None So Blind (a lament)

Consider this from Tom Breidenbach:

None So Blind (a lament)

“The bigger the lie, therefore, the likelier it is to be believed.”
—Adolph Hitler

Liberal commentators regularly assert they “just can’t,” “won’t” or that they “simply refuse to believe” IX XI could have been an inside job . Yet such irrational and emotive statements merely confirm the cognitive impairment of their speaker. It is a firm matter of historical record that governments, very much including our own, have planned and executed horrendous, even murderous acts of deceit in the past, including ones against their own people. Denying this would be denying the dynamics of power as they’ve been understood since remote antiquity, and those who decry even the possibility that IX XI was an inside job (in spite of the vast array of evidence as well as eminent expert, professional, and military opinion clearly indicating it was) are stretching an already tenuous appeal to American Exceptionalism, the fallacy that “it could never happen here.”

Who would deny the Tuskegee experiments against African American prisoners, or the MK ULTRA mind control experiments of the ‘60s and ‘70s, or that the government recently legalized the testing of carcinogenic agents on members of minority communities, to cite just a few examples? What liberal voices reveal in their abjectly anti-intellectual denial that IX XI might have been a “false flag” intelligence operation intended to trigger public support for the geopolitical aims of the new administration is their own arrogance, specifically their less-than subtle sense of their own privilege and superiority. “The government might dispose of members of social, racial and ethnic minorities,” their reasoning implies, “but it would never kill with such brazen indiscrimination as was the case on IX XI.” It would never, in other words, kill “me!”

Meanwhile, a critical look at the public record reveals that government officials have repeatedly lied about almost every aspect of IX XI, prior to which they a) reorganized the national security apparatus in a way that appears to have facilitated the attacks, b) obstructed field investigations that would have prevented them, and c) issued directives that confused longstanding national security procedures. They have alternately confessed to and denied receiving multiple advance detailed warnings of the attacks from an extensive variety of credible domestic and international sources. And they have sought to obscure their own close and deep historical and financial ties to international forces playing a part in IX XI. They have suppressed and destroyed material evidence pertaining to multiple aspects of the attacks and even reclassified published material supporting the “inside job” argument (meaning that it is no longer admissible in US courts). And they have deliberately contorted the public record to fit the official account of events. Ignoring the testimony of numerous witnesses to various aspects of the IX XI tragedy that directly contradict the official account, and in manifest conflict of interest, officials have pointedly neglected to investigate IX XI from any angle other than that presuming the entire government’s absolute innocence; this was the narrow—and given the record incredible—course to which the 9/11 Commission was hog-tied from the outset by the director of its “investigation,” Philip Zelikow, a neo-con close to the White House. (As the Commission concedes, its mandate did not include assigning “blame” for IX XI.) Meanwhile, people in and out of government have been harassed and threatened for speaking out about what they know, while many others (we must presume) remain effectively silenced.

It is not unreasonable but incumbent upon us to suspect that such blatant and determined obfuscation shields the guilty: those with the readiest means and clearest motives to plan, facilitate and effectively cover-up an event on the scale of IX XI, officials whose mentors and forbears leave a documented history of premeditating just such epochal crimes. Especially as it was these officials’ long-announced aim to implement a crusade for central Eurasian resources and global (or “full spectrum”) US military “dominance” (including the militarization of space)—a grand design contingent, in their own words, upon “a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat” to the nation such as might be announced in the form of “a new Pearl Harbor.”

Add to this the grotesque anomalies in the physical record pertaining to IX XI. Such as the numerous indications that United Flight 93 was shot down over Pennsylvania, or the government’s suspicious handling of the Flight 77/Pentagon evidence, or the fact that the virulently “weaponized” post-IX XI anthrax strain was cultured in laboratories at Ft. Dietrich in Maryland, or the several indications that the three towers to plunge from the lower Manhattan skyline at near freefall speed on IX XI were demolished by controlled demolition. What’s been characterized by a cross-section of credible academic and expert opinion as the “physical impossibility” of the official narrative for these towers’ collapse has sparked bureaucratic battles—not elaborated upon in mainstream press—that have led in one case to the firing of Kevin Ryan, an official from Underwriters Laboratories, the company which certified the steel used in the towers, only days after he’d clearly spelled out, in a letter to the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the implausibility of the official narrative of their destruction.

It is clear to any fair-minded person following the IX XI debate that independent researchers skeptical of the official story are carrying the day in a broad variety of arguments against those attempting to shore up a hemorrhaging (if mercurial) official narrative. While those towing a slurring government line neglect to engage their detractors openly, their logistical efforts are clearly aimed at evading and obfuscating the latter’s coherent and devastating critiques. What’s frustrating to those of us following the drama is that, while the truth regarding IX XI is slowly willing out, no one besides “conspiracy theorists” seems to be paying much attention.

In his bosom-clutching dereliction of intellectual duty, the liberal intellectual is denying—in curious lockstep with the lunkhead right—that he’s been duped. Snared by conceit, he forbids attribution of any historic event to any catalyst other than that delineated by the regime, no matter how tortured and self-contradictory this official conspiracy theory is proven to be, and no matter how many people of goodwill risk life, reputation and career to set the record straight.

I don't mean to ever defend

I don't mean to ever defend Adolf Hitler, but this quote of his is almost always used out of context-- as if to suggest that he is intending to be the perpetrator of the Big Lie, when he was actually pointing out the use of this concept by others. For the sake of intellectual integrity, here is a full quote from Chapter X of Hitler's Mein Kampf:

"...the sound principle that the magnitude of a lie always contains a certain factor of credibility, since the great masses of the people in the very bottom of their hearts tend to be corrupted rather than consciously and purposely evil, and that, therefore, in view of the primitive simplicity of their minds they more easily fall a victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. Such a falsehood will never enter their heads and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others; yes, even when enlightened on the subject, they will long doubt and waver, and continue to accept at least on of these causes as true. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick-a fact which all the great lie-virtuosi and lying-clubs in this world know only too well and also make most treacherous use of."

Hitler was referring to those who were allegedly trying to blame the loss of WWI on Ludendorff; but try applying the above quote to the 9/11 Lie, and its acceptance among ordinary Americans. Interesting, isn't it? I think most people believe the basic outline of the 9/11 OCT simply because they cannot fathom that such a huge lie could be perpetrated and maintained.

Liberal only?

Michael, good writing.

You say these words on behalf of liberals (and in fact, I would add, most ordinary citizens): '“but [our government] would never kill with such brazen indiscrimination as was the case on IX XI.” It would never, in other words, kill “me!”'

I think you have hit upon a key feature of 9/11 denial. People cringe in horror at that 'kill me' possiblity, and so they reject it regardless of several mountains of clear evidence.

You also say, "The liberal intellectual is denying—in curious lockstep with the lunkhead right—that he’s been duped."

Again, to me this looks like a key feature of the so-called Left Gatekeeper phenomenon.

But why limit it to the left, as you also point out here, or to liberals?

You also say, "t is clear to any fair-minded person ... that independent researchers skeptical of the official story are carrying the day..."

We all agree, obviously.

I still wonder, with a continually renewed amazement, how it can be that so very many people are not therefore "fair-minded" by this definition of yours. Lots of otherwise very smart people seem to lack this vision. It is weird.

I have lost almost all interest in news and commentary because of this single and seemingly intentional blindness -- inherent in nearly everyone's viewpoint -- about this current administration and, clearly, the former one too, given how much advanced planning and preparation the 911 operation must have entailed.

Where do we go from here? Are we in this truth movement gradually penetrating this blindness?