MITOP and the Double Bind
This is Part 6 of "The Logical Reconstruction of Reality." Parts 1-5 (and the rest of this part) can be accessed at http://www.mdmorrissey.info/title.
I want to elaborate somewhat on the idea of transparent conspiracy (see part 3), lest the idea seem too big to chew. It is chewable, but it takes a little work. Even though I have been chewing on it for some time, I am only now arriving at the conclusion, as I pointed out in part 4, that the theory is correct.
First of all, let's give it a name that will itself be more transpaent: MITOP. We are familiar with LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) and MIHOP (Made It Happen On Purpose). Now we have "Made It Transparent On Purpose."
What do so many people now think 9/11 was an inside job? Because there are so many reasons to think so? Yes--for all of those reasons, and for one more that not so many people may have thought of: we are supposed to think so. The perpetrators, the people on the inside (Orwell's "Inner Party") want us to think so.
This is not as much of a leap from MIHOP as one might think, just as the leap from LIHOP to MIHOP is not as big as it used to be. In fact, as has been often have pointed out, there is no dichotomy or any real difference between LIHOP and MIHOP. There is just a logical extension of degree of guilt, the difference in degree being completely negligible when we are talking about the highest authorities in the land, the most powerful military and intelligence forces in the world. When these most powerful forces allow a crime to be committed, they are not criminally negligent; they are perpretators.
The distance from MIHOP to MITOP is even less distinct. Once MIHOP has penetrated our red-blooded American minds, MITOP cannot be far behind, if reason and common sense are our guides. The question that must keeps coming to mind as we are confronted with fact after astounding fact, lie after lie, contradiction after contradiction, is "How can they have been so stupid?" I mean, really. Could they really have thought that we would be so stupid as to believe the 571-page lie the 9/11 Commission foisted on us? Could they have been stupid enough to think that we would be so stupid, at least for very long? They must have known the 9/11 "truth movement" would be inevitable. How could they possibly have been clever enough to do what they did, and yet be so stupid as to think they could keep all the gaping holes in the official story from being exposed?
The simplest and most logical answer to this is that they were not that stupid. On the contrary, they wanted us to know. They have always wanted us--at least those of us who not yet fully lobotomized by the mainstream propaganda--to know that they can do whatever they fucking well want to with us, which includes not only 9/11 but also jamming a ridiculous and totally incredible fairy tale down our throats. They want us to know, very clearly but without having to come out and say it explicitly (this may come if martial law is imposed), as I have put it more bluntly earlier, that they've got us by the balls (short hairs for the politically correct).
In part 2 I discussed Stupidity Theory. This keeps floating to the surface, it seems, as the catch-all explanation for all troubling questions. Thus we have rejection of the "inside job" thesis on the grounds that the government (and in particular the current president) is too stupid to have pulled it off. This is not very different, if at all, from the official theory of what actually happened, namely that the same government (here explictly not only the president) is too stupid to have prevented it or stopped it while it was in progress, 19 Arabs with box-cutters being too just too much for the most sophisticated air defense system in the history of the universe. They just couldn't "connect the dots." Was, I mean, of course, since now Homeland Security and the perpetual War on Terror haave made everyone much smarter.
This pattern of Stupidity continues as we progress from LIHOP to MIHOP. We must assume, given either of these scenarios, that the Insiders were just too stupid to have pulled off 9/11 any better than they did. Yeah, they were able to bring down those buildings, maybe with secret high-tech weaponry, but they just couldn't get old Ted Olson to get his story straight, Cheney to get his story straight, the military to get their story straight, couldn't get the names of the hijackers on the flight manifests, couldn't get enough debris at the crash sites to look realistic, couldn't make holes in the Pentagon walls that would look realistic, couldn't keep the BBC from announceding that WTC 7 had fallen 23 minutes before the fact, couldn't produce a whitewashed Commission Report that would fool a ten-year-old, etc., etc.--in short couldn't do any of the things right that now constitute a mountain of evidence pointing directly to an inside job.
Is this credible? Are we going to fall for Stupidity Theory once again? Does it work any better for us here than it does for the 9/11 Commission? Are we going to say, too, that we cannot connect the dots? Are we going to ignore the obvious logical conclusion that people diabolically smart enough to pull off 9/11 would certainly have been smart enough to cover their tracks better than they did, smart enough not to leave so many screaming questions unanswered?
Common sense tells us that this degree of bungling is unlikely, and that they wanted us to know that they could do it and get away with it. Is this not precisely what has happened? Tens of millions of people do "know," despite the official story and the mainstream cover-up, that 9/11 was an inside job. And has there been a real investigation as a result? Have any of the Bush gang been impeached or indicted, or even subpoened, much less punished? Have the docile lapdogs in Congress or the mainstream press showed any sign of life, any sign that they are willing to do what they are supposed to do? No. And let's be honest. Is this situation likely to change? Once Bush and Co. are out of office and we have a Clinton or Obama or McCain as president, who can claim, credibly enough, that they had nothing to do with it, will the truth be any more likely to emerge "officially"?
(The rest of this essay is at http://www.mdmorrissey.info/logical6)