Spoon Fed Ideology
Submitted by QMS on Mon, 09/10/2018 - 5:50am
This is a link to an article worth considering by a professor in Massachusetts. One of the magnetized lines...
a highly sophisticated linguistic mind-control campaign
https://www.globalresearch.ca/why-i-dont-speak-of-the-fake-news-of-911-a...
Comments
Interesting article and website
Thanks for the link. Interesting. Creepy. And most likely true.
Wars. Wealth grabbing. Geoengineering.
IMO only Mother Nature can save us.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
Nah.
Mother nature's going to take us out.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
That's the other alternative
True that.
Marilyn
"Make dirt, not war." eyo
The common understanding of "conspiracy" is two or more
people agreeing or planning an act that is illegal or harmful, or one that is legal itself, but illegal if two or more people agree on it. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/conspiracy
Often, the term "conspiracy theory" is invoked mockingly and dismissively when someone has a theory about something specific that differs from the official story provided by government.
1. Do two or more people agree to do things that are illegal or harmful?
Obviously, yes, or our federal government would not have needed a law against conspiracy.
2. Has government always made public the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
No. Whistle blowers have proven that again and again.
In light of the above, why does a theory about two or more people doing something illegal or harmful automatically warrant ridicule and dismissal?
It doesn't.
It warrants ridicule if and when the
hypothesized conspiracy:
A. Strains credulity in terms of the motivations and/or capacity of the conspirators
B. Relies on misstated/overstated claims about what is or is not possible, or what did or did not "really" happen, most egregiously including facts that are simply not rationally disputable, ie., the fate of American Airlines Flight 77.
C. Is expressed in terms and arguments characterized primarily by mistrust of TPTB rather than by any available evidence
D. Exceeds (perhaps substantially) in complexity the non-conspiratorial explanation.
I don't know for certain what the hell happened on 9/11/2001, but I do know that the hyperbolic disbelief expressed in that linked article is, to me, pure nonsense. It is amusing that this particular article focuses on the significance of the language that is in play. Even cursory study of the language promoting alternatives to the "official" story reveals that it is characterized primarily by hyperbolic assertions of undemonstrable "facts", and leaps of logic in which elements whose official explanations are perceived wanting (or nonexistent) are assigned (with great certainty), out of the infinite universe of equally wanting alternative explanations, exactly and only those that happen to suit the prejudices of the alternativist.
Anyone who has ever traced out the process of conspiratorial (or for that matter, generalized delusional) thinking can see it all in play in the case of the 9/11 "truth" movement. It is as easy to shoot down most of the proffered evidence and argument as it is to shoot down the moon-landing hoaxers (sorry, we did land men on the moon), or the climate-change deniers (sorry, it is changing due to human activity, and almost certainly for the worse), or the young-earth creationists (sorry, but the only workable young-earth hypothesis is the one in which, for whatever mysterious but fundamentally hostile reasons, the creator created the entire universe exactly as if it had been around for 13+ billion years), or the Bermuda Triangle goofyists (sorry, but there's nothing remotely inexplicable about almost anything that has apparently happened in or around the area), or the Paul-is-dead fantasists (sorry, but Paul is alive, still today. Yeah, his voice is getting weak, but he still seems to rock out as hard as he ever did -- which may be news to people who've never seen him live and don't realize just hard he does rock out.).
I just have no time for this kind of thinking, whether with respect to 9/11/2001 or with respect to 12/7/1941 (no, FDR didn't know in advance) or with respect to back-masked satanism in Stairway to Heaven (no, there wasn't) or with respect to alien abduction (no, you weren't). Give me something I can consider concrete and rational -- not something that depends on one person's gestalt impression of what they're seeing in a video clip, or on unprovable statements about how hot a fire in a 100-story office building can burn, or on perceived weaknesses in the "official" story that are trivially explained by thinking reasonably about the circumstances on the day, and whose alternativist explanations are even weaker.
NOTE: I've quoted "official" not ironically or mockingly, but because there are many factions amongst those who dislike the "official" story, and they don't all agree on what they mean by "the official story", rendering the term rhetorically perilous.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
"Automatically" being a key word.
But, I do not automatically disqualify any theory because it is more complex than the official government explanation.
i was thinking along the lines of
"all or most of the above", certainly D is the least significant of the 4.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I think you are right here.
And...I think it would be better if we focused on what is known to be true:
The perpetrators of the Sept 11 act were mostly, if I recall, Saudis.
There was no link to Iraq.
There were no "weapons of mass destruction".
The patriot act was written and ready to be passed.
So there was a conspiracy, in my opinion, to gin up forever war; but not in the way outlined in the link.
Expected reactions
question everything
9/11 has become a Rorschach event
in that people's reactions to it are highly revealing of their basic attitudes toward (mainly fear and loathing of) the government.
Now, I don't trust those venal parasites in DC any farther than I could caber-toss the Washington Monument, but to think that they were competent enough even to organize a Cub Scout cookout is IMHO giving them more credit than they deserve.
Edit: Which probably shows that my attitude its thoroughly laced with contempt.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Good point OM
Dramatic acts scripted to elicit certain desired results. Military marketing. I agree the puppets, clowns and ventriloquists in DC are one trick ponies. Ambitions start and end with their elections. It seems the monied interests behind the advertised machine are calling the shots anyway.
question everything
and i want to emphasize that i do not disagree
that in the aftermath of the event, the Forces of Darkness used carefully engineered language to maximize their exploitation of the attack for their undeniably evil purposes. of course they did. it is what they do, always, at all opportunities. i could go back to my dKos account and search up comments in which I railed against the use of "Homeland" -- after all, only empires have "Homelands"; for everybody else, there is no other land at all, and no meaning in the qualification of "Security" as "Homeland Security", for there is no other kind of Security to be discussed.
watching americans morph into a nation of 250 million full-grown terrified kindergarteners was an object lesson in "it could happen here".
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
Heya nine eleven
a symbol of the permanent state of emergency so many fear
question everything
Excellent article.
Thanks for that. I have read somewhere about the prior use of "Homeland" before 11 September, cant remember which book. He makes a compelling case. I may send that one on, although I'm never sure what I send gets read anymore.
Only a fool lets someone else tell him who his enemy is. Assata Shakur
I thoroughly enjoyed this.
The words and phrases ahead of the act condition us to expect/accept and not question the act.
The Pearl Harbor movie release was planned, huh?
I am open to the idea that my country planning a strategic act of aggression on us to achieve the goal of getting approval for aggressive acts upon other countries that have resources we want.
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." ---- William Casey, CIA Director, 1981
Fascinating topic.
Linguistics are often key to events and innovations. In reading the responses, I see that it is indeed a touchy subject, still. A few weeks ago, on WikiSpooks, I ran into a 9-11 cui bono theory that tied the events of 9-11 to the strategically vulnerable state of Israel. It's unsettling to see scores of strange connections in one place. I found it quite convincing from a geopolitical point of view. It was also anxiety producing, for no apparent reason. I have yet to finish the article. See what you think. This is not my area of expertise. I, too, veered away from the topic. I feel quite programmed. I wonder if others have a strong reaction to a somewhat dry collection of connections to 9-11.
Carry a flame and share the light.
.