Support 911Blogger


9/11 gatekeepers muzzle truth toward societal dumbing-down

http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2007/04/10/01480.html

9/11 gatekeepers muzzle truth toward societal dumbing-down

by Michael Hey

How many intelligent people have responded to the sudden disintegration of 7 World Trade Center with something akin to: "It sure looks like demolition, but I'm no physicist". Somewhere in the fog over which side owns the most credible experts, most everyone seems to have forgotten that it doesn't require an expert to tell the difference between controlled demolition and a towering inferno. Prior to September 11, 2001, no human has ever confused one for the other, because these types of occurrences have relatively little in common.

Clearly, the keepers have been remarkably successful at the gate. Being “experts” themselves, they benefit from our over-reliance on expert opinion.

In the words of Noam Chomsky, the world’s most frequently cited living individual (he ranks 8th all-time behind Plato and Freud), "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but to allow very lively debate within that spectrum".

Conveniently, his field of expertise happens to be the "spectrum of acceptable opinion". Why do we accept this? Is it possible, that humans, by nature, love to be told what to think?

How absurd must stated claims become, before our ability to blindly accept wildly conflicting ideas gets taxed beyond the limit?

For example, consider Chomsky who also indicated, "Even if (the 9/11 conspiracy) were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any significance."

This is an odd stance to take, for one of the first thinkers to publish a book about this seminal event. Shouldn't it be of some consequence to Chomsky whether the official story, as spun by the White House, and echoed by his book, is based in fact, or merely a convenient fantasy?

This, in essence, is what the truth movement is all about. For nations that claim to be subject to the rule of law, establishing the true identities of the perpetrators of any crime should matter, by definition.

Contrast this particular presentation, with the stance taken by George Monbiot,who considers the Truth Movement to be "a crazy distraction (presenting) a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements". His below the belt charge, that truth activists are responsible for every conceivable ill, from global warming, to nuclear proliferation, represents a last ditch effort by the gatekeepers, in a battle they know they cannot possibly win.

The difficulty of these gatekeepers stems from the fact that it is not enough for them to merely oppose the truth movement. If Monbiot's stance, for example, was simply that the movement is wrong, we could still expect him to side with us on the central issue, which is the clear need for an independent, transparent investigation. Indeed, by his own admission, Monbiot considers the American administration to have been "criminally negligent", and of seeking to "disguise their incompetence by classifying crucial documents". Why then is Monbiot so eager to let them get away with this?

If incompetence can explain why the military failed to make a timely appearance on September 11, then let the investigation roll. Let's find out what procedures were not followed, who failed to follow them, and how the least competent individuals were disciplined - by being promoted perhaps? No one, least of all the gatekeepers, is comfortable with the idea of an investigation that may uncover more than mere incompetence.

The gatekeepers are twisting their brains out of shape, trying to imagine how such a massive deception could be possible. Their minds swoon at the staggering number of people who appear to be complicit in the lie, apparently oblivious to the central irony, that they are the very liars they describe. One reason so many people have bought into the lie, is that by accepting their own fiction as reality, the gatekeepers have become the world’s best liars.

The time has come, to re-claim from the gatekeepers our inalienable right to think for ourselves; and for that to happen, all we have to do, is to decide that thinking, no matter how tedious or tiring, lies in our best interest.

It's already happening, which is why the gatekeepers are debasing themselves with an increasingly ugly barrage of insults. A few samples: "An imagination of hate" (Rex Murphy) "poor personal hygiene... and counter-rotating eyeballs" (Gwynne Dyer) or simply "morons" (George Monbiot). These barbs emanate from highly respected voices, noted for civility and tact, as long as the discussion remains firmly rooted with the "spectrum of acceptable opinion".

In answer to Noam Chomsky's question: "Who cares?" I do. I care because truth is a form of beauty; an absolute good, worth pursuing independent of any perceived agenda.

Not only do I reject the absurd notion, that the pursuit of truth is somehow incompatible with progressive causes, but I'm willing to dream of what the gatekeepers fear most: Change. Those of us who believe in the possibility of a kinder world, know that 9/11 is the log-jam, currently blocking any possibility of meaningful progress.

It will take a massive psychological shock, to jar ourselves awake. No matter how desperately we try to resist it, that shock has arrived.

Make comments about this article in The Canadian Blog.

Think for yourself?

John Taylor Gatto discussed how our society outsources thinking in his book on education titled "Dumbing Us Down". He addressed the idea that our society has evolved into a belief system that insists we must only trust and therefore rely on the opinions of "experts" in matters ranging from physical fitness to relationships, finance to education, politics and law. We have become unimaginative and lazy in our dependence on the "experts". Perhaps this is why so many people feel trapped and depressed in their daily lives, we are not allowed to deviate from our common daily thought processes.

Wow, well written!

Can't say anything more because everything that needed to be said has been said, and said well.
______________

interns < internets

Americans aren't supposed to know anything about science or

math anymore. There is no room for intelligent people in Bush's base of morons.

Chomsky: "Even if (the 9/11 conspiracy) were true,....

....who cares?"......

"WHO CARES?????"

Tell that to the victim's families' faces, Gnoam....tell it to the widows...tell it to kids who lost parents....parents who lost sons and daughters....

Tell it to families who lost soldiers in these wars based on lies, and those lies were based on the lie of 9/11.

Personally, I'd pay money to see him say "who cares" to Donna Marsh O'Conner.

Scumbag Bastard.

Now that would be a Pay per View

that I would pay to view.

I don't think Chomsky ever

I don't think Chomsky ever said that.

Could you source your

Could you source your Chomsky quote? If it's coming from the talk I'm thinking it came from then it's a gross distortion of what he actually said.

Otherwise I agree with the main point of your essay.

The quote starts 3 mins 55 secs in, or 49 secs before the end.

By the way well done Michael, this is a great essay.

Chomsky is being irrational

Chomsky is being irrational and misspeaking, and he sort of mitigates his "who cares" comment at the end when he points to the JFK assassination. He says that who killed JFK is only an important question if you believe there was a high level conspiracy, otherwise who cares if the Mafia did it or the Cubans or whatever...

CHOMSKY

In trying to track down the Chomsky quote I came across another nugget worth thinking about:

Re: government spying

"2. More importantly, who cares? I mean we should certainly assume that any non-profit or NGO or grouping of individuals will be spied on, inflitrated...if they become a threat. That just comes with the territory of organizing. So if anyone is actually deeply dedicated to fundamental opposition to the US government then ofcourse there is going to be hell to pay.

It seems to me that the Left in general wants to have its cake and eat it too. Those who call themselves Leftist, Progressives, Liberals...want to organize, march, participate in civil disobedience etc. without paying the price. And since it will take a great deal more then the customary and quite archaic progressive tactics to affect change then you are either willing to do real oppositional/transofrmative tactics and 1. get hurt 2. get incarcerated or 3. get killed or you are not. And I do not think I go out on a limb by saying that at this time in this nation there are far too few who are willing to meet these sacrifices directly. "

Gatekeeper Chomsky is using fearmongering to dissuade people from challenging the US government. He offers no defense of the rule of law, or of the bill of rights, and only resorts to scare tactics. This is an opposition leader? Hardly.

Here is one instance of the Chomsky quote about 9-11:

"Even if it were true, which is extremely unlikely, who cares? It doesn't have any significance. It's a little bit like the huge energy that's put out on trying to figure out who killed John F. Kennedy. Who knows? And who cares? Plenty of people get killed all the time, why does it matter that one of them happened to be John F. Kennedy? If there was some reason to believe that there was a high level conspiracy, it might be interesting. But the evidence against that is just overwhelming. And after that, if it happened to be a jealous husband, or the mafia, or someone else, what difference does it make? It's just taking energy away from serious issues onto ones that don't matter. And I think the same is true here; it's my personal opinion."

* Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky
Q&A at the Kossuth Club, in Budapest, Hungary, May 16, 2004

Chomsky promoted the idea that even investigating this is taking away from "left" issues that he considers important. That theme is reproduced by Counterpunch, Guardian, etc. Eliminating JFK is unimportant too. You really have to wonder where this guy is coming from.

There used to be another interview on ZMag which said the same thing. It appears to have been scrubbed. The Wikipedia site also no longer has the original text at the link. Is this an attempt to put the genie back in the bottle?

This issue should have destroyed Noam's credibility around the globe. "Who cares?"

Obviously not Mr. Chomsky.

70 Disturbing Facts About 9/11

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State Blog
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

johndoraemi --at-- yahoo.com.

I remember watching a

I remember watching a lecture of Chomsky's where he said it was incredibly unlikely that Bush would invade Iraq, but I can't find the source again and so I can't claim he really said it, but just that I remember him saying it. Also I remember being dumbfounded because it was dead obvious Bush intended to invade and had been obvious for at least six months.

And that first quote about

And that first quote about infilitration doesn't appear to be from Chomsky but from somebody named j.g.xxx at a zmag blog:
http://blog.zmag.org/comment/reply/2779/57850