How easy it is to make people believe a lie, and how hard it is to undo that work again! (Mark Twain)
I let go with a blog post before I had finished it. On the iPad the “save draft” and “publish” buttons are side-be side and I had to pee and ….
So what. Blogging has gotten really, really boring, and it is time for a quantum leap. I am going to attempt something never done by either bloggers or journalists. I am going to tread new ground.
I am going to try to be interesting.
Stay tuned.
We could spend the rest of our lives examining the details of the 9/11 false flag event, and no doubt in the coming decades the people who did it will feed that curiosity. If JFK is an example, they will allow new information to slip out now and then, keeping the machine running. Sometimes new information might even be real.
Movies and books and YouTube videos abound now, but it is very difficult to know who is genuine, who is a misinformation agent, and who is just stupid.
We are under control, even those of us who are genuine skeptics. Our activities are effectively quarantined by the “conspiracy theory” meme, a thought control device that squelches independent thinking. And we don’t even trust one another due to the abundance of government misinformation agents about.
Initially, according to General Wesley Clark, the U.S. intended to use the event to bring about regime change in seven countries (Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan,and Iran.) The dominant religion in that part of the world is Muslim, so Muslims were used as patsies that day. That enflamed focused hatred in the American public, and thus unleashed the American military juggernaut to go on a terror rampage.
It was successful – that is, the enflamed passions part. Most Americans hate Muslims and fear Arabs. Fear is an effective sales strategy.
The military operations perhaps have faltered, but who really knows? We are not privy to the inside dealings of the National Security State and its military/intelligence operations.
This much can be said with some assuredness: Even as they endured defeat in Iraq (and are still attacking it, now using ISIS), and even as they are yet to being down Iran, the military onslaught has not been slowed, hampered or changed by American elections.
That is an important point, something really useful to know. A positive side effect of 9/11 is evidence that national American elections do not affect American public policy. (The same is true, in my view, at the state level in Montana and Colorado, where I live and have lived, but I cannot speak for the other 48 states.)
Regarding 9/11 itself, is there any reason to stay in the rabbit hole? Are we not walking backward through history? Is there any point to finding truth?
No, and yes: There is indeed no point in unraveling the crime from a whodunnit it how-they-dun-it standpoint. They got way with it, they got their wars, and the people who did it will never be caught or punished.
But yes, there is a good reason to understand the event, even as we can never achieve justice.
It is hard to separate wheat from chaff, hard to know who is real, who is fake in the world of political intrigue, especially with the high intrigue of state-sponsored terrorism like 9/11. As Winston Smith learned in 1984, the man he relied on, O’Brien, was a mole whose job was to ferret out people suffering independent thought experiences*. The enemy of the Party – Emmanuel Goldstein – did he really even exist? Or was he too an invention of the state?
So we stumble along, doing the best we can, and never knowing who we can trust. But one woman, Dr. Judy Wood, has taken a deep interest the the events of that day as they affected the World Trade Center, and published a book, Where Did the Towers Go? Evidence of Directed Free Energy Technology on 9/11.
Dr. Wood is too smart to go chasing rabbits, and too much an optimist to concede defeat. Her main thrust, as I see it: The cat is out of the bag. The weaponry used to bring down the Twin Towers that day was a big ‘reveal.’ They unleashed a technology not seen before, at least at such a high concentration level.** It offers evidence of a source of free energy that can be used for good as well as evil.
I have decided to trust her, and those who support her. I have seen how she is attacked and marginalized within the co-called “9/11 Truth” movement, and so hope that indicates she is on the right path (flak intensifies as planes draw closer to a target). If I am wrong, if I am being snookered yet again, so what.
Tomorrow and in the coming days I will review some of the evidence that she has uncovered.
By the way, her resume’ is impressive, shown below the fold.
_____________________
*I have seen connections to a certain JFK researcher, Mark Lane, and the deaths of two prominent celebrities who wanted to use their platform to re-open the case. That would point arrows to Lane as an O’Brien-type agent.
**There are suspicions and evidence that the same technology was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, the 1996 destruction of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, and 2007 destruction of a bridge in Minneapolis.
Continue reading “Rabbit Hole 4: Leaving the rabbit hole …”
Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others. (Groucho Marx)
So, you’re among the skeptics! Welcome. So you don’t believe the original story about Muslims with box cutters? Well, we have others.
Loose Change!
Loose change was 2005 documentary that received wide publicity and was widely viewed, was in fact an Internet phenomenon. Below is the three-minute trailer.
The movie was designed to rope in skeptics and lead us down a blind alley. It freely asserts that 9/11 was an American coup, which anyone with half a brain can understand. But then, in over two hours, the movie seals several false impressions designed to beguile and mislead, among them:
Wikipedia, itself a source of rabbit holes and back doors, does its job. It says that
The film’s main claims have been refuted by journalists, independent researchers, and prominent members of the scientific and engineering community.
That’s called Ad Verecundiam, or “argument from authority”, by the way, in case you’re tracking logical fallacies. Wikipedia is very good on celebrities and music. In matters of national security … it is part of the cover-up. It is riddled with back doors allowing access by agents of disinformation.
On the surface, it appears we are having give-and-take. But if 9/11 was a coup d’etat, why would those who planned the event turn around and allow open debate? Are they that stupid?
It is a diversion, a side tunnel in the rabbit hole. If we follow the movie down its logical path, we will end up at a place further from the truth than when we originally raised a skeptical eyebrow.
He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors. (Thomas Jefferson)
Before viewing the movie, we were merely skeptical. After viewing it, we are thoroughly misinformed. Mission accomplished.
It is wise, then, to return to Ground Zero and set aside theories. We must examine the evidence, and let it speak.
Into the rabbit hole we went yesterday – it can absorb our energies for months.
Perceptions are part of the the problem. Ours are limited. Another part is the quality of evidence, and yet another the source of evidence, and our abilities to interpret it correctly.
A friend once remarked to me that our view of reality is like that of a ditch digger: we look over the edge and see very little. Yet what we see from this ditch is the whole of our reality, so has to do. A wise person accepts that we don’t see or know much.
Marshall McLuhan (1911-1980), spent his career analyzing our interactions with media. Each affects us differently. Some are “hot,” supplying high definition and requiring little viewer participation. Movies, with high quality images, put everything in front of us so that we can sit back and relax and enjoy the show.
Cartoons, on the other hand, are but crude outlines of reality. We have to supply almost everything so that characters come to life. What are Eric Cartman and Kenny, after all, but crude little animated circles?
McLuhan’s definition of a “cool” medium – low definition, high participation – applied to cartoons, telephones, speeches, and television.
Television requires that we look into the screen, but it is a flat presentation. In order to use it, we have to supply dimensions, depth and context. We don’t just watch our TV’s. We enter them. Thus does it have such power over us, becomes our reality. If it is on TV, it is real.
This was true Tuesday morning, 9/11/2001 – we did not observe the events of that day. We participated. They are etched in our consciousness. People get angry when skeptics say that the images were fake. Skeptics are saying that reality is fake.
9/11/2001 was a “psyop,” a psychological operation with images well-crafted in advance. Our news media actively engaged in fakery and deceit. But networks were nothing but the willing vessel. Behind those vapid faces and coiffured hairpieces are corporations that are wired to the military-industrial complex and who own and manage our reality.
What do we know for sure? The Twin Towers went away. The Pentagon had a hole. That is all we can say with certainty from the TV images. Since we’ve all talked now to witnesses, we know that World Trade Center complex was destroyed. That was real.
One image given to us, of an aircraft sliding through a building as a knife through butter, is something that cannot happen in real life. (By the way, notice how the building moves in relation to the plane in this GIF image!) There were no eyewitness accounts of that, but it was on TV. Since TV is reality, we have adjusted our reality to fit the images. Newton’s Third Law was suspended that day.
The television networks lied to us. This is proven (a word I seldom use) since the planes hitting the buildings could only go through them by mans of “CGI,” or “computer-generated imagery.” Physical reality does not allow that.
The television networks owned our minds that day, and served as the conduit by which other lies were fed to us in our traumatized state. We were fed a farcical tale of hijackers, a demonic image of a man in a cave, and “photos” of 19 “hijackers.” One of them, Mohammed Atta, was an obvious “Photoshop” creation, a Freddy Kruger-like image made to enter our nightmares.
Once we know that the television images were contrived for effect, our job is to get out of our ditch and find more and better evidence. But we cannot go places and see things, we cannot know the minds of those who contrived that event. That means that we must decide who we can trust, and who not.
Thus does the rabbit hole provide many turns and tunnels.
The Wayfarer
by Stephen CraneThe wayfarer,
Perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
“Ha,” he said,
“I see that no one has passed here
In a long time.”
Later he saw that each weed was a singular knife.
“Well,” he mumbled at last,
“Doubtless there are other roads.”
I was reading a piece by Barrie Zwicker called “The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Gatekeepers of the Left.” Zwicker undresses the old fart.
There is undeniable quality in Chomsky’s writings. It is hard to back away from his impressive body of work on American foreign policy and propaganda. But what if he is himself a propagandist? Zwicker gives us a list of techniques beginning with absurdities and ending with “word inflation,*” and uses them on Noam.
Here’s Chomsky on JFK from a now-dead link at his old haunt, Z magazine:
It’s true that I know very little about the assassination. The only thing I’ve written about is that the claim that it was a high-level conspiracy with policy significance is implausible to a quite extraordinary degree. History isn’t physics and even in physics nothing is really “proven” but evidence against this claim is overwhelming from every testable point of view, remarkably so for a historical event. Given that conclusion, which I think is well founded, that I have written about, a lot, I have no further interest in the assassination and while I’ve read a few books out of curiosity I haven’t given the matter any attention and have no opinion about how or why JFK was killed.
Here’s the undressing:
It’s true that I know very little about the assassination [ignorance flaunted]. The only thing I’ve written about is that the claim that it was a high-level conspiracy with policy significance is implausible [internal contradiction: he admits to knowing “very little” so on what basis does he find any claim “implausible?”] to a quite extraordinary degree [adding to the internal contradiction, word inflation, failure to provide minimal evidence]. History isn’t physics [obfuscation] and even in physics nothing is really “proven” [misdirection, vis a vis the laws of physics] but evidence against this claim is overwhelming [internal contradiction, word inflation, bald assertion, failure to provide minimal evidence] from every testable point of view [sweeping generalization, bald assertion], remarkably so for a historical event [word inflation, failure to provide minimal evidence]. Given that conclusion, which I think is well founded [bandwagon psychology, failure to provide minimal evidence], that I have written about, a lot,[internal contradiction: earlier he said the only thing he’s written about it is to claim implausibility, etc.] I have no further interest in the assassination [dismissiveness, evasion, minimizing importance of the important] and while I’ve read a few books [internal contradiction: he said he knows “very little:” reading “some books” surely qualifies as more than “very little”,] out of curiosity [dismissiveness, suggesting close-mindedness, not even fake open-mindedness] I haven’t given the matter any attention [internal contradiction: for someone who “hasn’t given the matter any attention” he has arrived at extremely strong and controversial opinions] and have no opinion about how or why JFK was killed [internal contradiction: he has an opinion, which he has just energetically expressed, that the way JFK was killed was not by state conspiracy].
Chomsky is in contortions in his statement, albeit a mere chat room post. He’s clearly uncomfortable with the subject, and aggressive in distancing himself from it. He’s urging his followers, who number in the millions, to avoid the subject as well. This is the work of a gatekeeper:
“This far, no further.”
Crediting Chomsky with essential honesty in his work, which I have read extensively, I am left in a quandary. He is not convincing. The assassination, if a state conspiracy (as evidence strongly suggests), was coup d’état, and so is of critical importance. It is true that JFK was but a flawed man, an actor strutting and fretting on a stage. Set him aside. Look at the event.
Elsewhere Zwicker references E. Martin Schotz and his book History Will Not Absolve Us. According to Schotz, an early JFK researcher, Ray Marcus, met with Chomsky in 1969 and a one-hour affair turned out to be four. His secretary canceled all appointments for the rest of the day. He agreed to a follow-up session. Then the line went dead.
Chomsky knows more than he lets on. Marcus later met with a Chomsky colleague at MIT, Selwyn Bromberger, who said
“If they are strong enough to kill the president, and strong enough to cover it up, then they are too strong to confront directly … if they feel sufficiently threatened, they may move to open totalitarian rule.”
Chomsky often refers to people in institutional settings who have to meld their minds with the power around them. We cannot live long with internal contradictions, he says. So, crediting him with integrity, I suggest that this is the avenue he has chosen deliberately – that to directly confront power would cost him his job, perhaps his life. Setting the matter aside as he does allows him a forum for all other matters.
Nonetheless, he performs the role of gatekeeper. Further, by warning his legions of followers away from curiosity about the event, he undermines his credibility. If he is so disingenuous in one area, what degree of confidence can we bestow on everything else?
_____________________
Continue reading “The pathway to truth’”
My wife’s son works for a company that has four season tickets directly behind the third base dugout at Wrigley Field. Yesterday we got to use them. It is as close as I have ever been to a major league game. Interesting too that the people around us seemed like everyday people, no one rich and famous. Those folks are probably behind the glass walls high up above.
The beer vendors came around every two minutes, but we only wanted water. That vendor never showed. The lines were so deep underneath that it would have taken half an hour to get waited on. And anyway, it would have been $10 for two Aquifinas.
But we did not have to pee, the whole time, saving another half an hour.
This is, however, a fun time. Keep that in mind.
We took a boat trip yesterday, the Chicago Architectrual Tour. I expected it to be interesting, and was not disappointed. I am at a loss for words to describe the genius, ingenuity and “imagine-it-so-make-it-so” engineering ability of our fellow humans.
At the same time, surrounded by such genius, I wonder why the same people are so easily fooled by false flag events and political lies, large and small. Things we know to be physically impossible are believed with credulous blank stares. Lame explanations by authority figures are not just swallowed whole, but with great enthusiasm.
Part of it is faith. We are raised from the cradle to believe in our government and institutions. The notion that they would so boldly lie to us is impossible to accept. Doubt requires setting aside a life of fables. The implications of doing that are too severe to contemplate.
Another part was voiced by Alexis de Tocqueville in the 1830s:
It is extremely difficult to obtain a hearing from men living in democracies, unless it be to speak to them of themselves. They do not attend to the things said to them, because they are always fully engrossed with the things they are doing. For indeed few men are idle in democratic nations; life is passed in the midst of noise and excitement, and men are so engaged in acting that little remains to them for thinking. I would especially remark that they are not only employed, but that they are passionately devoted to their employments. They are always in action, and each of their actions absorbs their faculties: the zeal which they display in business puts out the enthusiasm they might otherwise entertain for idea.”
Emphasis added, or course. and keep in mind that back then most people were self-employed. Employment by others, having a “boss” in our lives, is now seen as normal but is an even more debilitating experience. We must constantly monitor our thought content to make sure it aligns with those who have power over us.
People are too busy to think here in our fake democracy. They are easily fooled by our overlords. But as seen on the architectural boat tour, there is genius among us and on display all about.
Along with his terrorist war [on Cuba], Kennedy imposed a trade embargo of unprecedented severity, barring any transaction involving merchandise “of Cuban origin” or that “has been located or transported from or through Cuba [or] is made or derived in whole or in part of any article which is the growth, produce, or manufacture of Cuba.” In the years that followed, huge resources have been devoted to monitor international commerce to ensure that the strictures are upheld …
On illustration has been provided by the treasury Department, reporting to Congress in April 2004 on the activities of its Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), responsible for investigating suspicious financial transfers, a central component of the “war on terror.” OFAC informed Congress that of its 120 employees, four were assigned to tracking the finances of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while almost two dozen were occupied with enforcing the embargo against Cuba. From 1990 to 2003, OFAC reported 93 terrorism-related investigations with $9,000 in fines; and 11,000 Cuba-related investigations with $8 million in fines. (Chomsky, introduction to Voices From the Other Side, by Keith Bolender)
In fairness to OFAC, they might well have known what the rest of us came to understand later, that by 2004 both Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were dead.
Even so, it is interesting to note the vigor with which our government fights to withhold basic freedoms from little Cuba while virtually ignoring its own self-proclaimed War on Terror.
I was raised to believe in a man named “Jesus” who lived in my mind and monitored my thoughts and behaviors. Most importantly, he loved me. I was special to him.
Such thought control devices are common. When implanted in the mind of young children, they often last a lifetime. My mother, deeply lost in Alzheimer’s, still bowed her head in deep devotion as my brother invoked the name before slipping her a wafer.
DM Murdock, author of The Christ Conspiracy and a bunch of other stuff, relieved me of much of the mystery. I had long been set free from Jesus before reading her, but she explained the origin of the symbols of Christianity – sun worship.
As with so much of mythology, the explanation is hidden in plain sight. Even so, transcending generations and language development, to this day most Americans believe in and worship the “Son.” Cue the Twilight Zone theme!
Murdock now suffers from a very aggressive cancer. She’ll soon be gone, but her body of work will long outlive her. Because this is the United States, aggressive health care to treat her aggressive cancer is unaffordable, and her friends and supporters are crowd-sourcing to finance her treatment. Good luck with that, and thanks Acharya S for living a good and useful life.
________________________
Solomon Asch was a social psychologist who dreamed up an experiment in thought control, usually done in a classroom. Students, most in on the trick, are shown a set of lines and asked which one is longest. When those not in on the game identify the obvious choice, the group responds negatively, and later still, by group consensus, a shorter line is “voted” to be the longest.
The question is whether the subjects rebel, go along, or really get their minds right. Judging from my experience with 9/11 and other mass illusion phenomena, I am guessing that most students truly believe their perceptions are wrong and the crowd is right. We are but children, after all, and I was 38 years old before I disabused myself of that Jesus guy.
________________________
Which brings me to the last “thought” I had this morning as reading Brian Anse Patrick’s book The Ten Commandments of Propaganda.
People react to the word “propaganda” just as they do to “shit” or “thought control.” The word causes a blockage of cognitive thought processes. Propagandists know this, and so have changed their names to “public relations” and “information” agents. That’s too bad, because the field is rich with explanatory power about all that goes on around us, just as Murdock’s revelations so easily exposed the Jesus scam.
I won’t go into detail on Patrick’s work, as people who saw the fright words in the above paragraph have already quit reading. He invoked Jacques Ellul, and offers a much more refined reading of the man than I could muster.
Ellul reminded us that propaganda gives meaning to an otherwise meaningless existence. It is not something done to us as much as something we deeply need. It validates us, makes us morally and intellectually superior to our peers and to people in other lands. It is our raison d’être.
I have come recently to understand that voting is a scam – that is, public opinion is herd management and nothing more. Actually counting votes would be an absurd practice. We have thousands of people who think they are part of the process every election day. With patriotic music in the background, public officials pretend that voting matters and that votes are actually counted.
Voting gives us meaning. It is the government telling each of us, individually, in a cubicle with a curtain drawn, that we matter, that our opinion counts.
________________________
Anyway, thank you D.M. Murdock, Solomon Asch, Brian Patrick Anse, Jacques Ellul, my mother and most of all, Jesus, for helping me through this crazy fucking life. It just keeps getting more interesting.
Maybe I am at a crossroads or in a lull. All these years of reading have left me empty. This country, full of good but very dumbed down people, is run by a fascist shadow government. My questions now are merely how and when it came about. Bigger yet, is it the normal state of affairs throughout history? I suspect so.
Not to go all Godwin on the matter, but the Nazis came to power by deft criminal maneuvering. The primary tool at their disposal was murder. Once an important person is killed, and the crime goes down uninvestigated and unpunished, a cloud of intimidation sets in. All throughout the legitimate power centers there evolves unvoiced but well-understood fear. Smart and brave people who confront the hidden power source are murdered, threatened, scandalized … eventually smart and brave people exit the system, and we are left with thugs, cowards, sociopaths, and cynical manipulators. (Which reminds me, the 2016 election will be a “choice” … Clinton v Bush.) Continue reading “In search of meaninglessness”
Piece of Mindful 