While we sleep, they get busy.
Noam Chomsky seems to rely on a thought experiment to make his determination that 9-11 could not have been planned and executed by members of the Bush Administration.
“Did [The Bush Administration] plan it in any way or know anything? This would be extremely unlikely. For one thing they would have to be insane to try anything like that. If they had, it’s almost certain that it would have leaked. You know, it’s a very porous system; secrets are very hard to keep. So something would have leaked out, very likely. And if it had they all would have been before firing squads and that would be the end of the Republican Party forever.”
Although this may sound plausible, we might point out that if the ruling class that Chomsky describes as a mafia is indeed a mafia—no doubt in our minds—would it not be possible to prevent leaks with their favorite brand of control, i.e. bribes, threats and terror? Further, to accept his experiment one must also accept his assessment that only insanity could produce an inside job. However, we submit that hubris is another very plausible explanation. Although not conclusive, these are serious flaws in his experiment.
Another challenge he raises is since there was no certainty that such a complex plan would be successful, why would the Bush Administration make the attempt? Here he defined success as the planes hitting their intended targets. However, the prize for a spectacular yet failed attempt need not have been very different from that of success. Is it not possible that the desired results i.e. totalitarian measures enacted without resistance and a smoother path for further military aggression in the Middle East, could have been achieved, for example, with four hijacked planes crashing and burning in a field somewhere, just as well as smashing into skyscrapers? By Chomsky's criterion, it appears that success was not attained anyway. Consider the purported crash of UA Flight 93 in a field somewhere in Shanksville, PA. (We wonder what building was left wired for demolition that day, who removed the explosives and when? Or was this crash planned all along?)
Here’s is the thought experiment that at the time convinced us that 9-11 was an inside job. We asked ourselves the following question: Who was in the positions of authority to block a criminal investigation? Rather than preserve the WTC area as a crime scene for forensic investigation, removal and destruction of evidence began almost immediately. NIST performed it's analysis without physical evidence, which was already trucked off and shipped to China before they even began. During the destruction of evidence, there were public calls for it to stop, yet it continued, all the while the main stream media performed their usual role as Chomskian consent manufacturers. Could anyone other than government officials have engineered that?
With every presidential election when a new operative must be anointed before the masses, if we are so indolent to have the free time to watch TV coverage of that hallowed ceremony, we are subjected to the news reader telling us what an abject miracle our system of government is. When in the course of human history have the reins of power passed peacefully from one man to another for so many decades, generations, more than two centuries in fact? While watching one such broadcast--possibly crowning the prurient Clinton, we don't quite remember--these words of George Orwell crossed our mind:
“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.”
And that is how it finally dawned on us that all prominent politicians are operatives. When the transition from politician as principal to operative took place, we are not well versed enough in history to say. Maybe it was always the case to one degree or another, but surely during the 20th century the majority of presidents if not all were under the pay of someone--other than long suffering taxpayers. As soon as the federal executive’s power became so massive that only the wicked would pursue it, then clearly if an executive peacefully passed it on to a rival, that act in itself is proof that he never truly had the power to begin with, that the transition was a sham. It is simply a violation of human nature for someone to relinquish power without violence or the threat of violence. Surely this is an axiom not to be denied. Even the president of the local garden club won’t go down without a fight.
We had noticed many clues that led us to doubt the authenticity of democratic politics. For example, the low turnover rate in Congress always seemed suspicious, as did the rags-to-riches effect of a career in politics, and wads of Election Day get-out-the-vote cash. However, until this thought experiment, we were not convinced that all politicians in positions of significant power are hired operatives. That cinched it.
Suppose you take your car to the shop. You tell the mechanic that it’s not running right, you think it needs a tune up, and you leave the car with him while you go on to work. He takes a look at it, does a few tests and then calls you saying, “You’re right about your car. It needs a tune up, but I don’t know why or how to fix it. What I can do is give it a lube and rotate the tires.” Or what if he says, "Your car needs a tune up, so we're going to take the engine out and pitch it."
What would you do? Would you give him the go ahead and thank him for saving your car? Or would you call him an idiot, pick up the car and take it to a mechanic who can fix exactly what’s wrong with it? Seems the rational course of action is to find a competent mechanic.
So, why don’t we act the same way with our health? Why do we continue to go to doctors who don’t know the causes or cures for diseases, let them prescribe this or that experimental drug or hack out our body parts, and hope against hope that a healing miracle will occur?
How much better medical care would be if every time an MD said, “I’m sorry, there’s no cure, but we have to begin chemotherapy immediately,” we responded, “Let me translate. What you’re really saying is you don’t know the cure. Chemo? F’getaboutit. You can keep your poisons, I’m going to find someone who does know.”
One day, this era of cut, burn and poison medicine will be considered just as barbaric as the era of leeches and mercury is today.
The Devastating Truth behind Obamacare by Jon Rappoport
Suppose there exists an organization with immense financial resources at its disposal. It can tap into the expertise of a pool of professional Wall Street traders and employ the most advanced computer equipment and sophisticated programming. Further suppose it realized that instead of using this expertise for successfully trading in the markets, an activity that can bag annual gains of, say, 10-15% max over the long term, it instead turned to using this money and knowledge to manipulating the markets for greater gains than in the wildest dreams of Croesus.
You might respond that that’s old news, that Matt Taibbi already exposed such an organization, and we guess he did. There’s just one thing that keeps nagging at us. Have you ever noticed the lock step with which the financial media struts through the news cycle? How does Goldman Sachs accomplish that? Pedestrian bribery could work, but maybe there is another organization embedded in the Wall Street machinery with the capability to influence the financial media. Eavesdropping would come in really handy here, as well as experience with recruiting journalists.
So, we have a hypothetical organization that has immense financial resources, connections on Wall Street, eavesdropping expertise, and a history of infiltrating the media. It just recently occurred to us that such an organization might find it advantageous to have some influence in the alternative financial media, too--you know, those independent information outlets known as financial newsletters? They could collect subscription money to steer the not-quite-so-dumb individual investors in the wrong direction--the dumb money already having been herded by the msm. They might use the ol’ “Don’t sell now. The bottom is in!” line to freeze them in their positions, like the proverbial deer in the headlights. And wouldn’t it be just a hoot to have those newsletter writers appear to be staunch, free market advocates? Oh, the irony.
Hey, those newsletters could even do double duty. They could lure subscribers into tax avoidance and asset protection schemes that this shadowy organization itself creates. That way it can direct the money where it wants, into complete transparency for ease of monitoring and eventual confiscation, while making nice profits in the meantime.
Just another Wall Street tool--hypothetically speaking, of course.
"Men must be taught as if you taught them not
And things unknown proposed as things forgot"