9/11: Would Government?

by: Stewart Ogilby
Editor, BigEye.com & NewsWatch.org
Feb. 02, 2010

In 1994, several months before the first commercial web-browser software launched the popular explosion of the world-wide web, R. J. Rummel’s book, Death by Government, was published. Bigeye.com gave it a separate webpage. A quick review of this book’s chapter headings underscores the fact that a murder of 3,000 or so people resulting from governmental activity (if that is the case of 9/11) would be an exceedingly small “drop in the bucket” in the over-all scheme of things.

Persons who are curious about what may or may not have happened on Sept. 11, 2001 must separate evidence from narrative. Because the 9/11 narrative has been strongly established, an unbiased researcher must not begin with any “official” narrative (one that tells you what happened). Start from scratch by putting aside all aspects of the narrative you have seen and heard on TV or read in mainline news sources. This is what THESE PEOPLE have done.

I know your initial response: “What about (phone calls, ‘hijacker’ tape, 19 flight-school Muslim terrorists …”). Many of us have been asking questions, perhaps the same ones you have, and seeking answers for several years. I’d like to recommend to you a recent book, The Hidden History of 9/11, edited by Paul Zarembka. Unless your mind is closed (“I know [the official story] must be true ’cause the government tells me so”), before you read the book spend time with bigeye.com’s 911 links. If you know little of the real 911, you can easily educate yourself by watching videos on THIS PAGE.

When you grasp the WHY of 9/11 you will have less emotional resistance to discovering who murdered over 3,000 of our citizens. The late Aaron Russo’s documentary videos offer a broad theory of the WHY. They need to be seen, although it seems unrealistic that a controlling oligarchy would risk employing technical expertise to execute 911. A more plausible theory, starting from CUI BONO, (Who Benefits? – the Latin starting argument in determining guilt) was propounded at the end of 2003 by Professor Paul J. Balles. Motive and benefit may be shared by both the guilty and the innocent. To accomplish a sophisticated event like 911 requires means and opportunity, as well as motive (benefit).

That day’s tragedy is past. The WHY question (motive) must be understood, not only in America but throughout the world, by men and women who strive for Liberty.

Despotic governments have always become the biggest problem for human beings in their attempts to create communities providing peace and prosperity for themselves and for their children. What is all but impossible for people to grasp is the unimaginable evil and horror recounted in R.J. Rummel’s book.

It is commonly asserted that George Washington declared, in his Farewell Address, something to the effect that, Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master, despite the fact that no such statement appears anywhere in his published Farewell Address (he never actually spoke one). In fact, there is no evidence that Washington ever wrote or said such a thing.

I never cease to be astounded by human gullibility. People are prone to believe whatever furnishes them comfort and uncomplicated answers to life’s uncomfortable questions. 9/11 offers no exception. When it comes to the nature of government, I find some solace in Albert Jay Nock’s Our Enemy, the State.

Most people will go on believing whatever they want to believe. That holds as true for the events of 9/11 as it does for the conviction that America’s first president expressed an analogy between fire and government.

The Greeks realized and accepted the power of myths. Ours come from television.

May be copied or reproduced in its entirety with
credit to author and link to BigEye.com
For other Bigeye Blogs click here.


  1. Pingback: The Progressive Mind » 911: Would Government?

  2. Pingback: t minus zero » 9/11: Would Government?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.