~ An Interview ~
|       | 
   | 
  | 
   | 
Interview 
DEC 2002 | 
December 2002
~ (Part of) an Interview with fravia+ ~
"Let's not become conspiracy-obsessed" (part of Searching Lab 3)
(Please excuse the poor linguistic level, I ported this text to english myself) 
  
...Five years reverse engineering... three years searchlores... what are your plans for the future, Fravia+?
I would like now to begin to 'flex our seeking muscles' so to say. I have in mind 
a searching assignment, or a "searching lab", that could help show to a broader 
public how powerful, and how useful, good searchers are... I think we should aim very high,
nowadays,  
both to see our limits and to try to overcome them :-)
 
What do you have in mind?
Nothing more and nothing less than to shed some light on the 9/11 New York attack. Please 
do not smile. The more 
I think about that, the more I watch and analyse the developments that have followed it, the 
more I feel that there is something 'wrong' with the commonly accepted perception of this event.
 
What do you mean exactly? That what we know about those 
events does not correspond to reality?  
 Frankly, I do not have (yet) any exact 
answer to this question: but any trained 
analytical observer, capable of a minimum of text-exegesis, will confirm you that
something does not 'sound' 
correct in the media coverage of these events. As I said before, in order to
better understand what's going on, you always have to "reverse" the assumed 
"correct view" of the world around you. I would paradoxically add that 
you can count on one hand   
 the cases in which your usual media will be able, or allowed, to deliver  you
 a "correct view" of the world... and I bet you would still have some fingers free 
after the count.
I am convinced that the various pieces of a yet 
unsolved puzzle lie around the web, and I intend 
to use the collective power of my fellow seekers to assemble these little, scattered  
bits, into a coherent meaning. 
So you do not believe that the democratic media are  
  covering    correctly
what happened?
No. Not in the least. I do not even believe that there are real democratic media in 
your paper/TV 
"real" world: there is only place for a concerted propaganda machine, poisoned by useless 
advertising, and they are just a part of it.
 
The web does not seem advertising-free either.
  That's true, but in this context irrelevant. The web is a new media, but it follows 
very old academical "knowledge spreading" rules, where 
you can still  find easily some real snippets of information... even if, at times, you have 
to break some database protection or comb some hidden messageboards... and maybe even 
troll or stalk someone in order to do it.
Please understand what the information 
on the web is for us searchers and reversers: it is  
as if we could enter -- in an "invisible mode" -- into ANY newspapers or TV-channel 
discussion room, at the very moment a new 
issue is prepared, and listen WHY something will be said and WHY something 
else will not be published and moreover, just in case, read all the internal memos and even 
all private letters and notes of the writers, owners, publishers of those media... and check 
their bank accounts too, and see who paid who and why.
 
Quite powerful deeds it would seem, still democratic media do exist and 
can discover some unpleasant truths.
Since you yourself are a journalist, and thus 
part of this group, you will have to excuse me, but I believe that the very purpose of your existence, 
the real purpose, behind all the "democratic" hype, is to try to 
mislead your readers with irrelevant crap, de facto 
doing your outmost to try to prevent people realizing 
some simple truths about the world they live in. 
 
 "Truths" that you no doubt perfectly know.
     No my dear: truths that YOU know. Truths that I moreover could  
document for you hic et nunc through the web...  
and truths that,  on the 
contrary,  I am not able to   find
on your newspaper's today issue! 
Please do not try to 
stick to me some "cospiracy-obsessed" tags. I said simple truths. 
Kinda like:
 we have 6 milliards individuals on this planet, and --lo and behold-- 
5,5 are in a situation of need and 3,5 of dire need, 
duh! In the European Union, itself one of the richest parts of the world, there 
are now more than 50 million people in poverty, one out of five.
But that's nothing: the 
sum of the yearly incomes of the 
300 (I will repeat this small number, so that you wont forget it: 
three hundred)  
most wealthy individuals is bigger than  the sum of the 
yearly incomes of   3 milliards    (I will repeat this BIG number, 
so that you wont forget it: three 
milliards)  individuals in need. You could be allowed to think that 
each slavemaster has 10.000.000 slaves. And all these data are public and available, yet ignored 
by your media-brood.
If you think that a world like this, with such GROWING inequalities, 
is NOT on the verge of a historical 
social implosion you're nuts.
 
 And Bin Laden and the 11 september in all 
this?
 
Simply put:
I suspect that in a situation where one boxer 
(the left/democratic/socialist/pauperistical, you name 
it, "counterweight") has 
disappeared and only one boxer 
has remained on the ring, this 'survivor' 
 has to invent an enemy (Bin Laden yesterday, 
Hussein 
today, someone else tomorrow) to 
justify his existence (and his costs) in the eyes of his electors, his slaves or 
your readers.
Note that I have no doubt whatsoever that Bin Laden is a 
dangerous criminal, the fact that the CIA paid 
and protected him for a very long time is proof enough 
for me.
Nevertheless, I repeat, 
I am 
not obsessed by simplistic ideas, like this were simply a "Reichstag/KristallNacht"
 situation, or 
some "Neronian burning of Rome" plot.
Yet there are some pretty obvious 
inconsistencies in this 11/9 thingy, and I have been formed --long ago-- 
as a historian, and 
I follow the old school: "watch the data dance around with unsullen eyes 
and they will start to sing by themselves".
 
Hence I can bet with you that 
"oil" is the refrain that this specific data-song will sing, and 
I want to find out more, and then even more, 
in order to understand  what did happen, what happens and what will happen.
 
 
 And you think that you are going to find out some historical  
"secrets" like that?
 
No, I just think that we as a group of people really able to 
search the web may have a (albeit small) chance to understand more, to see and shed 
some light on a very 
dark moment of mankind's history.
 
No more, no less than that, but that would already be a lot. Yep: such a 
specific query-quest may not work.
But those that will participate will anyway learn 
how to search the web... and become even better seekers...
Actually, hey! We do have a (slight) chance. But only
if many good seekers will 
participate (a big if); 
if they will send some feedback (a big if);  
if the web is truly a treasure of hidden, yet relatively easy to find, information as we believe
(a big if);  if...
 
 ...So you think some web-searchers can succeed where many 
others, with bigger research facilities, have failed? 
You seriously think you will discover "the truth" behind 9/11 just visiting some 
sites on 
the web?
No, I am not very optimistical about this, actually. 
I think we will not "discover" much. 
Maybe there is nothing to "discover" at all, you see.
Once more I do not believe 
in evil "conspirations", 
I believe in history (which by the way is full of failed plots :-) and its 
well-known power games: Fraus sublimi regnat in aula (Seneca, hu, he 
already knew that all powerful are 
inherehently evil).
I think I have to tell  you something important about this specific search and, at 
the same time, about our attitude:
 I do not want to get mystical, but people like us have always existed. And always will.
Searchers, reversers, sons of knowledge and transparency. Naïve idiots, if you want.  
Yet we truly love to fight battles that we cannot win.  And... as strange as it may seem... 
sometimes we do not lose them 
neither :-)
 
 Hence "searchers" are against an intervention in Iraq?
"Searchers", should they exist as a category, could not care less 
about such crap.  I will be now rather cynical: 
On our planet there are so many people, and 
so many 
kids, dying every day because of some nonsensical, bogus or idiotic  / wars /  laws / ideologies /
religions /    
that --frankly-- a couple of millions 
more or less would not change the total sum in any significant way.
But on this specific case, 
 allow me a final remark: do you for instance, you personally, sitting there in 
front of me, seriously believe, 
 that a 200-300 milliards dollars/euro intervention in Iraq (a country 
that happens to have the second
place in the list of  planetary 
national oil reserves)
could really have the aim to "protect the West" against this specific (and rather tiny)   
third world dictator? (Why?) or, even more ludicrously, 
could such an act of war really have the purpose to "bring some real democracy" to the 
iraqi people (should they really care for such a "gift")?  
 
 Are you not leaving your searching techniques ground, in order to 
cover a rather political field?
Nowadays there's no difference between  searching the web, 
reversing software, 
reversing reality, 
and being politically active. 
The moment you engage in any of these activities you will soon 
find, or bounce against, some unpleasant truths. 
You may swallow them, you may ignore them, you may 
try to get some personal gains out of them  
or you may try to debunk them.       
You will have to choose. I did.
 
a lot to add... soon or later
(c) 2002: [fravia+], all rights reserved