Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Millennial Math: 9+11=1984
It’s been a decade since the day that changed everything -- or at least, the one that finally laid it all bare. Over the years, I’ve tried to confront it, rewrite it, debunk it, historicize it, mock it, and ultimately ignore it, all to no avail. It’s not going anywhere, this Trojan Horse of the new millennium, this farce that launched a thousand ships. We’re stuck with it, even though no matter how we crunch the numbers it still doesn’t really add up. Or does it?
As it turned out, homeland insecurity was the perfect foil for the hegemony of Homeland Security. Now the architects of Total Information Awareness can legally be in our phone calls, our emails, our bank accounts, our library cards, our internet browsers, our peace groups, our medical records, our gonads, our heads, and our hearts. We’ve been hornswoggled, hoodwinked, and hijacked into accepting pervasive incursions into every vestige of individual liberty and political democracy -- all done quite ingeniously in the name of protecting liberty and preserving democracy.
The mathematics are Machiavellian and their logic is inescapable. For the mere price of 3000 souls, the return on investment has been exponential: tens of thousands tortured, hundreds of thousands killed, millions relentlessly survived, billions frightened lest they be next. It is the dream of real numbers, the holy grail of realpolitik, a down payment on the permanent war economy, a blank check for purchasing the dreams of future generations. It is, in short, the emperor’s handcrafted new clothes in full regalia.
Surely this design was carefully vetted before the course was locked in and the data disseminated. Someone clearly calculated the risks and rewards, deciding that vulnerability and invincibility could not only coexist but were necessarily conjoined. The technicians of empire crassly concluded that, in the final analysis, our grief would be exactly the thing to be turned into a constant cry for war.
George W. Bush will never be remembered for his brainpower, although in retrospect he may actually have been a lot smarter than he appeared. In fact, he helped to invent a whole new system of millennial math in which you start with a surplus, then subtract a trillion or so for bailouts and another trillion or two for war, add in a few million lost jobs, and then claim to be a uniter while actually dividing up the spoils -- yielding a sub-prime figure that represents the difference between real and imaginary numbers.
Perhaps the most impressive feat, of course, was turning the tragedy of 9/11 into a permanent Orwellian architecture of repression and surveillance. Yes, theories still abound about the true origins of this seminal episode in American history, just as some misguided revisionists have concocted confabulations around similar “trigger events” like the Alamo, the Maine, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, and more. Suggesting that any or all of these could have involved massive cover-ups or gross political distortions flies in the face of common sense and good manners alike. Plus it can give you a serious headache.
No, it’s much better to accept the official conspiracy theory rather than the unofficial ones skulking around the web. So what if a 2004 Zogby poll found that half of New York City believed that our leaders had foreknowledge of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, yet “consciously failed to act.” Does it really make a damn bit of difference that a 2006 Scripps Howard poll concluded that a third of all Americans suspected that 9/11 was “an inside job” by our own government? Are we supposed to start trusting Americans to know what’s going on in the world? I think not.
We need to use Occam’s Razor in situations like this, which simply states: “Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily.” In other words, we should find the simplest explanation for events and not add greater complexity through needless extrapolation. Americans may love a good conspiracy tale, but in this case the facts don’t lie: we were attacked on a day whose numbers mean “emergency” by fundamentalist militants intent on destroying our economy, undermining our values and principles, and causing us to untenably extend our military forces in a misguided response to their terrorist aggression.
Luckily, we saw right through this sinister plot and prevented all of this from happening. Okay, so the economy has tanked. Sure, we’ve shredded the Constitution and ushered in a complete surveillance state. Fine, the quagmire in Iraq has been framed on both ends by a quagmire in Afghanistan. But we are going to win this thing and defeat evil in the end! We’re Americans, dammit, and even if a whole bunch of us stupidly believe that our own government blew up our own buildings and killed our own people -- by god, we are still going to kick some ass and show the world what we’re made of. False flag or not, the stars and stripes will forever fly wherever freedom rings, even if it’s getting harder to hear its peal.
So to all of you conspiratorial holdouts, so-called “truthers,” nutty New Yorkers, paranoiac physicists, screwball stock-optioners, cerebrally-challenged celebrities, and the rest of you 100 million or so wingnuts, let me just say that it’s time to wake up, grow up, and move on. Stop playing X-Files with this stuff and start playing X-Box instead. The truth isn’t out there -- it’s right in front of your face, and it will set you free. Whatever you think you see is illusory; the tides of history are by now all water under the bridge; the cold hard facts are undeniable even as you fumble for the still-warm “smoking gun.”
Drone strikes, smart bombs, airport scans, renditions, Abu Ghraibs, Guatanamos -- all wrapped in reams of red, white, and blue bunting -- are truer than your “truths.” As Orwell himself once said: “If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever.” Or, like the bumper sticker casually confirms, “It’s God’s job to judge the terrorists; it’s the Marine’s job to arrange the meeting.” History will vindicate our resolve, the terrorists will be completely eradicated, and the next decade will finally show the world that no one can bring down the United States except ourselves, by golly.
To sum up on this auspicious anniversary, it comes down to the sheer force of numbers. All these years we were taught that nine plus eleven equals twenty, but that was a lie … it adds up to 1984. I know this now. Victory at last! And in the end, I really do love the new millennial math after all.
69 Comments so far
Show AllIt seems that the point of this piece was to say to the "truthers" that, yeah, you were right all along, but you're still a bunch of a-holes and wingnuts. Does that about how your millennial math sums it up, Randall Amster, J.D., Ph.D?
I have to agree that this is a very strange piece, and I wonder what the editors of CD saw in it that led them to post it. It's as though the author is talking out of both sides of his mouth or ....
This is the second very poor essay in a row by Amster that CD has published. The anoxic bacteria rate higher than he.
I think it's just a case of Amster running round and round inside his Amster-wheel.
Dear Shoe Thrower,
Respectfully, I suggest you did not read the message correctly, and might want to reread it. He is writing ironically.
donnalou,
I know irony when I see it. I appreciate irony. Who didn't enjoy "A Modest Proposal" in 10th grade English? Is this what this piece is? I'll take your word for it that it's ironic. In my opinion, it slides into and out of irony throughout, which of course means that a more descriptive word to describe it would be "bad".
I think I prefer MacArthur's article of yesterday on the matter to this exercise in irony.
It's not irony, it's satire, not on the Swift level, but decent for this day.
Buck, well said. I have a feeling most of these stuffed shirt critics would have said the same thing about Swift.
If it's satire it fails. I love a good satirical piece, but as VP says when you mock everybody your essay becomes incomprehensible. We don't really need satire on this issue in this forum anyway.
Memhole, For many, satire is all that gets through. "don't need satire on this issue". Absolutely. It belongs in the free speech zone. Alas.
VP, so true. We should all read the same things and nod our heads. We dare not make light of darkness. Alas.
You outdo yourself with your ironies, Randall Amster.
1984 is long gone. We're crossing a new river, friend. You can't see it. You're blinded by a literary analogy.
The "Edit" function doesn't work. Please replace "Does" with "Is" above.
You can always edit your post until someone replies to it. Once a reply is posted, the edit option is unavailable.
That makes sense. Thanks for the info.
The effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, whether intentional or not, on privacy, freedom of speech and assembly are similar to the those of the Reichstag Fire. The US is on its way to becoming a fascist country. The main obstacle in its way should be a unified working class, but we're too busy fighting each other over social issues.
Exactly, Stewarjt. It's the US's Reichstag Fire which Hitler is suspected of setting to give himself unlimited power.
Yup, 911 was created to bring Fascism to America. And here it is. They love that we keeping fighting with each other, too, about everything while we all suffer losing our homes and our jobs. As long as we fight with each other, we don't put the blame where it belongs.
Who is Amster mocking, 911 skeptics or the fools who believe the official story? or both? I find his irony confusing, and the article not very enlightening.
If evolution takes a thousand generations, why does devolution only take one?
Good one, Stone.
As for why the author chose to be especially cryptic, it's believed that Nostradamus spoke in very complex metaphors because the times he lived in could mean certain death to "heretics." I would not be surprised if Amster penned a sort of Zen Koan, a piece of writing that's understood at the level of consciousness the reader brings to it. In this way, like a literary version of the Rorsharch Ink blot, the author cannot be blamed for what the viewer sees in it.
Does he want to get hauled before the latest Inquisition? Or the next (perhaps upcoming) set of committees on "Un-Amerikan Activities?" I think not; so I appreciate the fact that he knew how to cloak what he wished to say.
I guess it's your EMPHASIS on blame and judgment that has turned my view of you from that of a thoughtful HONEST poster, into a rather arrogant ass. You evidence a recurring need to undermine writers on this site. I may disagree with Hedges, as I do, on his latest 911 smoke-screening; however, that doesn't mean I would ask that all his work be sabotaged. Nor would I even impeach his reasons for believing what he believes. We are all imperfect instruments, and we all have blind spots.
In case you didn't get the part about "Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone;" do you honestly think you qualify? I find myself sensitive to all the bloated, arrogant egotists who spend endless hours in this forum playing the role of film critics, judging what others on the FRONT LINES are saying and doing. I find some of their motives quite suspect. And a few SMELL like agent provocateurs to me. I am well-regarded for my intuition in the circles I travel in, and once had the opportunity to show how that power works to a CIA fellow.
As for impeaching a writer's credibiity... sure, I draw the line when it comes to those who inexcusably STILL give Obama and/or the D-team a free pass. That is beyond the pale, given that both parties are OBVIOUSLY pursuing the same agenda; and it is one that is deadly to life, ecosystems, and any remote form of democracy. And that's the short list.
There is nothing confusing about my post. Your overt authoritarian need for literalism is a bore. The quote, about seeing what one's level of consciousness reveals happens to come from a book on Zen Buddhism. I cannot recall the title at the moment, as I read a good deal, and don't have immediate recall of where I borrowed that premise.
Good Night, and Good Luck.
This is a serious question. Let's not allow the cogent wit to get in the way of finding an answer.
Thomas Paine made a similar observation 250 years ago: "One of the strongest NATURAL proofs of the folly of hereditary right in kings, is, that nature disapproves it, otherwise she would not so frequently turn it into ridicule by giving mankind an ASS FOR A LION." Common Sense (his caps, not mine)
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/147/147-h/147-h.htm
deleted double post
As best as I can determine, Amster seems to be saying that those who question the official story as to what occurred on Sept.11, 2001 should also realize that the slaughter of innocent civilians is taking place in the Middle East and is caused by the less than benign eforts of the United States military. Perhaps it is beyond my powers of comprehension but I fail to understand why Amster cannot acknowledge that those who challenge the government's official version as to what took place on that day can also be against American aggression and imperialism in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Libya.
Erroll, just the opposite. He made it clear with this:
"Stop playing X-Files with this stuff and start playing X-Box instead."
I think the man's point is that, whatever the truth may be it's lost in the mists of war and chaos never to be heard from again. And it doesn't matter
anyway 'cause we are here.
Does anybody seem to care that conclusive proof has been brought to light that the Nixon campaign scuttled a peace deal with North Vietnam that Johnson had in the bag, so as to win the '68 election (on a peace platform no less) thereby allowing him to drag the war out for political advantage while killing untold thousands and sinking the US economy for a decade? Naw, that's ancient history!
If the truth about 9/11 ever comes out it won't make a bump as the national tires roll over it.
Is this guy taking a swipe at "Truthers"? Where did you get your J.D. and your Ph.D boy, Liberty University?
There are two camps of intelligent anti-Truthers; The Amy Goodman camp who is respectful of Truthers but fearful of being professionally destroyed. And the irreverent Matt Taibbi camp who can't find enough derogatory ways to call Truthers insane. Both camps contain adherents who are otherwise intellectual giants.
WTC 7 is the keystone of the 9/11 Truth movement. It is the smoking gun. Hundreds of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars are being wasted because of the official narrative. WTC 7 puts the lie to the official story. A new investigation into 9/11 could end this era of imperialism and tyranny.
Cruxpuppy 1984 is not long gone, we are living it every single day with every new war against Eurasia or East Asia, every new porno scan, every intercepted communcation.
Demand a new investigation. http://www.ae911truth.org/
There's more effective means of mass control, WO. 1984 is a crude, Stalinist nightmare. Brave New World is a better analogy, but neither of these visions encompasses the idea of self-imprisonment, self-censorship, with little overt police presence. Today's zeks make their own choices with little coercion from the state. Discussion here illustrates how 1st Amendment rights can coexist with a complete lack of any popular control over policy. If Winston Smith could shoot off his mouth about the lies of the state in a public forum, and keep on doing it until he's blue in the face, and be completely ignored by the state, and laughed at by perps, then it wouldn't be 1984, would it?
No, 1984 is long gone, or should I say 1948? We don't live in that world. 1948 is part of the foundation of the national security state of 2011. The enemy we're dealing with now is us, and that's why we're losing the battle. We're clueless and circling the drain.
In his book "Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World" Rene Girard argues persuasively that violence is contagious and occurs most often between people who are very much alike. In the Trojan War both sides were ashamed of having their actions dictated by the other side, so they settled on the lie that it was Helen's beauty that was their motive. Homer never tells us this secret but Shakespeare does in his play Troilus and Cressida: "Fools on both sides! Helen must needs be fair when with your blood you daily paint her thus".
Amster knows this. He sees what is. In one decade the Bill of Rights was replaced with the Patriot Act. The USA has has never lived up to its best ideals but the Twin Towers was used as a pretext for discarding them completely. The most egregious abuses of a government on its citizens can now be carried out without breaking a single law. A totalitarian state is now in the offing. The next attack like 9/11 will be the perfect excuse for putting into practice what now is now only a plan on paper involving all three branches of government.
The far right full moon types can hardly wait. At last everything they have ever wanted is coming to fruition. Old Henry K. tried it out in Chile where it worked like a charm. Now Norman Rockwell's America is waiting to be turned into the most repressive regime on the planet and those who are not blissfully unaware are gleefully awaiting 1984. All they ever dreamed of and more is "just a shot away". It could happen tomorrow or next year, but one thing you can be sure of is that such careful planning was no academic exercise.
Excellent post, Nietzsche. I didn't understand the comment you left after my post. Do you think everything has an immediate answer? Sometimes the answer IS the process, and the best we can do is hold up the prism and thereby observe its workings.
Your point is well taken and I agree 100%. To put your response in different words, many of the things we consider problems are in fact mysteries. They have no solutions; they did not fall from the sky onto us, they are a part of what we are. (Gabriel Marcel in The Mystery of Being). I believe that in observing the workings of a thing we cause that thing to change. To believe otherwise relegates us to a mere observer OF being, not a participant IN being.
NIETZ: Just to qualify, I would add that my statement about recognizing PROCESS hardly precludes taking meaningful, principled action, where possible. As I posted on the Jensen thread a day or so ago (and received quite a few affirmative comments) our society, in general, is programmed NOT to stop and think, or reflect, or experience the Art of Contemplation. It's all go-go-go, do-do-do, or act-act-act without pause. Like too many Yang beats without enough Yin for balanced measure.
Liken this to music. Could there be melody without SPACES between the notes? If a drum just bangs down, beat after beat it'll shatter our nervous systems sooner or later.
So the idea that there can be immediate solutions is ludicrous. The problems we face have been in stages of development for decades. Merely taking the PNAC as one telling example, its precepts were being formulated in Nixon's time, if not right after WW II. (When Eisenhower let out the apt warning about the growth of the MIC.)
The nation's karma, as CD's Native Americans point out, is soaked in the blood of the original "owners."
As a committed student of the larger cycles of time, I can say without any equivocation, that a major culmination phase is nearly upon us. The next 3 years will be hardest... and decisive.
Meanwhile, anyone paying attention (and many in this forum qualify), has to recognize that the inroads into cutting back the EPA (just when the "accidents" caused by big oil, big coal, big bio-tech, are massive), or setting forth the political philosophy that will ease the way to slicing and dicing social security/medicare and other programs of Last Resort for too many, or refusing to orchestrate policy changes that would break the addiction to egregious energy sources, while still granting lip service to the deceit that climate change is a ruse... these INSURE the breakdown of our society. Meanwhile, ALL the $ goes to the make-war machine. I mean, is this NOT an INSANE paradigm!!!! It is not sustainable by any measure, metric, or means.
We understand and agree with each other.
A couple more remarks on this piece of writing:
Why is it so difficult to discriminate what is due to irony and what is not in this article?
Is Amster hiding behind his irony the fact that he is disoriented and no longer knows what version of the 9/11 attacks to choose?
What about Ockham's Razor (8th paragraph of the article), this often invoked and even more often misunderstood and misapplied injunction, borrowed from medieval metaphysical disputes concerning what entities are to be admitted in one's ontology (also known as the realism-nominalism debate)? How does Amster justify the application of a principle regarding the admissibility of universals in ontology, to the sphere of human concerns and affairs? Has Amster shown that human concerns and affairs are entities, things? I see no evidence that he has done so. I am afraid we are dealing here with a case of undue reification.
Since a piece of writing may be considered as an entity, should we apply Ockham's Razor to Amster's article?
"I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
Oikos, as the essay is kind of a mish-mash of far flung irony, I honestly found it muddled.
I also focused on the reference to Occam's Razor because it is usually trotted out when an author is trying to say something very serious about reality.
"In other words, we should find the simplest explanation for events and not add greater complexity through needless extrapolation. Americans may love a good conspiracy tale, but in this case the facts don’t lie: we were attacked on a day whose numbers mean “emergency” by fundamentalist militants intent on destroying our economy, undermining our values and principles, and causing us to untenably extend our military forces in a misguided response to their terrorist aggression."
That seems fairly clear: the 'official' conspiracy is the simplest and therefore must be true. However, as anyone who spends some time examining the 'official' conspiracy quickly realizes, it involves bizarre contradictions, remarkable lapses in SOP, multiple lies and distortions, and numerous signs of foreknowledge.
What to make of all the lying -- both by the Bush Administration and the U.S. Air Force? (As even the 9/11 Commission noted.)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html?sub=new
The only possible explanation that jibes with the 'official' conspiracy narrative is that the lying, distortion, and misinformation coming from officials of the U.S. government were efforts to cover up their incompetence. We can call this the 'Katrina' hypothesis -- officials in the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, etc. are keystone cops with a penchant for mendacity.
This is not unreasonable and many people on the 'left' accept this explanation. Perhaps it is correct.
And yet no one responsible for these massive lapses -- or lying to cover them up -- has ever been fired or charged with perjury, obstruction of justice, etc. Since even the President of Amerika can be waylaid by perjury charges for lying about his sex life, is it peculiarly Amerikan that Air Force generals are free from consequences when they lie under oath?
If the 'official' conspiracy is correct and there were massive failures of U.S. security on 9/11, wouldn't logic suggest there would be a serious effort to find out precisely how this unfolded and who was responsible? (I don't mean the kind of vague chatter such as, "the CIA didn't talk to the FBI", etc.
One can accept the 'official' conspiracy and still demand a full & rigorous investigation-- which was certainly not done by the Zelikow Commission.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_D._Zelikow
Does Occam's Razor suggest that the U.S. government would naturally respond to 9/11 by unleashing the already prepared Patriot Act and morphing into a panopticon surveillance state?
Does Occam's Razor demonstrate that the invasion of oil rich Iraq -- after a terrorist attack by 15 Saudi nationals (16 if you count the alleged--and recently assassinated-- mastermind) -- was some kind of natural response?
{Even the Bush Administration conceded grudgingly -- at times -- that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.}
Since there has been no rigorous open investigation of 9/11 by disinterested officials with subpoena powers, etc. -- it is rather premature to claim that good old Occam backs Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld on this.
It is also rather odd to suggest -- as some do -- that the reality of 9/11 doesn't really matter and we need to move on. Especially since 9/11 remains a runaway freight train of mythology and symbolism -- used to justify everything from Orwellian security regimes to forever wars in the Muslim world.
There appears to be a massive failure of imagination in many people to appreciate the audacity of evil. After all, no less a moral philosopher than Bush Jr. has warned us that the world is just chock-full of 'evil-doers'.
Great Post, Randy; and I'd add that you actually posited some new ideas... which is always refreshing ,specifically around the culpability angle. This speaks wisely to those who will go so far as to say the government messed up, and stop resolutely there. Next in line are those who are willing to say that the government ALLOWED it to happen, one glaring piece of evidence being Bush ignoring Condi Rice's warning.
Then there are those of us fearless committed-to-truth types who swing open wide the door, and say... I know there's more to ALL of it. Show me! And our philosophical bent makes us ask further, what has this Big Lie meant to the very fabric of our society? Or to law, justice, or any premise for making use of the alleged Just War construct? What has it meant insofar as surveilling citizens, rationalizing torture, and making war the ends and means of a society led into moral, as well as financial, bankruptcy?
Amster (JD, PhD) seems to be saying, 'Don't look too closely at 9-11 or the Gulf of Tonkin and other such turning point events but focus on what came afterward'. Why? Anytime, and especially in these times, it's best to keep one's eye on all the balls in play, and in fact, it probably serves someone's purposes every time we are distracted or discouraged from watching closely and asking questions. I'm suspicious when we are urged to disregard any unresolved political mystery, and more so when stubborn inquiry elicits marginalization, like calling us "truthers" and "wingnuts". I love the truth and am proud to be a "truther" in all things. (I also love humor, and if this is satire, it falls short of its goal.)
The essay starts well enough. In the 4th paragraph, the fact that the US military designed the plan for 9/11 in 1962--Operation Northwoods--needed to be brought out of the closet along with the obvious fact that Imperial Planners had almost 40 years to do their calculations. Next, the obviously domestic soruce of the Anthrax Attacks deserved voicing. Then the third obvious fact that the Patriot Act was already written needed to be presented. That only one congresscritter was willing to admit they read the bill--that the wholesale theft of our liberties was rubberstamped--ought to have followed. And shortly thereafter, the essay should have concluded. Note the facts that every writer on the subject I've read has airbrushed from history. To me, Amster has proven to be just another cog in the Indoctrination System, and no further time should be wasted on him or his writings.
While more American citizens have been killed by lightning strikes than acts of terror since 9/11, make sure to do your patriotic duty this patriot day and remember to live in fear!
1,200 architects, engineers, chemists, metalurgists and physicists have released a 2hr+ doc on the inconcistencies between the official version of events and witnessed events.
These people are incredulous the official story is standing unchallenged and are demanding a new investigation.
AE Truth Expertrs Speak Out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4
What...may I ask...is CD doing to get the word out?
Are the operators of this site caught up in a personal paradigm that does not allow for the open dissemination of such information? Because from what I can see this site seems content dancing around the edges of the discussion...wringing it's collective hands over the effects of 9/11 but never honestly exploring or acknowledging the mountain of suspicious evidence from that day.
Cognitive dissonance much?
SWAN: I hear you, but... remember how Phil Donahue's show was taken off the air for merely seeking to bring balanced voices into the discussion of whether war was appropriate against Iraq?
What makes you think this site was not told, in no uncertain words, by The Watchers, that only so much would be tolerated? Remember how Wiki-leaks funding was cut off?
Every time posts appear that touch too acutely on this subject, they have a way of disappearing into a mysterious black-hole.
And it's also worth noting that those of us who fiercely challenge our government-of-imposters' official 911 narrative, generally become targets of character assassins waiting in ambush, in this forum.
We are a post-law nation, as Chris Hedges recently put it. And free speech in such an era, is an illusion, at best. Generally, during a Dark Age, those who carry the Light must guard their persons, and where their direct aim exposes the shadows.
You may be right, SR.
You are certainly correct about Donahue. Highest rated daytime show on the network at time of cancellation. You know it's serious when capitalists shoot a moneymaker.
I am aware of the painful period of reflection, transition, reassessment and acceptance that would be required were many to even entertain the possibility of alternate theories of 9/11...but how the hell can the rest of us live with these people?
Geebus...just imagine how many articles posted here on CD would be completely superfluous were we all to begin discussing the reality of 9/11.
Life would have to stop. No work...no school...no garbage collection...nothing...until people got the answers they required. The USA would cease to exist. Life as 100s of millions of people now know it would end...and a new one would begin.
If that isn't a scary scenario I don't know what is.
Fortunately for me my world view has never been tied to country/leader/ideology or religion...so I'm free to examine these issues in a manner unrestricted by same.
For others to do the same, in many cases, would require a complete world view makeover...oooh...does any smell a new reality series?
Join us Tuesdays on Discovery for World View Makeover. We take regular Americans...strap them to chairs and force feed them the reality of the world in which they live.
Watch as your neighbors cry, scream, struggle, soil themselves and ultimately collapse in blubbering heaps after coming face to face with the truth.
Brought to you by Goldman Sachs. "What the f..k do we care, we have all your money."
Swan:
In response to this comment:
"but how the hell can the rest of us live with these people?"
I'm in my 50's now, so I truly have lost a lot of people--parents, friends, relatives, even a past boyfriend or two. The circle of contacts lessens. Virtual reality, time spent on this site and the Internet, in general, limits contacts more.
I chose to live in the Bible belt because at the time I moved here, my income was very low; but I wanted my own place, and I love the proximity to completely undeveloped (that is, as Nature designed them) places. The negative trade-off is that the consciousness is so low... people here really think there's cause for a Holy war, and they really think the US was victimized by Arabs (not vice versa). I've seen eyes turn to fiery rage when I mention that 911 was an inside job, and I've even felt endangered by stating that on one or two occasions.
I've shared this to suggest that there really is a gap between the awakened souls and those who remain stuck inside the dream-turned-nightmare. Yet you're correct in the assertion that we are impacted by their lack of awareness, and will also experience the nation's collective karma. One reason I write as much as I do is with the hope it will wake more people up. I refuse to enter the public school system and just teach for "the test." I used to come home with HOURS of paperwork EVERY night, and having children of my own, there just was no time to be with them. I decided to give up teaching, and tutor, added to freelance writing.
It's not easy when others are not in the know; and many people become belligerent if you try to tell them that they don't know what they think they know, or that it's all based on serious illusion.
I try to be mindful of my conduct, but it's difficult to always be calm and balanced when day after day one learns of the steady stream of atrocities being executed against other human beings AND nature. It's all so senseless. I suppose that writing fiction is my personal means of escape, and a way to hold onto sanity. The times SEEM insane, and their moral impoverishment certainly attests to that fact.
It's more than a career matter to speak out when one has a major pulpit. You can lose friends, and gain the anger of family members. I think many of us now understand, from the inside out, what being a "Good German" must have felt like.
My best friend said, "in difficult times, be good to yourself." I try to honor that, and sometimes it just means watching a movie, or taking a bike ride, or playing with my dogs. The simple things will be what we'll come to cherish, when the grid the capitalist oligarchs constructed, like a hollow tent, comes a 'falling down. And it ain't long now... the cosmic clock is ticking.
I belatedly join the group of commenters who had an overall negative reaction to this essay, while conceding that it may have been intended as an oblique mockery or satire of the "Trutherphobic" perspective it abundantly sets forth on the way to bemoaning the "1984"-type totalitarian dystopia of the present-day Amerikan Imperium .
FWIW, I found myself recoiling as I read it the first time, as I have with similarly ambiguous or ambivalent articles written by CD regulars who characteristically employ strong irony but apply it unevenly, e.g. Christopher Brauchli, Ted Rall, Reese Erlich, et al.
Striking the right balance when writing ironically-- aka sarcastically, parodistically, or tongue-in-cheek-- is a challenge. It's a worthy endeavor, so I'm inclined to commend it and am sympathetic to those who attempt it. Still, it deserves to be questioned or criticized when it goes awry.
The problem is not, as those who assert that the irony, satire, etc. of a piece of writing is self-evident often sneer or scold, that offended or perplexed readers are simply too dense or ignorant to "get it". It's true enough, of course, that not getting irony and sarcasm in the first place is a common difficulty, or failing, among simple-minded, superficial, and unreflective readers.
But even when it's obvious that the writing and tone is, or may be, ironic, the measure of its success is that a discerning reader ought to be able to tell which is the irony and which are the straightforward elements upon which the irony is built, or sprung.
It's too facile, and fallacious, to excuse or explain away, troubling or offensive passages because the author is "being ironic". That's a monolithic dispensation, and successful irony is never monolithic.
After a second reading, it seems to me that Amster is using the affected Trutherphobia as a foil. To put it in a "figure vs. ground" context, he seems to be saying that whatever the mysterious truths of the catastrophic events of September 11, 2001, they are not as important and significant as the undeniably clear and obvious consequences of those events.
Put another way, Amster seems to be pointing out that it's idle, or folly, to remain hung up on the cause, the events themselves-- "false flag" or otherwise-- when the EFFECTS of the events are the equivalent of a vast, comprehensive, and continuous "false flag": Amerika as a 21st Century Empire and authoritarian Homeland Security Hollow State.
If I'm reading, i.e. interpreting, Amster's too-ironic-by-half perspective accurately, it unexpectedly recalls journalist Ron Suskind's 2004 quote from "a senior adviser to Bush", reportedly Karl Rove:
____________
"The aide said that guys like me were 'in what we call the reality-based community,' which he defined as people who 'believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. 'That's not the way the world really works anymore,' he continued. 'We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors... and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'"
____________
That is, Amster is arguably trying to tell us that regardless of how the "realities" of 9/11 were actually created, and how some remain dedicated to pursuing and judiciously studying the myriad obscure, hidden, and annihilated fragments and threads of that reality, such pursuit and dedication is futile or irrelevant considering the vast and irrevocable "new realities" that flowed from that trauma: the figure, or foreground, of Amerika as a 21st Century Empire and authoritarian Homeland Security Hollow State is what we ought to be focusing on, not the receding amorphous and unsolvable mystery of the background.
By becoming overly fascinated or obsessed with the original mystery, one risks turning IT into the "foreground" while the enduring and burgeoning malignant consequences become mere background.
Perhaps this is just me "reading into" Amster's tea leaves. If so, it's not a matter of projection. I don't share or subscribe to this interpretation.
Most importantly, I reject the general criticism or rebuttal that abiding skepticism of the 9/11 official narrative, and continuing efforts to expose and undermine its falsity, constitute a pathological "either/or" that distracts from "real" issues and problems.
In any case, I may be all wrong about this article. C'est la vie. If Amster had been aiming for straightforward clarity, he would've served tea instead of tea leaves.
http://www.takeourworldback.com/dancingisraelisfbireport.htm
This is a link to the documents released by the FBI regarding the 5 dancing Israelis. While heavily redacted it quite obvious there was foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. It rather lengthy so be prepared.
The "5 dancing Israelis" was just one event among many that if investigated properly would unravel the entire "Official narrative" . That NONE of the many instances that would contradict the official narrative were properly investigated demonstrates clearly a massive cover up.
The scenario of what happened that day had already been cooked up and investigators were told to make the narrative fit the scenario.
*Comment deleted by site administrators for spamming*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
This is actually a good example of wobble zone writing. A man who suffers from civilizational disorientation.
>>...some misguided revisionists have concocted confabulations around similar “trigger events” like the Alamo, the Maine, Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin, WMD, and more. Suggesting that any or all of these could have involved massive cover-ups or gross political distortions flies in the face of common sense and good manners alike<<
But what it doesn't fly in the face of are the FACTS. What flies in the face of common sense is that the government would suddenly start telling the truth. Polite or impolite, the facts matter.
Governments lie, and nothing they say should be believed.
9/11 was an inside job, no matter how many shills insist otherwise.