‘It is wrong, blasphemous, and sinful for you to suggest, imply, or help other people come to the conclusion that the U.S. government killed 3,000 of its own citizens.’ –Tucker Carlson v. David Ray Griffin, August 9, 2006
(Carlson’s immortal quote occurs right around 1:38 of the video.)
Do you remember a time, in your own life, when it seemed “wrong, blasphemous, and sinful” for you “to suggest, imply, or help other people come to the conclusion that the U.S. government killed 3,000 of its own citizens”?
This was many years ago. You were younger then, and more naive. But you had already read a few books by Noam Chomsky. You were well aware that U.S. foreign policy was a tool of state-capitalist oppression, guided primarily by the naked, cynnical self-interest of the ruling class. You were nobody’s fool.
(Or so you thought.)
Then, one day, following a strange thread of Internet chatter, you happened to see a video of World Trade Center 7– a tall, square building in the New York skyline– collapsing rapidly and symmetrically into its own footprint.
You watched video of this mysterious collapse multiple times, from multiple angles. You sought out expert opinons on the reasons for the collapse. And finally, you found Shyam Sundar…
http://youtu.be/iSnjyZNYlW8 and the whole thing began to make sense. A forty-seven-story, steel-framed structure had collapsed, rapidly and symmetrically, due to “thermal expansion,” caused by fires, fueled primarily by “office furnishings.” (the classic “office furnishings” clip seems to have been scrubbed from the Internet, but I shit you not– Shyam Sunder made this claim explicitly.)
The point is this: 9/11 was a planned mass-casualty event, and its effect upon the mass psyche was just as carefully planned as the physical demolition of WTC 7. Walter Lippman, and his disciples at the Tavistock Institute for Brainwashing and Propaganda, have been studying war-damaged, radio-influenced automatons for as long as we have been in our present state. What they have found is that people need not even be subjected directly to the ravages of war, to achieve the level of suggestibility that would accompany trauma of that nature and magnitude.
As long as U.S. media outlets deliver to the passive masses a steady stream of war, famine, terror, murder– people will feel a pervasive sense of unease. Not only will we work like slaves to keep ahead of the looming specter of poverty, thereby paying huge tax subsidies to a petro-terror-state that we despise, but we will buy health insurance– lots and lots of health insurance– even though we know that our expenses will not be covered when we are sick. And we will demand increased “defense spending,” though nobody can cite an instance of our military having been involved in a defensive action.
And most importantly, we will demand simple answers to complex questions.
Many of the psychological mechanisms that once prevented us from looking at evidence of U.S. Government complicity in the crimes of 9/11, now prevent us from looking at evidence of other potential state-sponsored terror/planned mass-casualty events.
The crimes are so horrific, the tragedies so great, that we initially refrain from questioning the story, out of respect for the victims.
For instance, we are told that the Sandy Hook shooting resulted in the death of twenty young children and six adults. When we begin to question the ability of scrawny video-game casualty, Adam Lanza, to achieve a 100% kill ratio, with the Bushmaster rifle found later in the trunk of Christopher Rodia’s car, or the strange demeanor of Robbie Parker in his press conference, or the posthumous appearances of Emily Parker, or the tightly parked emergency vehicles surrounded by what appear to be “movie extras,” or the resume of Gene Rosen, coupled with his plethora of bloopers and outtakes– a psychological mechanism operates continuously, subconsciously, to demand self-censorship.
What if the event happened exactly as it was portrayed on TV, and was not, as we “Truthers” tend to believe, a twisted gun-grab, an agenda-setting black-op, a joint effort of crisis actors, corrupt law officers, and a whole pile of unwitting dupes? What if twenty innocent children did, in fact, die senslessly at the hand of a deranged recluse? Does our honest inquiry then become, in the immortal words of Tucker Carlson, “wrong, blasphemous and sinful”?
Short answer: no. Does a murder or child-rape investigation become “sinful” when evidence begins to implicate a revered civic leader? Does the investigation become “blasphemous” if, despite overwhelming evidence of his guilt, the good man turns out to be innocent? No.
Honest inquiry is morally and ethically neutral, at the very least, and many would argue, of distinct positive value.
When I saw the picture of Jeff Bauman (“Gruesome-Leg-Stump-Man” of Boston Marathon fame) on the front page of the New York Times sports section, and read the accompanying article, my long-dormant case of “questioner’s guilt” began to act up.
This poor man was in the wrong place at the wrong time, I found myself thinking. He has endured, and will endure, a long, hard road to recovery. I cannot even imagine what life would be like with both legs amputated above the knee. And this is the crux of the matter: my questioning of the official Boston Bombing narrative suddenly seemed wrong, blasphemous and sinful.
I returned home that afternoon with deep doubts about the value of my previous postings, in which I had questioned the Boston Bombing narrative, but was still determined to honestly seek truth, as I always do. I was even prepared to issue an apology to anyone that I may have offended with my posts. But this is no longer the case.
There are a great many truth-seekers now active in the alternative-media landscape, and I would like to thank all of you who take the time to dig deep, deep, in the mass-media cesspool, to retrieve the stinking nuggets of truth that lay bare the Big Lie.
The following video begins with what appears to be a disclaimer, which indicates that its author had felt twinges of “questioner’s guilt,” in compiling this material. “Now for the hardest part:” he writes, “How do you say that somebody who has had their leg amputated is faking?”
We see in this video, and in the various still frames of the incident, which are all a matter of public record:
a) In the initial maelstrom, “Grey Hoodie” and the lady seem to be very much concerned with Bauman’s leg.
b) but then Grey Hoodie and other bystanders pay no attention to the gravely injured Bauman, who, in the event of a non-crisis-actor emergency, would receive immediate attention from everyone nearby. Notice Carlos “Cowboy Hat” Arredondo, holding up the fence, and Grey Hoodie just lounging.
c) Arredondo begins jumping on the fence, waving the flag, Grey Hoodie still just lounges. Meanwhile, Jeff Bauman would presumably be bleeding to death in plain sight.
d) At some point Arredondo, Wheelchair Girl and Safety Cop spring into action, helping to wheel Bauman to safety, contrary to all protocol regarding a person who has sustained a severed limb. (Note the strange angularity of Bauman’s bone fragment.)
At some point, something seems to go wrong with the prosthesis, so the whole entourage halts in the middle of their vital mission, to make some adjustment. (according to the New York Times, to reapply the tourniquette.) Safety Cop and Arredondo both hold Bauman’s leg for the remainder of the journey.
I must apologize for the gruesome imagery and my smug humor. But my humor is a reaction to the cruel jokes that are carried out by state criminals, on a regular basis, at the expense of real human life, liberty, and peace of mind.
By running this article about Jeff Bauman, and even going so far as mention the truly bizarre actions of Carlos Arredondo, The New York Times places the lie in plain sight, where only the most unapologetic blasphemer would dare to question it.
What the article fails to mention is the most crucial element of the Jeff Bauman story:
There has been very little mention of this fact in the mainstream press since the days immediately following the event, when the Deep State was truly afraid that its story might collapse.
But its story has collapsed. Its story about 9/11 has collapsed, and that is why it must manufacture new stories, to keep our attention diverted from the fact that elements within the U.S. Government murdered 3,000 American citizens on 9/11.
This assertion is not wrong, blasphemous, or sinful. It is becoming common knowledge, and the Deep State has lost control of the narrative.
Just say “NO!” to the U.S. Terror State.