forward opinion. It does not consist of “theory” nor does it put forward “theory.” Instead, it consists of objective analysis of empirical, observable, irrefutable scientific evidence, resulting in an irrefutable scientific proof that the trade center buildings underwent a process of molecular dissociation brought about by a weaponized form of directed free-energy technology. In a word, the buildings were turned into particles of dust that then dissociated further into still smaller particles, until they became nano-particles. That’s why there was almost nothing left behind on the ground after the disappearance (not counting WTC 7) of two gigantic towers with their approximately half a million tons of matter each. The estimate is that roughly two percent of a million tons of building material remained at the site after the disappearance of the towers.
The significance? The significance is immense, far-reaching, and real. Dr. Wood herself has explained over and over again that she is a scientist and that, as a scientist, she will not entertain or indulge in opinion, theory, or conjecture. In her “Author’s Preface” she writes: “I do not believe that our government is responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01—nor do I believe that our government is not responsible for executing the events of 9/11/01. This is not a case of belief [emphasis in original]. This is a crime that should be solved by a forensic study of the evidence.”
We will return next time to this preface and to Dr. Wood’s remarks about the relationship between forensics in science and forensics in law. Meanwhile, however, without dishonoring an adherence to scientific fact, objectivity, and evidence, there are one or two very simple though obviously important things we can say. One is that a military-scientific operation or attack of the magnitude and complexity of 9/11 was obviously not planned or executed either by a man in a cave with a laptop or by nineteen irreverent pseudo-jihadist young men with box-cutters. Another simple but important thing we can say is that an entire nation has been lied to for a very long time by its entire government, whatever or wherever or whoever that government may actually be. And we can say, further, that in the name of this enormous lie, and using this enormous lie for its excuse, the United States, or whoever controls the United States, has embarked upon a decade of ruin, slaughter, conquest, brigandage, criminality, destruction, murder, and waste that creates a high danger of leading us all to WW III, that reveals no greater sense of husbandry toward a dying Earth itself than it does toward Earth’s peoples, and that shows a tendency only toward more, and more urgent, brigandage, rape, and destruction.
The monstrous, murderous lie of 9/11 has unleashed the most massive, sustained, and wretched spasm of criminality and ruin to have taken place over so short a period of time in the history of humanity.
And what is the question that follows an assertion such as that? The question that follows is simple and also boundlessly urgent and important. It is: Why on earth don’t we do something about it?
And so we are taken back to the beginning of this piece: For the past eleven years, forces of a calculating and ungoverned avarice, cruelty, and destruction have been permitted to run unchecked over the earth and over many of its peoples. These ruinous forces have been allowed and encouraged by and because of 9/11, an event we now know to have been exponentially greater and more ruinous a crime even than it was believed to be at the time it took place. The wreckage that has followed in its wake, wreckage caused and allowed by a nation’s falling for this indescribably monstrous lie, is flung across the globe in a great swath wherein lie the ruins of nations, economies, constitutions, people, laws, protections, freedoms, hopes, securities, and promises, all amidst the stench of death.
Now, supposing that you were in a position to do something about all of this depravity and destruction; supposing that you were in a position to help right even some small part of these many wrongs, assuage even some of these countless sorrows, or bring about at least a diminishment in the force of the stream of blood, dismemberment, pity, sorrow, agony, and death that gushes from so immense a cornucopia of evil; if you were in a position to help serve justice upon even some number of the bloody-souled malefactors, thieves, and murderers responsible for creating, engineering, and maintaining this sweep of malaise, disease, ruin, and evil—well, if you were in such a position as that, wouldn’t you do it, if you could?
But of course you would. And so would I. So would anyone whose conscience remains human and awake, whose heart remains capable of feeling, whose sense of justice remains impartial, alert, and free, and whose mind has not been invaded and destroyed by the paralyzing demons of false beliefs that over the years have been seeded and planted in the minds of Americans by traitors and liars.
Dr. Judy Wood has provided us with a proven truth that, indisputable and powerful, is suitable and appropriate to become a foundation piece or a powerful building block in an emerging structure of resistance against a diseased policy. We should, by now, be at a point of change and promise. We should be at a point by now when the population had begun growing aware of the real dimension and the true depravity of the attack that was made not on their country on 9/11, but on them themselves by their country. With this enormous truth proven and known, we should by now be further along than we are in resisting the abominations that have come to be taken as the status quo, and further along in positioning and equipping ourselves to replace them.
But we are not further along, and the question to be asked is very, very simple: Why are we not?
And the answer is that it’s because of us, because of we. The progressive-left element in our national discourse has failed totally as an alert conscience and persistently inquiring voice. Co-opted, commandeered, bought off, threatened, infiltrated—whichever of the many possibilities may pertain in each particular case, the putative left is dead. It has, in fact, with very, very few exceptions, become as much the enemy as the enemy itself.
This tremendous failure, the collaborative death of the left, is a huge, pressing, all-important subject. It is a subject that bears on every aspect of our present dilemma, from dental care to the daily odds increasingly piled up against the likely survival of the earth itself. It is a subject that must be taken up.
Next time: Grading a paper; analyzing the enemy
Eric Larsen is author of A Nation Gone Blind and The Skull of Yorick: The Emptiness of American Thinking at a Time of Gave Peril—Studies in the Cover-up of 9/11. Reach him at email@example.com.