1,185 words
I learned of 9/11 from the Internet. I’d gotten online later than usual that morning, and had not had television on. Immediately I was hit with headlines, news stories, and photos of the first tower of the World Trade Center in flames.
So I turned the television set on. It was a clear day, with perfectly blue skies.
Within minutes, the second tower was hit while I watched. Instantaneously, good video and photographic coverage of the event from all possible angles was piped to the nation and the world.
The collapse of the buildings was beautiful in the abstract, qualified way one associates with thermonuclear explosions or controlled demolitions of large structures observed from a safe distance. There was majesty, too, in seeing large airliners slicing into huge skyscrapers in the heart of Manhattan.
The most horrifying thing to watch was trapped, terrified people leaping to their deaths from unimaginable heights in a desperate attempt to escape searing flames.
Despite not being a fan of contemporary movies, and in fact watching little mass media, cumulatively I have been exposed to innumerable scenes from disaster flicks and TV shows over the years.
In retrospect, the effect of seeing countless Hollywood dramatizations of similar disasters psychologically and emotionally inures viewers to the real thing when it occurs. Instead, there’s a detached sense of watching a show one has seen many times before.
Thus, viewers worldwide were unconsciously programmed to experience 9/11 as quasi-“normal.” Because it was witnessed passively on a screen, as so many similar fictive events have been in the past, it is not completely “real”—there is a pronounced blunting effect.
The fact that these psychological/emotional processes are subconscious intensifies their power. I’m not suggesting that such conditioning is deliberate in this specific context (though film analyst Edmund Connelly has persuasively argued for such intentionality in other contexts—e.g., fictional depictions of Negro presidents), but that it exists and exercises its effects on everyone.
9/11 a Conspiracy?
In our Orwellian world, one must continually question centrally-mediated reality. The Holocaust, events in the Middle East, anti-white racist tropes, and Communism all teach us this. We are ruled by gangsters and liars, not legitimate statesmen or representatives.
Jewish philosopher Sir Karl Popper memorably remarked, “If you were to ask me how I know that China exists [he had never been there], I suppose I would have to say: ‘Because I’ve read about it.'”
Popper’s statement supplies the correct framework for the epistemological evaluation of contemporary social reality.
Fortunately, I don’t have to elaborate my views about 9/11 “conspiracy” theories because the editor of Counter-Currents inadvertently summarized them succinctly in a comment of his own.
As an aside, I admonish every reader of these words to cast the verbal aspersion “conspiracy theory” out of your mind forever. It’s no different from any other crimestop mental filter, such as anti-Semitism, racism, hate, or Holocaust denial. For God’s sake, jettison every last one of them and think for yourself. You’re men, not mindless automatons!
Greg Johnson wrote, and I agree:
1. 19 Arabs with box cutters hijacked 4 airplanes.
2. Israeli Jews were arrested filming the event, indicating that they had foreknowledge. My hunch is that Israel’s government at the highest level knew this was happening and let it happen to galvanize the US for new wars on Israel’s behalf.
3. An Israeli spy network was rolled up after 9/11.
4. Carl Cameron chronicled some of this at Fox.
5. Jewish power was used to shut down investigation of the Jewish angle in the press and law enforcement.
The Bush Administration immediately returned the dancing Israelis, art students, etc., to Israel so that no inquiry into their activities would ever take place. Jews are above the law.
However, I do not regard the 9/11 truth movement as a false flag operation. Most whites (indeed, most Gentiles of all races) are simply incapable, psychologically or emotionally, of dealing with facts about Jews.
Cracks in the System
The System’s response to 9/11 was predictable: the establishment (or intensification) of a police state, constant surveillance and monitoring of everyone and everything, more criminalization of thought, speech and association, denial of access to independent funds or equitable treatment in the media (which today equates to the public square), militarism, bombing and invasion of countries, the humiliation, assassination, and torture of heads of state, scientists, intellectuals, and dissidents.
The dilemma for today’s totalitarian ruling class is that the Jews now in charge cannot govern, dictatorially or otherwise, a state, never mind a globe-straddling empire, without an external sugar daddy to prop them up.
For those who regard the Jews as semi-divine beings, consider the strange fact that they, alone among the peoples of the Earth (except for Gypsies), cannot survive independently. They require a wealthy and tolerant host population — tolerant, that is, of every crime, evil, outrage and injustice associated with Jewish behavior. Never have they established a viable Jewish state.
Israel exists because it is subsidized by whites. The same was true of the ill-run Communist system, which survived only because of subventions and tolerance from the “West.”
A gangster state is an unstable and ultimately unworkable entity. Criminals cannot and will not sustain a civilization or a state for long.
9/11 signifies a major crack in a crumbling System — as do the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, the financial crisis of 2008, and anti-white riots and looting—cities burned as police watch passively. A great many subterranean cracks are concealed from public view.
It seems obvious, too, that replacement migration, economic transfer of wealth from whites to non-whites — no matter how much whites are hated by the government and elites — or the enraged destruction of country after country in the Middle East — no matter how much Israel and Jews are worshiped by the populace and the powers that be — are not economically or politically sustainable policies.
In 1938 Garet Garrett wrote in “The Revolution Was” that the New Deal overthrew the American system. In the words of Ryan McMacken:
It was not merely an incremental change in the size and scope of government, but a true revolution “within the form.” Garrett based these observations on the Aristotelian concept of the revolution that employs the “ancient laws” and claims to revere them while the true power has shifted from the traditional institutions to a new and revolutionary group hostile to the law they claim to defend.
The Cold War and the establishment of Israel caused a temporary diversion of elite attention and resources, leading to a brief reprieve, but were quickly followed by the cultural revolution of the 1960s-70s, and the post-1990 police state.
Each phase was a revolution from above, conducted and orchestrated by elites, with Jews constituting the core revolutionary element.
And what about whites? Have citizens in the heartland — Red Staters, the Silent and Dispossessed Majority, Middle Americans — learned anything at all about the realities of race, replacement migration, imperialism, the evils of totalitarianism, or Jews as a result of the massive social changes forced upon them in the decade since 9/11? Since the 1970s? Since 1933?
I see no evidence of it, and do not believe that they have.
6 comments
@ Fortunately, I don’t have to elaborate my views about 9/11 “conspiracy” theories because the editor of Counter-Currents inadvertently summarized them succinctly in a comment of his own.
But you missed the obvious point: Greg is not advancing the conspiracy theory that either the US government or Mossad orchestrated the attacks; he is merely saying that the Israelis might have had previous knowledge that a terrorist attack was coming.
A few months ago a truther insulted Greg here because in an article Greg left outside the main dogma of the truther creed: it was an inside job. Fortunately the troll was banned from CC (though he continues to spread his silly theories at TOO).
I am disappointed by the intellectual cowardice of some of the articles on 9/11 I’ve read here. It looks like only people like Parrott are daring to say the whole truth about the “truther” movement, as he did recently in the thread of an article where I wrote:
First off, as I pointed out to Richard Spencer at AlternativeRight, “truther” like ‘birther’ is an example of neocon-Trotskyite machine-language, as analyzed in Orwell’s 1984. Cf. ‘wrecker’ [ critic of the 5 year plan]. ‘capitalist roader,’ etc. Like the other aspects of Newspeak, it is “designed not to communicate ideas but to make certain ideas unthinkable.” Anyone who seriously uses such a term immediately loses all credibility with yours truly.
[I, of course, use such terms as ‘good-thinker’ on my blog and elsewhere, but only ironically. I believe the most recent root of this on the Left is Alex Cockburn, himself not only a Commie but an ‘anti-truther’, when in the late 80s he referred to the attendees at David Horowitz’s Second Thoughts conference as ‘Second Thoughters.’]
At one time, ‘conservatives’ like Waugh were as protective of English as ‘leftists’ like Orwell. Today, both are its enemies. This kind of nomenclature, as ugly as a Stalinist dormitory and just as closed-minded, is a symptom of the neo-conning of the Right.
Secondly, the idea of distinguishing “inside jobbers” [if you will allow me] from “outside jobbers” on the basis of their views on Jews is a nonstarter [hard to stop, isn’t it?]. If it was an insider job, the inside jobbers were not crazy patriots like Gen. Jack D. Ripper but rather neocons, i.e., agents of Israel. Same difference. Replace “Jewish” in Greg’s comment with the more granular “Jewish-American Neocons and Israeli Likkudites” and what happens to the distinction?
What happened on 9/11? Damned if I know. What I do know is that the official conspiracy theory, 19 Arabs, is nonsense, [no air defense? WTF have I been paying taxes for?] but that’s hardly a sign of delusion. When has the official government story ever been true?
The American government, over the last century, has constantly been planning [Operation Northwoods] and carrying out [CIA drug experiments, poison gas in the NYC subway system] attacks on its own citizens. Why should we citizens be any different than the rest of the world? And why is considering that frequently occurring, well established fact [unlike, by the way, Popper’s “China doesn’t exist” example; see William James on ‘living and dead options’] as a source of explanation to be ‘crazy’ rather than believing the historically unprecedented occurrence of a steel building collapsing from fire, and not just one, but three, all on the same day, never before or since; and the collapse of the third building, untouched by any plane, so inexplicable that the 9/11 commission didn’t even come up with a theory?
I have to say, with all good will, that the idea that people adhere to the truth movement because they are “afraid to face the facts of the Jews” leaves me gobsmacked. Orwell, again, comes to mind. “I have heard it confidently stated, for instance, that the American troops had been brought to Europe not to fight the Germans but to crush an English revolution. One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
For a review of David Ray Griffin’s new book [a better philosopher than Popper, btw, and not a man I’d like to get in a debate with] by the internet’s leading “anti-semite” and “holocaust denier”, Michael Hoffman, see here:
http://rense.com/general94/review.htm
Hoffman, “incapable, psychologically or emotionally, of dealing with facts about Jews”? It is but to laugh!
Well, you raise a number of points.
First, I subscribe to Hoffman’s e-mail newsletter and have purchased books from him. I had read the review you cite. Hoffman’s a courageous man who has paid dearly for his truth-telling. But his views about Jews are rooted in traditional Christianity. He has often spoken harshly against racialists and racial anti-Semites. This is typical of the tiny handful of traditional Christians who oppose Jewish power. Herman Otten (Lutheran), Ted Pike (denomination unknown to me, but not Christian Identity, which I’m excluding), and E. Michael Jones (Catholic) come to mind.
Despite my respect for such individuals, indeed, I regard them as more important to white survival than Geert Wilders types or WN philo-Semites because they courageously confront the core problem, I nevertheless do view them as fitting my description of being “incapable, psychologically or emotionally, of dealing with [some pretty big and important] facts about Jews.”
I actually asked Jones whether he shouldn’t oppose the genocide of the white race as a sin, and his highly equivocal response was that it would be a sin—if it were happening! Christians have a strong resistance to biological race. “Racism” (at least of the white variety) is bad. What matters to them is religion. Members of all races are identical once they are Christians. Christians are their in-group. Revilo Oliver was correct when he caustically observed that, to a Christian, all that is necessary is to sprinkle a little holy water on a Jew’s head to make everything right!
The 9/11 truth movement is an interesting example of where a great deal of time and effort, which 99% of people as a practical matter cannot muster, would be necessary to arrive at an informed judgment about its claims. The Holocaust is another example.
As a result, most people accept the default position of the official story. There isn’t much else they can do. (Also, as Hitler observed, people are psychologically primed to believe colossal falsehoods.) They may be anti-abortion, and not buy pro-abortionism. Or they may have looked into the Federal Reserve. And so on. But no one can look closely at everything.
So where does one draw the line? I have read Holocaust revisionists. But I have not closely investigated the arguments of the truth movement, due to the practical limitations mentioned.
I certainly did not mean to imply that “people adhere to the truth movement because they are ‘afraid to face the facts of the Jews.'” Rather, the material I have read never does implicate Jews, or the “Jewish-American Neocons and Israeli Likkudites” of your formulation. Instead, they seem to attack the American government (“Jack D. Ripper,” as you put it). To me, that represents a psychological blind spot. They’ll parse the factual minutiae, which is OK, but ignore the elephant in the living room, which is not OK.
As for Popper, I consider him a very good philosopher. Where he rode off the rails was in his anti-inductivist extremism—characteristic of the Jewish mentality. Jews become mired in pure logic. By comparison, whites are more scientific, factual, objective, empirical, historical than Jews are. Jews construct logical systems (Judaism, Talmudism, Freudianism, Communism, Zionism, the Holocaust) which harden into dogmas because any questioning of the fundamental axioms jeopardizes the entire highly-elaborated superstructure.
Re Popper’s comment about China, my focus is not on the end (“how do I know that China exists”), but on his clarity about the channels through which knowledge (or presumed knowledge) arrives. In this case, “I have read about it.” Such attention to the processes of knowing is crucial. That’s really what the law of evidence is (or should be) about as well.
Of course, by “O” I meant “I”
Also, for those disinclined to follow links and read whole articles, here’s what might be called “Hoffman-Griffin’s response to those who seek psychological motivations for truthers”:
“Chapter 8 illuminates the psychology of resistance to the truth about the 9/11 events which is so widespread, arguing that the real faith of the nominally-Christian US is “nationalist faith.” The critique of the official story laid out by the 9/11 truth movement is literally unthinkable for many, even for devout Christians whose religion calls upon them to avoid all kinds of idolatry, including nationalism. Griffin concludes that “[w]hen Christian faith is subordinated to faith in American goodness … it becomes a blinding faith, producing Christians with eyes wide shut.”
How right you are, Andrew. Most White Americans are still as clueless as ever about vital issues. Their willful ignorance and state of denial is surreal.
Let me try to define the 911 Event in different terms.
I see it as, first and foremost, a media event, a masterful work of theater, of compelling stagecraft. All of the MediaCorps stayed with the party line, as if reading from prepared scripts, all linking the American situation with the Israeli situation. “They resent us for being better than them” was a remarkably common theme that quickly unfolded, almost as if on command, and certainly not by accident.
Thus, reducing it to information – a media event – we can ask the Bob Whitaker Question:
Why was this information produced?
Regardless of hidden agendas that came to fruition, a metapolitical framework would address the issue in metapoliitcal terms. Let’s try that.
METAPOLITICALLY, The Goal Of The Enemy Is To Destroy The White Race.
The most effective ways to perform this act of genocide are demographic, involving racial displacement and replacement, and, of first importance, cultural, getting the white Race to accept the values of their Enemy, to support the de facto equivalent of suicide. The foundation of this, as Bezmenov described, is to become demoralized into despair, with learned helplessness leading to personal ineffectiveness and political impotence.
Continuously showing – high rate of mental bandwidth and Share of Mind, that – pictures of “us” being hit, crushed, and being hit AGAIN, crushed again, and begin hit a third and fourth time, all serve to frame our emotional responses as that of helplessness, over and over and over, until we have internalized this taught and learned helplessness. We are then primed and ready to go after whatever we can, at the expense of going after The Truth, and acting on that.
Their cuckoo’s egg has been planted in the national consciousness, and the response has been planned with exquisite detail, and firmly placed in the nation’s consciousness. Conflation, combined with a lack of intellectual rigor, work to magnify the effect. I have been stunned at the incredible number of people who believe Saddam Hussein was behind 911. Conflation made him the scapegoat, and a few de facto rationalizations made it possible for the people to support attacking the Hussein regime, formerly a strong ally of the Americans. Think not? Ask the Iranians.
Demoralized, we were led to fight back against the first scapegoat we could find. Continuously demoralized since, we have not had an easily defeated enemy to displace our sense of anger upon. (The spiritual foundation of anger is a perception of helplessness in the face of something that threatens you, and what you value.)
The demoralization process continues with all of the power imaginable, but this time we might see a different outcome. The Internet has acted to remove much of the soft power of the status quo. The half-truths of even a Machiavelli would be fact checked in real time, and group consensus would develop as a counterweight to the sales job of the continuous streams of half-truths, and outright deception.
The demoralization process might be countered with the foundation of a remoralization process, the standard of Truth. Our focus would then shift from what our Enemies want, a Charlie Brown response, “Why are they doing this to us?” In reply, Charlie Brown, our focus should shift to the positive morality of a Charles Martel response, “What are we going to DO about it?”
What’s In YOUR Future? Focus Northwest!
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.