This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Is the End Game of Wikileaks Internet Censorship?
- Afghanistan
- Bank of America
- Bank of America
- Barack Obama
- Bear Stearns
- CDS
- Department of Justice
- Fail
- Federal Reserve
- goldman sachs
- Goldman Sachs
- Great Depression
- Iran
- Iraq
- Israel
- Main Street
- Merrill
- Merrill Lynch
- Money Supply
- New York Times
- Newspaper
- North Korea
- SmartKnowledgeU
- Transparency
- Washington Mutual
- World Bank
F. William Engdahl’s first book, A
Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order, discussed
the roles of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Ball and of the USA in the 1979
overthrow of the Shah of Iran. Engdahl claims that Brzezinski and Ball used the
Islamic Balkanization model proposed by Bernard Lewis to accomplish US policy
goals in Iran. Not coincidentally, Brzezinski was a key figure in US
President Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign and played a key role in helping
former US President Jimmy Carter get elected. In 2007, he released a book that exposed the massive dangers of GMO
foods called, Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of GMO.
One of F. William Engdahl’s latest
articles is titled “Wikileaks, a Big Dangerous US Government Con Job”. In this
article, Engdahl implies that Wikileaks is
a US government-run propaganda and disinformation operation with an end goal of restricting
freedoms on the internet. Here are some of the key excerpts from this article.
"A closer look at the details of what has
so far been carefully leaked by the most ultra-establishment of international
media such as the New York Times reveals a clear agenda. That agenda coincidentally
serves to buttress the agenda of US geopolitics around the world from Iran to
North Korea.
It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true. A discontented 22-year old US Army
soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning, a low-grade US Army intelligence
analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the military, a disgruntled “computer
geek,” sifts through classified information at Forward Operating
Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email
communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a
day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In
addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera
video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war
logs from Iraq and Afghanistan. It is almost too perfectly scripted to be true.
A discontented 22-year old US Army soldier on duty in Baghdad, Bradley Manning,
a low-grade US Army intelligence analyst, described as a loner, a gay in the
military, a disgruntled “computer geek,” sifts through classified information
at Forward Operating
Base Hammer. He decides to secretly download US State Department email
communications from the entire world over a period of eight months for hours a
day, onto his blank CDs while pretending to be listening to Lady Gaga. In
addition to diplomatic cables, Manning is believed to have provided WikiLeaks with helicopter gun camera
video of an errant US attack in Baghdad on unarmed journalists, and with war
logs from Iraq and Afghanistan.”
"Manning
then is supposed to have tracked down a notorious former US computer hacker to
get his 250,000 pages of classified US State Department cables out in the
Internet for the whole world to see. He allegedly told the US hacker that the
documents he had contained "incredible, awful things that belonged in the
public domain and not on some server stored in a dark room in Washington,
DC." The hacker turned him in to US authorities so the story goes. Manning
is now incommunicado since months in US military confinement so we cannot ask
him, conveniently. The Pentagon routinely hires the best hackers to design
their security systems.
[Assange]
selects
as exclusive newspapers to decide what is to be leaked the New York Times which did such service in promoting faked propaganda
against Saddam that led to the Iraqi war, the London Guardian and Der Spiegel.
Assange claims he had no time to sift through so many pages so handed them to
the trusted editors of the establishment media for them to decide what should
be released. Very “anti-establishment” that.
The New York Times even assigned one of its
top people, David E. Sanger, to control the release of the Wikileaks material.
Sanger is no establishment outsider. He sits as a member of the elite Council on Foreign
Relations as well as the Aspen Institute Strategy
Group together with the likes of Condi Rice, former Defense Secretary
William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, former State Department Deputy
Secretary and now World Bank head Robert Zoellick among
others. Indeed a strange choice of media for a person who claims to be
anti-establishment. But then Assange also says he believes the US Government
version of 9/11 and calls the Bilderberg Group a
normal meeting of people, a very establishment view.
Most important, the 250,000
cables are not "top secret" as we might have thought. Between two and
three million US Government employees are cleared to see this level of
"secret" document, [1] and some
500,000 people around the world have access to the Secret Internet Protocol
Router Network (SIPRnet) where the cables were stored. SIPRnet is not
recommended for distribution of top-secret information. Only 6% or 15,000 pages
of the documents have been classified as even secret, a level below top-secret.
Another 40% were the lowest level, "confidential", while the rest
were unclassified. In brief, it was not all that secret.
What
is emerging from all the sound and Wikileaks
fury in Washington is that the entire scandal is serving to advance a
long-standing Obama and Bush agenda of policing the until-now free Internet.
Already the US Government has shut the Wikileaks
server in the United States though no identifiable US law has been broken."
"The process
of policing the Web was well underway before the current leaks scandal. In 2009
Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller and Republican Olympia Snowe introduced the Cybersecurity
Act of 2009 (S.773). It would give the President unlimited power to
disconnect private-sector computers from the internet. The bill "would
allow the president to ’declare a cyber-security emergency’ relating to
’non-governmental’ computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the
threat." We can expect that now this controversial piece of legislation
will get top priority when a new Republican House and the Senate convene in
January.
US Department of Homeland Security, an agency
created in the political hysteria following 9/11 2001 that has been compared to
the Gestapo, has already begun policing the Internet. They are quietly seizing
and shutting down internet websites (web domains) without due process or a
proper trial. DHS simply seizes web domains that it wants to and posts an
ominous "Department of Justice" logo on the web site. See an example
at http://torrent-finder.com (My note: Do click on this link. It's worth checking out.)"
On the
political front, I agree with Engdahl’s assessment of Assange’s leaked
government cables. In the cables I have seen discussed in various newspaper articles thus far, there is nothing more than the occasional embarrassing
quote, nothing top-secret, and nothing remotely damaging to any US allies
revealed in any of these supposedly top-secret government cables.
And regarding Assange’s threat of leaking thousands of confidential documents
contained in a 5 gigabyte drive regarding a big US bank believed to be Bank of
America as an “anti-establishment” act, I’m not buying it. According to a Forbes
interview, Assange stated that his leak would “give a true and representative
insight into how banks behave at the executive level in a way that will
stimulate investigations and reforms, I presume.” I say, so what if this big leak
Assange is in possession of pertains to Bank of America and if it reveals
documents that result in the demise of BofA? If this is how this drama plays
out, this event would ultimately be more pro-establishment and pro-elite than anti-establishment. The
demise of BofA would only mean that JP Morgan, as they have already done with
Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual, would have yet another opportunity to stamp
out their competition, swoop in like vultures, and pick up BofA’s carcass for
pennies on the dollar. Or perhaps Goldman Sachs will be given this carcass to
pick clean. Either way, if this
happens, it consolidates power for the elites at the top and could not have worked
out any better if Assange was a paid employee of Goldman Sachs or JP Morgan. Remember
that BofA bought up Merrill Lynch when Merrill Lynch failed, so an acquisition of BofA would translate
into a delayed acquisition of Merrill Lynch.
In
the book, “The Great Depression of the XXI Century,” Tanya Cariina Hsu wrote:
“In
1907, J.P. Morgan, a private New York banker, published a rumor that a
competing unnamed large bank was about to fail. It was a false charge but
customers nonetheless raced to their banks to withdraw their money, in case it
was their bank. As they pulled out their funds, the banks lost their cash
deposits and were forced to call in their loans. People therefore had to pay
back their mortgages to fill the banks with income, going bankrupt in the
process. The 1907 panic resulted in a crash that prompted the creation of the
Federal Reserve, a private banking cartel with the veneer of an independent
government organization. Effectively, it was a coup by elite bankers in order
to control the industry."
"When
signed into law in 1913, the Federal Reserve would loan and supply the nation’s
money, but with interest. The more money it was able to print, the more
"income" it generated for itself. By its very nature, the Federal
Reserve would forever keep producing debt to stay alive. It was able to print
America’s monetary supply at will, regulating its value. To control valuation,
however, inflation had to be kept in check.
The
Federal Reserve then doubled America’s money supply within five years, and in
1920, it called in a mass percentage of loans. Over five thousand banks
collapsed overnight. One year later, the Federal Reserve again increased the
money supply by 62 percent, but in 1929, it again called the loans back in, en
masse. This time, the crash of 1929 caused over sixteen thousand banks to fail
and an 89 percent plunge on the stock market. The private and well-protected
banks within the Federal Reserve system were able to snap up the failed banks
at pennies on the dollar."
If this
sounds familiar, it should. This
seems to be the blueprint by today's banking elites for today’s banking industry as well. During the Bank Panic of 1907 and the Great Depression,
JP Morgan was one of the biggest beneficiaries of a panic that many
historians claimed they, along with the Federal Reserve, helped to manufacture (JP Morgan is alleged to have helped engineer both the Panic of
1907 and the Great Depression while the Federal Reserve helped engineer
the Great Depression). If the future scenario
regarding Wikileaks's release of incriminating big bank documents plays out anywhere close to the one I presented above, Julian Assange would, in essence, be performing a massive favor for the most favored private banks
of the Federal Reserve system. One must remember that during this manufactured global monetary crisis, not all banks are created equal and a handful of banks are hand picked for survival and prosperity at the expense of hundreds of others. Just because Wikileaks threatens to release incriminating documents on a big bank that could make it look bad, this should not be naively or blindly interpreted as an anti-establishment act.
Admittedly, like millions of others, I was fooled by Wikileaks's intent in the beginning. But the more and more I research them, the more it seems as though Wikileaks is cooperating with governments and banks rather than serving as their adversary or as their watchdog to increase transparency. Now, if Mr.
Assange releases cables that expose detailed correspondences between the US
Federal Reserve and JP Morgan regarding silver price suppression schemes or how
Goldman Sachs deliberately releases misinformation about gold prices, or if he
releases diplomatic cables exposing secrets between the US and Israel that have
been concealed from the public, I might start once again believing that the goal of Wikileaks is to provide greater transparency
about government and banker actions. One thing I have learned over the years about the shadowy world of banking and politics is that if something appears to be a great coincidence, it usually is not, and that things rarely are what they seem to be on the surface.
About the author: SmartKnowledgeU is a fiercely independent investment research & consulting firm dedicated to helping Main Street avoid the fraud of Wall Street.
»
- advertisements -
"The problem is one of human nature at the end of the day and figuring out how one restrains sociopathic and psychopathic behaviors in society."
absolutely. but this does not mean eliminating these behaviors altogether, for that is as foolish as thinking we can cure cancer. when thinking about this, it might be helpful to investigate the differences between antibiotics and probiotics.
what's needed is a damn good widely-distributed immune system, so that when these behaviors do manifest, they can be dealt with by a healthy social body, instead of being allowed to fester until they become a contagion.
Anyone who believes that they can "control" the internet never studied the story of Napster. They would be best to leave it alone. Otherwise, what they will end up creating is a much more complex system that will be impossible to control.
Information will be open and free no matter what government officials or businesses do. The more they try to regulate/cencorship, the more complex the system will ultimately come. If they regulate DNS, then it will ultimately become distributed DNS. If they shutdown too many "offending" websites, then they will ultimately only create distributed websites. As long as the public wants the information, it will be provided one way or another.
No need to control. Pay attention to what is available on Google. The pulse of a population can be taken from what they are searching for, looking at or whom they communicate with. Encrypted data streams don't need to be decrypted to be useful. Just by knowing who / what the end points are you have a little nugget of useful information.
I too am very skeptical of all this wikileaks stuff. I've yet to see or hear of anything that could really be called secret. Diplomats spy at the UN?! Is that not their job?
If wikileaks is a .gov job then they already know who wants to read such material, who is willing to help the leakers and what the overall reaction is to the content. All very valuable info for any follow on project.
They don't need to control the internet. All they need is the power to shut down sites and take people into custody for exercising their first amendment rights.
Except peer to peer filesharing isn't a "site". It can't be shut down. And when encrypted, it's impossible to filter.
Please don't take this as a put down, but that is a very ignorant statement. You need to realize and look into the actual infrastructure that the Internet runs on and how it works. The backbone hubs and cacheing system can and does monitor and control every packet of data and the whole system is regulated by a 'behind the scenes' network. And if you think your hiding something from .gov by encrypting it, first think about who designed the encryption and if a way to descipher it was not developed before the algo was released.
How do you think Google can 'discover' new data so quickly? Yes they do crawl a lot of the web but the majority of discovery is due to them being 'plugged in' to the network hubs and the 'behind the scenes' network.
It is just as easy to shut down/track peer to peer networks as any other. All the routing data is included in every packet sent just like any other traffic.
Agreed.
Control doesn't need to mean stop. In it's broadest and most effective usage, control means to influence and to be informed. I often think of the unborn child's umbilical cord. Tap into that and you "control" not only the child but the mother as well.
"Don't let others use your emotional needs as a weapon against you."
Isn't that the essence of salesmanship?
Yes it is. And the very heart the active ingredient of propaganda is salesmanship. Over the last 40 years the population has been conditioned to accept the sales pitch as part of the "consumer" culture. This also opens us up to massive manipulation and group-think.
WOW.
Fear really does sell. I found this fiction to be pathetic.
Revealed as someone with zero understanding of Real Politik and how intelligence operations are actually run.
I'm agnostic about WL although the red flags are certainly numerous. The Bilderberg thing is actually to me a bigger red flag. It's possible that JA wants to retain credibility with the largest audience possible and lies about his real thinking on 9/11 due to how controversial it is. However, Bilderberg is not a controversial subject. It's not very well known, those that do know about it with any depth KNOW it's bad juju. His denial of Bilderbergs is the thing that makes me the most leery of WL.
Boy, I hope some of the better novelists are ZH members, because this story above would make a great plot for a novel/film about the internet. Frankly, it had never occurred to me that Assange was a government plant, but that is not at all implausible. After all, almost nothing is known about his Australian origins and he already has taken on a sort of mythic quality. Great post.
If you want a real hacker-hero to idolize (or just follow), choose gary mckinnon. He is one of the worlds most brilliant hackers. He hacked the DoD. He is also awaiting extradition and what is strikingly different in his case is that the MSM did not parade his discoveries out for everybody to see. Now the question is, did he simply embarrass them or did he actually find anything.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_McKinnon
what i find most fascinating about mckinnon is that both gordon brown and david cameron went to bat for him. things that make you go hmmmmm.....
AND david gilmour (of pink floyd) apparently. Supposedly, he also spoke with obama. Hmmmmmmm indeed...
Still, the guy doesn't seem like an obvious plant in the way assange does. Have you read into assange's background, his childhood? Very creepy stuff.
Check out: -magnetic island; Santiniketan Park Association; Anne Hamilton-Byrne
TexDenim
"Frankly, it had never occurred to me that Assange was a government plant, but that is not at all implausible."
Or that many of the critics are actually government COINTEL plants. Take the whole Hal Turner revealtion for example.
And it is worth mentioning that just before WIKILEAKS March dump Marla from Zerohedge was one of the people questioning Assange intentions. Back then it wasn't that he was a plant but that he managed to make himself a figurehead.
My how these stories evolve.
or Janet Reno using non-flammable CNS gas to rescue the Waco children
and a pre-dawn raid by SWAT agents to liberate Elian Gonzales, or Larry Potts,
promoted for shoot first rules of engagement, or many other examples of government
malfeasance
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/rubyridge.htm
The problem with Ruby Ridge, Waco and to a lesser extent Gonzales is that main stream liberal types don't see a problem with the first 2. It's sad, pathetic and enraging, but true.
Likewise, no one on the right cares when a bunch of Anti-War protestors or G-20 protestors get their skulls caved in by riot police. Both those issues are automatically fed into the right/left paradigm.
9/11 has fucked everyone and even people on the right who are into security culture are starting to see that with the TSA etc. It's the weak point, it's the justification for the wars, bank secrecy (Patriot Act had stuff to hide important economic info), and all the massive police state garbage that protects the elite.
Soon they will use Wikileaks as justification to control the internet. However, without 9/11 there is no way Wikileaks could have been grounds for controlling the internet. It just goes on and on. So many things would have been utterly impossible without 9/11 as a pre-text. In fact, if you take the country back to pre-9/11 days, many people thought the country was only getting better and I would have been one of them. I knew about the government's blood on it's hands pre-9/11, but this country was still one I was very proud of.
I actually think 9/11 was planned/allowed to go through due to the WTO protests in Seattle in 1999. In that protest you had labor movement, environmental movement, Buy USA movement, hippies, teamster and anarchists all in agreement that Globalization was bad. This struck at the heart of the Globalists plans and they wanted to be able to put the clamps down so those would always be marginalized and use of extreme force OK'd. Just my thoughts on the matter.
Dissolve the 9/11 lie and the true nature of the Globalists will be revealed to all. Anything else and you are just playing to the right/left paradigm with the exception of the banks which are another route to revealing the gangster nature of the Globalists..
More truthful words have not been spoken..
+1000 A most excellent post, my friend.
Say, can I put that on a t-shirt?
Assange denys the 911 conspiracy. That is enough for me to believe he is with the CIA.
That's an easy way to view the world. Hey, since I'm not omniscient about 9-11, I'm with the CIA. I am also, ipso facto, owned by Soros. I'm sending him a bill for my expenses later this morning. He owes me big.
There, that was easy. Now I not only know what to believe, but I also belong to a very exclusive club.
Great points, Bob, and the utter and nonsensical idea that if you don't believe in everything I do, you are completely wrong.
Julian believes in a vast conspiracy of like interests working together, and sometimes working apart.
Quite simply, intelligent and educated people at his age typically believe this. Give them a few more years, and further accumulation of knowledge, and they whittle it down to its essence:
It appears to be a vast conspiracy of like interests, sometimes working together, other times working apart, but on closer examination there appears to be a relatively small number of individuals who control the global capital pools who have some serious and incomprehensible power.
Sure, not everything which occurs has occurred with their instigation. But that big stuff.....
+1 Very well put!
...if i only had a brain...
(straw-man allusion)
the only difference is, you're not in eveybody's face on national tv claiming that there are going to be some big changes around here after you release the leaked evidence you have in your possession...basically, you're not the one we're questioning here.
I'm going to speak to what I believe on the subject. The 911 issue has been/is so important to our identity over the past decade that pretty much everybody has a firm opinion on the matter. this creates the perfect litmus test to determine which 'side' you're on. pretty much everybody here can recognize that the establishment is not friendly to the average pawn. Although there are many questions, most can agree that the establishment fairy-tale is so full of holes that it is a practically useless as a description of the event. The official story is a lie, and thus wikileaks has endorsed a lie. While i'll admit that doesn't necessarily make them part of the CIA, it does suggest that they're untrustworthy.
i absolutely do not have a firm opinion of 911. so far from the truth and i believe i could be included under the word, everybody. i have more feelings now about this event then i did back on sept. 11.
my reaction at watching this event on TV, we deserved it. i guess i meant we as us, united states. i didn't really pay much attention after the first few days. me bad.
i have officially become scared about living in the USofA.
i might just try to save the planet and kill myself†
Yes ! suicide would be most effective in relieving any pain you have. The only problem?
You wouldn't be around to enjoy your new found peace and ease of pain.
Obviously, the suicide victim has made the decision, whether they believe it to be true or not, that to not exist is preferable to living with the pain. Until you have made that decision, you won't kill yourself.
The only one true philosophical question
http://allphilosophy.com/topic/5570
LOL, you silly stickler! That is why I hedged it with pretty much.
I wouldn't recommend killing yourself, as that is generally bad for your health. I've lost people close to me to suicide, and it just ruins the day for anybody you ever cared for or who ever cared about you (and countless days thereafter).
I guess I probably should have framed it as, 'most people who are incapable of critical thinking hold the same firm opinion on the subject as they did on sept. 11, 2001".
I have drawn a few conclusions about 9/11, but I would by no means say that I have it figured out, or that I have an unwaveringly firm stance.
For instance, I've concluded that the 9/11 commission report was compromised and cannot be trusted.
There are also certain facts that lead me to lean towards the existence of some sort of government knowledge or sanction. From training exercises, to destruction of evidence, to insurance policies, to free-falls, to passports out of infernos, I definitely lean towards something more sinister than the official explanation. That is about as firm of a statement as I am willing to make though, i honestly don't know the truth here.
The fact that you're undecided on the issue shows that you're not jumping to any conclusions, which is usually a good thing when you're talking about a subject as convoluted and polarizing as 9/11. Nice job.
my problem is trying to visual how they could pull something off so devastating to so many people and why? i just never go around thinking (period), how to hurt people.
cowboy, i am a wHOLE nother person today, then 10 years ago. my head was so into the sand or my ass, i just never cared. can you imagine, knowing someone that didn't really care. i am still not sure if i really give a rat's ass about 911. cept i thought it was brilliant they could pull it off on 9/11. HONEST†
"can you imagine, knowing someone that didn't really care"
I wonder if I even care sometimes. I often feel like i'm not even alive, like i'm some robot just executing trivial tasks. I mean, why even be alive if everything you know and love will leave you and you'll die alone in a corner? If there is no point, or if the point doesn't go beyond replicating dna, then why care? I mean, we can pratically replicate DNA more efficiently than the human body at this point.
I try to be a good person and do the right thing, and I have fuck-all to show for it (save a wonderful fiancee who I would kill for/die for/make waffles for, you know). Meanwhile, billionaire sociopaths sipping martinis on my dime are trying to get me to believe that it would be in my best interest if they taxed my exhaust fumes.
Honestly, the only thing in life that I have found to be comforting is mathematics. It is cold, beautiful, and will always tell you the truth.
Sorry, I was trying to convince you to not kill yourself before... i'm sure this didn't help.
I agree that it is almost inconceivable to believe that such a thing could be pulled off perfectly. It is harder still to believe that there are those among us who would have such a callous incapacity for empathy that they would possess little or no regard for human life.
In the end, I don't claim that I know for sure what happened on that day. I am willing to say that with the evidence that I've come across, I lean more towards an explanation that goes beyond the government story.
Happy trails, cowgirl!
It wasn't pulled off perfectly. Far from it in fact. The fact that something happened doesn't mean everything that happened was as planned. A careful study of the events leads me to understand that several major and dozens of minor problems surfaced that day.
WTC7 is a perfect example. The wandering flight that eventually hit the Pentagon is another. And what about the plane that was shot down in PA?
At the end of the day, I agree with you. The fact that there still exists a large number of 'truthers' (god how i hate that word), is evidence in and of itself that they didn't pull it off perfectly.
I agree with you about WTC7/Pentagon/PA plane as well.
Sorry bout all that, just feeling a bit down is all. I'm not planning on reinserting myself into the matrix anytime soon either. I'll regain my energies soon.
.
"...my problem is trying to visual how they could pull something off so devastating to so many people and why?"
velobabe, too many of us have grown extremely weary of repeating the same data over and over ad infinitum, so if you are truly interested, there is one simple research exercise to be undertaken.
Do a deep search into the backgrounds of those passengers aboard those four commercial airliners that day -- there's certainly been a good deal on the 'net written about them -- even though the FBI inexplicably classified those pax manifests.
Once you understand that (and no, not every single one had some connection, and all were unknowing about what they had been involved in a truly compartmentalized fashion -- but their presence aboard those four airliners that day insured they would never come forth, just as those in the two towers at the primary strike locations of those two jets would never be around to explain what had occurred in their companies in the preceding 16 hours).
My final say on this tedious subject -- and as always, it was all about the money.
I don't believe you.
Seriously, though, what is disturbing to me is not the belief in 9-11 as an inside job per se, but the absolute absence of doubt that accompanies it. It's diagnostic. Unless you were involved, you do not know, regardless of the strength of your opinions and the number of folks who share the echo chamber. An inability to distinguish the difference between known and believed is a rather large red flag to those who don't hold the same faith . . . even the agnostics.
An equally disturbing thing is the absence of social judgement that pervades the "9-11" community. They do not appear to appreciate that, for whatever reason (including those they themselves cannot comprehend), it's a toxic subject.
Doesn't matter if it is an important one or even if the "9-11 Conspiracy" story is utterly correct. It's toxic and unnecessarily divisive. Is there not enough undisputed knowledge about our government's actions to demonstrate a murderously psychopathic bunch without resort to 9-11?
It's not the only subject like that. Whether aliens have visited Earth would certainly be important to know. If you had been the subject of an alien abduction, you would even have first-hand knowledge of this reality. But would you expect to be taken seriously? Would you divide up people as credible or not based on whether they believe in alien abduction? Likewise for ghosts--many people claim to have had visitations. But only nuts demand and expect others to believe them. And it has nothing to do with "truth."
My acid test for conspiracy promoters is whether they allow doubts and require everyone else to believe as they do (those who don't are devalued.) Not that there's anything special in that test. It's the one most people apply.
I hate to see healthy distrust discredited . . . as the "9-11 Truth Movement" does.
The difference is bob, people ACCEPT all the police state bullshit because they buy 9/11. It's the lynch pin that holds everything together. Also many of the things other than police state stuff that clearly shows blood on the governments hands shows FOREIGN blood on their hands. Something that has been palatable to the majority of Americans for decades now. Is that racist and jingoistic? You bet it is!
The point is if you want to have a serious discussion about the legitimacy of the government in its current form, you have to challenge the 9/11 lie. You have to because it is 9/11 that ushered in the VAST majority of the major problems people have with the government. That is the police state and anti-Constitutional BS. Something that a majority of people in both parties and those not in either, agree with. The problem is, many don't like these measures but accept them due to a belief in 9/11 official conspiracy theory.
There is another route you can take to attack the very belly of the beast and that is to explain fractional reserve banking and the Central Banking conspiracy. Unfortunately, it is self-obsfucating in that it's very difficult for most people to understand it. They can get 9/11 was an inside job, even if they vehemently disagree. The money from nothing thing is so simple and evil the mind is repelled. Someone famous, I think an English Central Banker said that.
How else can one attack the belly of the globalist beast with information? I suppose you could point out the influence of Bilderberg, CFR, Tri-lateralists etc. The problem there is that you immediately sound like a conspiracy theorist and again it's effects aren't easily observable to someone who isn't already aware of their machinations.
It sucks, but the fact is 9/11 is THE weak point in the globalist putsch. It really is. It's possible and likely that the wheels will come off the cart due to a confluence of forces rather than any one thing. However, 9/11 truth cuts right to the core of the globalist putsch and that is the creation of the global police state which is massively predicated on buying the 9/11 official conspiracy theory. Without the police state, the globalists cannot achieve that which they wish to achieve.
Just my opinion.
I think that the 9/11 lie is a notch below the perpetual growth lie in terms of bigness. EVERYTHING hinges on perpetual growth, and it's this reason I think that it's a strong possibility that 9/11 was meant as cover. In a way 9/11 is the right-wing side of the lie, and climate change the other. OK, before anyone jumps on me, let me continue with this thought...
9/11 DID happen.
Global climate change IS happening.
What I'm arguing is how these events are being applied in the bigger picture. I'm taking the devil's advocate position, one that presents more of a benevolence in leadership than we otherwise tend to project.
Suppose that we really DO live on a finite planet, one that has a LIMITED amount of resources/minerals. Are there any people today who believe that we are NOT on a sphere? My guess is that this would be about as concrete of an understanding as that of gravity.
Given that we are in fact dependent upon finite resources AND our extraction and use of them, how would we transmit the notion of running out of (what in many cases are, or could be viewed as) necessary resources? Would we even do it, knowing that it might cause a stampede? While TPTB assumes the throne of power, I highly doubt that they could be unaware of the potential disruptions that a stampede would cause.; I doubt that they believe that they can think that they can step to the side (history shows that things can get rather dicey as far as predicting these sorts of things/outcomes).
Following along, what recourse do those in power really have than to orchestrate tighter control?
If one looks, it's painfully clear that 9/11 was telegraphed: Project For A New American Century all but gave the details. 9/11 catered to the right-wing types, it submitted them to further authoritarian rule by means of allegiance to a non-Muslim State, allegiance to military power. And further into the arms of the very "govt" that they spend so much time trying to discount...
And then there's "climate change." Clearly this isn't meant for the right-wing crowd. It's meant for the left-wingers, the same ones who helped get the war machine into Afghanistan over "womens rights," and Iraq round One (the babies in the incubators story). This side of the attack is meant to present acceptance to rationing, oil rationing to be specific. TPTB will need to ration oil lest the stampede occur. While "global climate change" is of a higher order (Mother Nature will resolve this), it's really secondary to the story of diminishing oil resources. I'd further add that the left-wingers tend to believe that technology will save humankind, a further trust placed in TPTB and The System
These two issues play as polar opposites, resulting in a more hardened position. Just what TPTB need/want (divide and conquer).
Bottom line: doesn't matter who is controlling what (though, ultimately, Mother Nature is in control), we WILL arrive at the same outcome. At issue is when and how...
I agree that peak resources may very well have been the reason for both the two issues you outline. The framing of climate change and the "framing" of the 9/11 "terrorists".
The reason 9/11 is important as it shows the PTB are willing to kill white americans in the pursuit of power. That sounds cheesy and lame and actually it's pretty fucking lame for sure. The fact is that most white bread Americans just can't fathom that white Americans "innocent" no less, ones that weren't fighting the PTB at all! Average white folk working in the towers.
Once they see how nothing stands in the way of the PTB consolidating power quite a few things become possible to address including the "bigger lie" of perpetual growth without limits.
9/11 is the urgent truth though. I say this because the most dangerous aspects of the PTB in the US are completely predicated on the 9/11 Official Conspiracy Theory. Without it, peaceful resistance and social change are infinitely more plausible.
That's a nice explanation of the motive for uncovering 9-11 as an inside job, BTG. It would certainly be an elegant solution to the problems you cite . . . or at least as much as anyone could wish for.
Problem is that what you propose would require evidence meeting the standard necessary to clear the "convicted" perpetrators, who are most inconveniently dead. Even getting that "trial" is impossible.
There is only one alternative track, which is to successfully identify the actual perpetrators with evidence that would meet--exceed would be a more realistic assessment--that which a fair and conscientious court of law would require to convict.
It has been 9 years and nobody has talked. The "convicted" perpetrators are long dead. The public is disinterested in the topic and intensely resents suggestions that it be reopened. Whether that's the result of manipulation by TPTB or not is irrelevant. Going with the conspiracy theory, however, you would have to at least concede that they pulled it off. The topic is now too toxic for productive discussion, much less public investigation.
Unless somebody crawls out of the woodwork with the smoking gun accompanied by pics of how he did it at the time he claims, it ain't gonna be revisited.
I take no pleasure in that, but I think it's accurate.
Sometimes you have to fold on what you wish were a strong hand.
This is the reason the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is defended at every rampart and gate. As you say later it is the weakest link of the police state BIG LIE and must defended at all costs. Because if it falls, the entire edifice comes crumbling down.
Why is 9/11 the lynch-pin, the cornerstone, the only thing that if the 'truth was known it would set all of our spirits free'? Why not the common knowledge that the reasons for US invading Iraq were fabricated? Why isn't that enough?
"Indict Bush and Cheney? Dude, that is like so 2008..."
It just seems that no matter what finally manages to meet a decent criteria for 'knowledge', there is always one more piece of information to be disseminated, obfuscated, attacked by establishment pedants, then finally wrangled away from the propaganda back to the facts and being discerned as truth, in that order, before enough people act. By then these horrible, heinous, unconscionable truths are so co-opted into the prevailing zeitgeist that everyone just seems to accept it as a 'given'; a good ol' buddhist 'it just is'.
Eg. How many people who called you 'a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist' when you dared to consider the possibility of precious metal price manipulations not too long ago now claim, "Well, I always knew that anyway... it's just how the market works... if you can't make money by playing it..." etc. etc.
"Indict Bush and Cheny? Dude, that is like so 2008..."
IMHO, the 'edifice' has been crumbling down for some time now.
I never said this, in particular that "the only thing that if the truth was known it would set all of our spirits free". Are you responding to me or the person above?
All I said was that the 9/11 official conspiracy theory must be defended at all cost because failure to do so will bring the Big Lie down. There are also other Big Lies that must be defended, though 9/11 has the emotional content to be the most explosive.
And I am saying that, even in the light of 'Big Lies' being undone, little action has resulted.
So really what is one more 'BigLie' uncovered?
Of course truth is worth pursuing, I just wish it had more of an effect on the way people behave when it's presented to them.
As it stands now, it doesn't much matter how 'explosive' you or I might think some 'BigLies' are compared to others, the end result is the same: more of the same.
Cynical, I'll admit.
Regards
But these Big Lies aren't being undone. There is an attempt to expose them for what they are. But as long as people wish to believe the Big Lie, no amount of "truth" will convince them otherwise. The Big Lie isn't supported by the powers-that-be as much as it's supported by the people who accept the Big Lie. So exposing it as a lie will have little effect when those who are supporting the lie don't wish to know the truth.
A closed mind can't be opened from the outside. It must be opened from within and that requires the closed mind to become willing to look precisely where it doesn't wish to look.
Heh, I know I've hated it when I've had to do that.
I dunno what it's like out where you are, but the Crow isn't so tasty around here.
Not really.. It's quite easy to have laws passed to "protect" us.. I agree that there are a lot of other things to look at.. But, 9/11 is by far the most important.. Could you imagine the change in consensus if 9/11 was looked at objectively and possible even proven to be a lie?.. Then it would come crumbling down... Not until then..
It's like you are paying attention, but not close attention. Interesting..
It has been demonstrated and widely accepted that the US' invasion of Iraq was predicated on fabrications...
So the rationalization for the war has been 'looked at objectively' and (definitely) 'proven to be a lie'.
Big difference that has made so far...
And this is my point: even if we did find out beyond a shadow of a doubt that 9/11 wasn't actually perp'd by a bunch of pissed-off religiously indoctrinated Saudi's, it seems to me like the vast majority of apathetic slugs will be a little miffed, but they'll still let it all go by with a,
"Ahh those crazy elitist folks running the Military Industrial Complex on our dime. But, whaddaya gonna do? We sure wish we were rich winners like them..."
And that's an inductive argument you can take to the bank.
Regards
And a very good one it is.. IMO.. LOL