The Oklahoma City Bombers supposedly chose their target, the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, not because destroying it would significantly impair the working of the Federal Government but, rather, because it was a prominent structure in a major downtown area and destroying it would make a much greater impression on the Public than destroying, say, some little-known records storage facility way up in the hills of West Virginia.

I say "The Oklahoma City Bombers" rather than "Terry Nichols and Timpthy McVeigh" becuase there is some doubt as to whether Nichols and/or McVeigh actually did it. Some people believe agents of the New World Order, working within the Federal Government, planted the bomb as a way to justify a broad, sweeping crackdown on anyone who resists their agenda for World Federalism. I don't know about that, but I don't dismiss the possibility.

It seems strange, doesn't it, that "terrorists" wanting to make a big bang would choose a virtually unknown building in Oklahoma City for their debut? In terms of public impact, virtually ANY building in Washington DC would have been better than virtually any building in virtually any other city. Not only would it have made a bigger impression, but a building in DC would almost be gaurunteed to harm Federal readiness directly, while the Alfred P. Murrah Building was easily replaceable.

Some who believe Nichols and McVeigh did it say they chose Oklahoma City because it was close and convenient. This is hard to believe. Timothy McVeigh spent thousands of dollars and months of his time driving all over the country just to talk to people. Should we seriously believe he couldn't be bothered to drive to Washington to plant the bomb which would be his claim to the Big Time? On the contrary, I find it incredible that he didn't - if he really was one of the bombers, that is.

But I digress: the subject here is not Whodunnit, but Target Acquisition.

THERE ARE ONLY THREE THINGS TO CONSIDER IN CHOOSING REAL ESTATE:
LOCATION, LOCATION AND LOCATION.
-- an old real estate maxim

When I heard about the bombing, my first question was not "Why plant a bomb?" but "Why plant a bomb there?" After thinking about it, I realized I literally didn't even need one second to come up with a dozen better targets. Really: the next thought in my mind was, "The Federal reserve Banks would have been better."

Indeed they would. In fact, almost ANY other building would have been better - for a real anti-government bomber, that is. After a little more thought, I started to seriously consider the matter, purely as a speculative exercise in strategic warfare. If you really wanted to damage your enemy, I thought, and your chosen method was bombing, what targets would be best? What facilities were most important to the enemy? Where was he weakest? Which "choke points" did he depend on the most? Most important, which targets could alone bring down the Government if they were destroyed, with no other destruction needed?

The answers may surprise you.

DESTRUCTION JUNCTION, WHAT'S YOUR FUNCTION?

When deciding on which targets to strike first, we have merely to ask, "Which function of Government is most important?" That is, which one function is so vital that all others would be hindered and perhaps even collapse without it?

One obvious answer might be Congress. After all, Cogress makes the laws, and you can't have Government with nobody governing, right? Well, yes and no. Congress is in fact almost entirely irrelevant to the governing of America. They make laws, sure, but it is the lower bureaucrats who carry them out. Besides which, many of these bureaucrats actually do make laws, in the form of "regulations," which are supposedly not laws at all, and thus act beyond Congress as unelected lawmakers. Indeed, some patriots think Congress is alright, and it's just these unaccountable bureaucrats who are the problem.

So destroying Congress won't help - besides, they're never all in the same place anyway, not even in the Capitol, and have you ever tried to drive a truck up to the Capitol? If it was hard before, it's impossible now. So slaughtering Congress is out.

How about the bureaucrats? Unfortunately there are too many of them, and they are even more widely scattered than Congress. You would have to hit literally thousands of offices across the country, some huge, some tiny, to take out all the bureaucrats. Besides, we're looking of *one* bureau to get rid of, remember?

What about the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc? Well, that would help, except that the FBI is easily replaceable with cops trasferred from local and state governments, and the CIA and NSA are really irrelevant to domestic tyranny, specializing mroe in snooping and dirty deeds abroad. Yeah, they snoop on us too, but the whole dang Federal State doesn't depend on them.
Or the FBI either.

WHAT ABOUT THE PAPER-PUSHERS?

Ah, now we're getting somewhere!

Indeed, the paper-pushers are the problem. Government runs on paper; without it, they are literally unable to do their work. Note that paper-pushers are not the same as bureaucrats, although they are bureaucrats. A paper-pusher is someone who deals with records, which is to say things written down, either on actual paper or, more commonly these days, on computer disks. Indeed, they deal with insubstantial ephemera, putting ideas in the heads of other bureaucrats, who then act on those ideas. When you think about it, our whole tyrannical society is based on written words and the ideas that go with those words - things which are totally non-physical, literally unreal, mere spectres of the mind.

And yet, our very lives depend on these semantic phantoms. When the bureaucrats of George Orwell's 1984 claimed to be rewriting reality itself, they weren't entirely wrong.

Paper is the key.