It is almost ironic that Chomsky wrote:

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

It was a big shock to me to discover early on after 9/11 how many of my “progressive” friends were unwilling to even discuss the evidence regarding what happened on 9/11. “I don’t believe in conspiracy theories,” was and remains a near unanimous “mantra”. Now, surely not all these people are on the CIA’s payroll. I’ve maintained all along that the problem is predominantly psychological — it is fear: People don’t want to believe that we’re so far gone that something like this can be done to us, that treason and mass murder can be conducted in broad daylight, and that it can be completely gotten away with. They grasp at straws: “It would take too many people,” “surely someone would come forward,” “they couldn’t keep something that big secret,” “They’re evil but they’re not that evil!” And so on. These are direct quotes from people whose political points of view are way left of center.

People who hold such attitudes aren’t interested in “evidence” no matter who it comes from. They’ve “made up their minds” already and reinforce not only “the system” external to themselves, but their already established inner systems of belief. (I see much the same thing going on within the 9/11 community in regards to the evidence at the Pentagon, by the way).

My point is that “fear” IS the driving force behind such attitudes — regardless whether one is on a “pay roll” or not, regardless whether one is under assumed or direct threat. (All we need do is look at what happened to many of the progressive leaders of the 1960s to know that such threats are real.) It takes a lot of courage to go up against the “limits put on the range of debate,” to risk not only ostracism and marginalization but to risk dealing with a deep truth that requires courage and does NOT have an “easy” answer. If the problem is the system itself then piecemeal “solutions” are nothing but band-aids that do nothing to address the real, fundamental problem. Worse, when it comes to something as big and traumatic as 9/11 is/was for the American psyche, it requires that one admit to one’s self that one’s fundamental understanding of what the system is and how it actually operates in terms of manipulating our perceptions, including our strategies for change, is pervasive, deeply rooted in the culture (such as the right/left paradigm) and ultimately requires a fundamental change in the way one understands one’s self. Those of us who have made “the paranoid shift” (see my post below) already understand that, although we need to keep the pressure on at every level of social organization, the fundamental problem IS the system and this can not be changed satisfactorily until the full depth of that system is laid bare for all to see.

Finally, what is needed is genuine hope. It wasn’t by accident that Obama’s primary appeal was “hope you can believe in.” People need to believe that there are genuine solutions to the real problems they face — without that one has to ask, why bother? ‘Things are bad but they could get worse, even out of control.’ This is a criticism I make of many such as Alex Jones who point to the ’cause’ but do not give a clear alternative. It isn’t enough to talk about the NWO agenda and what have you, what is needed is genuine strategies and alternatives that take into account the complexities of living in a post-industrial, highly technological world.

I think 9/11 Truth has come a long way, especially since 2006. But it is clear we’re entering a new phase where any hope of “a new investigation” is becoming increasingly unlikely even in the minds of those who (naïvely, IMO) hoped that such a thing was possible. I’ve never believed “the system” could or would allow itself to be used for this purpose. Calling for “a new investigation” has been a good way to entice some to look at the evidence but we need to move beyond it now because, absent “the system,” the investigation has been and continues to be on-going. The “system” did not and will not investigate 9/11 and what has emerged in its place is something completely new (in my experience): A group of loosely nit individuals who feel the direct personal need to confront the tyranny of lies that surrounds and permeates us.We have solid evidence that these lies exist, that the system itself perpetuates them, that, indeed, “the system” is itself a kind of “grand lie” within which we are all trapped.

The power that lies have to control us ends when we see them for what they are and this is what “the system” fears the most. The story that “the system” told us about 9/11 was a lie — an obvious and easily provable one — but it was only one lie in a tapestry of lies in which we participate day in and day out. Now something new is required of us and that is to find not only the truth of 9/11 but the truth of the whole system of lies within which we find ourselves. It is precisely this kind of shift in awareness and understanding that can redefine an entire civilization. If this is not a turning point in human history (and I believe it is) then there will be no future history worth talking about.

This entry was posted on Sunday, October 25th, 2009 at 9:31 pm and is filed under 9-11 truth, 911 victims. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.