September 22, 2008

Who's the real Paranoiac?

Certain cogent commentaries by 'expert psychologists' on the supposed 'modern phenomenon' of conspiracy theories state authoritatively that the theories are devised in an attempt by those of low 'chaos tolerance' to impose order and meaning on events that, otherwise, appear chaotic and senseless. In other words, so-called conspiracy theorists are of somewhat shaky mental health, and have a need to invent explanations that provide the security they seek. Curiously, the mainstream media were fond of using the word 'senseless' over and over in their rehearsed analyses of the events surrounding the attacks of 9-11. It was as if they were using neuro-linguistic programming to insert the suggestion to the masses that the ostensible attackers had acted out of irrational motives. This view, of course, fueled the always latent paranoia of the great American majority, making them all the more amenable to extreme, bellicose solutions presented by Bush and co. The problem with this proposition by the psych-experts, though, is that, once you really think about it, it is completely reverse to the truth!

It is those who desire to retain a patina of order and meaning on the world who struggle most vehemently to defend the official explanations and the orthodox views... the consensus reality. They are ones upset by intimations that their cherished, carefully-crafted world view may be flawed; that the true outlook may include 'conspiratorial elements.' It's those who are prepared to listen to alternative, minority views, and who are prepared to participate in open, unbiased, unprejudiced investigations who are of healthy mindset... not the panicky defenders of the status quo, terrified that their tidy paradigm might be faulty, might be out of synch with reality. Bear this firmly in mind when confronting the staunch attackers of unorthodox approaches to the 9-11 mythos; they are the ones who should be (and usually are) on the defensive. When presented with any of the myriad of compounding inconsistencies and incongruities surrounding 9-11, they have to finally confess a belief in overwhelming coincidence. You could call them 'coincidence theorists,' in fact.

In the case of an extreme event, like the September 11, 2001, attacks, people are essentially stunned for a period of time, regardless of whether they were directly involved or merely watched events on television. The masterminds behind such assaults are fully aware of the psychology of mass delusion, and it is obvious in the 9-11 situation that the planners were extraordinarily well prepared. They took full advantage of the 'window of shock' to set the stage, insinuate the background, create common knowledge, and produce the reality they desired. I believe that there are legions of people within the USA who witnessed the television coverage that day, and then watched and listened to the stream of talking heads trotted out by the big networks... and are still in a daze because they know that things simply cannot have happened as the government and its shills tell us. These are people like airline pilots, policemen, firemen, structural engineers, construction foremen, security officers, and so on-- people who have some personal knowledge or experience in matters that touch on the events of that day. They know all too well that the official story is transparently riddled with inconsistencies and nonsensical explanations. Yet they see this constant flow of so-called experts who spout prepared accounts of how the events must have unfolded, because, after all, we all saw what happened, didn't we? And there is a big hole at 'ground zero,' isn't there?

Yes; we saw something happen, very quickly, before our unprepared eyes. So, the question is, what really happened, and how? This is where the divergence in opinion occurs. According to the establishment and its media barkers, it's all pretty simple: a group of Islamic, maniac terrorists, who are disgruntled at the West for its individual freedoms, attacked the symbols of America's strength-- the financial trade center and the military's core, the Pentagon. They struck a symbolic blow, but the West will strike back and repay them a hundred-fold. Just give our governments the 'tools' they need-- huge military budgets, increased powers to abrogate the constitution, and they'll take care of that nasty terrorism problem. Tragically, it appears that a majority (maybe just barely, tho) fell into the fear trap, and went along with the prescribed program. After a time, however, many people started to ask questions, and as they did, well, wonder of wonders, more questions arose from the vacuous answers supplied by TPTB.

Right after the dust started settling on Manhattan Island, a few curious and insightful persons saw some inconsistencies, things that didn't make sense in light of the official explanations. Some of them probably, quite innocently, expected that they were helping the investigation into this 'crime of the new century.' They were the ones who were most puzzled and distressed by the rebuff their 'help,' received from those who were supposed to be charged with getting to the bottom of the crime. But others of the skeptics realized immediately the 'end game' unfolding before a startled world, and understood that they had no choice but to avoid the mainstream media and employ the power of the Internet to get their message out to whoever would listen. At first, the 'MSM' just ignored these pesky 'kooks.' But as their questioning went from general issues to specific and technical details, and the public showed a little interest, the media machine cranked up its volume and counter-attacked. One of their most effective weapons in the battle for minds was the devaluing of the word conspiracy. By repeating the phrase 'conspiracy theory,' and always in a context of ridicule and condemnation, they have, in a few short years, perverted a legitimate phrase into a negative epithet. It is now sufficient for the defenders of orthodoxy, God, and the Queen, to speak that magic, neuro-linguistic incantation to defuse an attempt by the 9-11 alternative analysts to present anything that may cast doubt on their dogma. If medieval history is any indication, the next step will be to set up 'boards of enquiry' (read inquisition) to interview people who get too outspoken in challenging the doctrinal position of the US administration.

You may think I'm joking, just exaggerating; but I'm not (I wish it were a joke). Remember, the sick minds running this show authorized the use of torture on detainees... and there was hardly a murmur of protest from the rank and file of Americans. If there were nay-sayers, the media ignored them, and presto-- they didn't exist, for all intents. I raise the issue because you must know that torture was an important instrument of official policy during the Inquisitions, and fully approved by the Church. In those days, they (TPTB) were hunting for heretics, and if someone, anyone, accused you of heresy, then by God, you were a heretic, unless by some miracle you could convince them otherwise. Today, if the 'security cops' find any kind of 'link' to terrorism (such as an Arab-sounding name) then you could find yourself detained, with the prospect of being 'rendered' to some country known for its miserable record on human rights. So, no, it's no joke; we're looking at a 'modern Inquisition' in our day.

A cornerstone of mass propaganda and 'public delusion,' is the endemic use of deception. Those who would rule over us for their own ends depend on a constant flow of lies to mask their true intentions. To convince whole populations to accept their lies requires the complicity of the mainstream media, who are key to mass hypnotism. While Edward Bernays laid the groundwork, in the 1920s, for the methods of mass manipulation thru propaganda, it was Marshall McLuhan who studied the hypnogogic effect of television on viewers. With the concentration of media ownership into fewer corporate hands, and those hands belonging to the ranks of the bankster elite, it has become easy for the US (and other national) governments to get their lies before the citizens, and to get them out powerfully and often. Thus, the pieces have come together to create the perfect storm of mass delusion. For the creators of the illusions, there is just one big fly in the ointment-- the Internet. This is the last source of independent news and commentary, and is perhaps the last hope for those who oppose the Matrix. What prevents the masters from taking absolute control of even this medium is the fact that the very fecundity of the 'Net has resulted in a profusion, call it a babble, of voices, some of them reasonable, and many of them less so. Hence, the various opponents of the status quo have to try to get their message thru a barrage of extraneous hype and noise and hope that a critical mass of viewers, scattered far and wide, will eventually see their view and adopt it. It's like an electronic, underground, resistance movement fighting a huge army occupying the cultural landscape.

The point in all the above is to demonstrate that those who believe in conspiracy, especially in connection with terrorism, are by no means deserving of scornful epithets, and condescending glances. Nor are they wild-eyed nuts who develop conspiracy theories in a desperate bid to find rational explanations for the traumas of modern life. It is instead, those who reject and contest the conspiracy evidence who are most frantic to retain the veneer of normalcy to their world view. It is the supporters of orthodoxy who are fearful that their world may be crumbling around them, and will defend whatever the voice of authority speaks because it provides the comfort of reassurance. We who have seen that the 'emperor has no clothes,' have to remember that those who cling to the official mythos are acting out of self-preservation instincts, and for the most part, are afraid that if the crazies are correct, then it's too horrible to contemplate. Everything they have been raised to hold dear will be open to doubt and possible destruction. For most people, that is too much to admit; they would rather retreat into denial, and take their chances. What odds do you want to give them? Your answer may identify who is the real paranoiac of the 21st century.

No comments:

Post a Comment