The River

Thursday, July 12, 2007

It's official

Lenin of Lenin's Tomb is not a loon. We repeat: NOT a loon.

This is a Loon

In his recent post addressing 9/11, he makes it clear he is also not: augmenting a "narcissistic personality disorder" or enganged in a "collosal globalisation" of his ego. Nor is he giving "free reign to personal obsessions, paranoid delusions of persecution, teenage bullying, hokey mysticism, fantasies of omnipotent power and despotism, and languorous self-adoration." Nor "lurid self-display with outrageous self-promotion."

9/11 an inside job? Tosh, says Lenin. You can't prove it and it wouldn't matter if you could, because then you'd be left with disempowerment and despair (as opposed to?).

He concludes with the "this is just a distraction" theory, much like George Monbiot.

The main focus of the left in my view," writes Lenin, "should be first and foremost on what the US state and its principle constitutency - the American capitalist class - is definitely, obviously doing to the people on this planet and has been doing for more than a century now.

What he doesn't get is that 9/11 is of a piece with that, and its exposure as a fraud would help millions see, as in understand, what the perpatrators -- the "American capitalist class" -- are doing right now, and what their ilk have done "for more than a century."

Wars, like leaders, have to be justified. Remove the justification -- 9/11 -- and you do the most good to stop the war and remove the leaders.

Good discussion in the comments to the post.


Welcome back from vacation. I've a slightly different take on what Lenin is saying, and the ways of approaching 9/11. You're absolutely right. 9/11 is the key, was a crime most craven and horrible. I think it will be eventually exposed as a fraud, but that, for it to be exposed, our entire system of government and even 'American Way of Life' must change first.

I used to be a Mormon, and a very "good" one. I dated prominent members of that church, had dinner in a certain Senator's house, went to a Bill Marriott's funeral at which Nixon, Billy Graham, Kissinger and others eulogized. I had a knack for winning converts to the church and was probably being groomed for high leadership positions in the future. At this same time, I had sensed something very wrong in the church's roots, and was doing the equivalent of 9/11 research.

It was extremely hard to leave the esteem of my peers and engage in what they would see as tragic at best, betrayal at worst. It was the hardest thing I've ever done and it took time to work up the required courage. In fact my manner of leaving was not courageous at all, in that I used the church's procedures against it, forcing it to expel me. Being an insider, I knew its prescribed responses.

It would be possible for me to walk into a church meeting this Sunday, stand up behind the podium and quote historical facts which would get me bodily thrown out, probably beaten to some extent, and perhaps even killed. I would know exactly what buttons to push, and how hard.

But I don't believe that would be effective in opening people's eyes. They have too much invested, and it's too hard to be intellectually honest. It's easier to deny the laws of physics, if you catch my drift.

The buildings fell in their footprints. There is so much evidence or telling signs of its removal that 9/11 is completely obvious if you've already gotten past the myths our brand of civilization is based upon. But if you haven't, it's just too hard to accept. Denial is self-protective; if facts were accepted, what underpins sanity in many would be excised, leaving them bereft and unstable.

For most people, you've got to start with a good oblique seed of doubt, one they don't even recognize as doubt at all. "Why did they keep talking about a New Pearl Harbor? Gosh, it almost sounds like they were wishing for it!" Then next time the leaders assert or demand something questionable, their load of cognitive dissonance is higher, and they are slower to respond. You've removed the first layer of their protection.

It would seem that at least a couple of protective layers have been removed from the membership's skins. But they will likely migrate to a new myth before ever facing 9/11 clinically. And that may never even happen, it may just keep festering like the war between the Kennedys and the Bushes. In my opinion, the operation was so classically compartmentalized and massive that eventually some actors will come forward and say, "I know what happened on that day, and here is the part I played."

So the question would be: how can elements of 9/11 be effectively used to create higher cognitive dissonance, rather than focusing on its central, all too horrifying, truths?
I'm just shootin in the dark because I don't know what else to do.

But... "45%, indicated they were more likely to agree "that so many unanswered questions about 9/11 remain that Congress or an International Tribunal should re-investigate the attacks, including whether any US government officials consciously allowed or helped facilitate their success."

From a Zogby poll last year.

The reality of these people is indeed horrifying. DU, Abu Gharib, Iraq, Afghanistan, Ethiopia. 9/11 is a gateway, in fact, to just how bad we've let things become. If people do not become enlightened about 9/11, how many more generations can this war-mongering manipulation go on? Quite a few.

We've crossed the rubicon. They are creating new realities. Is it not breathtaking how many globally are on-board for the war on terror? How many accept it and mouth its dogma as a matter of course?

People already suspect government involvement. That is thanks entirely to internet activism. If the blogosphere were to be successful in anything, it would be in pushing this issue until it broke.

Right now, everyone should be screaming about Israeli citizen Chertoff practically saying they've got a big false-flag op cooking.

Anyway, I have this thing about truth, obviously. We've got to practice it sooner or later. I appreciate Lenin's work, but when it comes to 9/11, he seems stuck in the past. I'd like to hear your take.
I don't agree with Lenin's take (and am not familiar with his work). It's a raciocinative cop-out.

After 9/11, I knew. Knew it right down to my tailbone. The picture of the pentagon on the cover of Newsweek was my confirming moment. What I didn't know was how they did it. Now I do. This was the biggest,longest-planned, most compartmentalized black op in modern history. The enormity of explaining how all the pieces and how they worked together takes a tremendous amount of knowledge-building; constraining focus on events involving deaths (i.e, the towers) and it simply becomes a Rohrschach test.

Even my fellow New Yorkers of the Zogby poll, if you asked them, "did they blow up WTC 7," even though the majority of them already believe it was an inside job, as a response you'll get a "really, you think that?" It's like trying to convince a WWF crowd that Hulk Hogan is carrying brass knuckles in his trunks. They see the outline, just like you, but they explain, "Oh. Well, he has an enormous cock with five testicles."

Asking someone to believe in the body of facts around 9/11 is just like asking them to stop believing in America. They're like kids whose parents beat the shit out of them; their first impulse is to somehow feel like it's their own fault, their second impulse is to deny, their third is to defend and protect. It's a very strong impulse. I suspect studying child abuse cases, and how children eventually come to accept the facts of what their parents did to them and reach enlightenment, i.e. break the cycle, would go a long way to giving us answers on how to proceed.

There is a secret to conversion, which I stumbled upon about halfway through my mission. Conversion is a kind of submission to a new reality. All you have to do is get them to commit to one thing. It could be the smallest thing; to read a single chapter from the Book of John. If they do it, you ask them to do another small thing. If they do that one, you've probably got them. So that's the approach I'm advocating with Wolfowitz. Wolfowitz leads to Zelikow, who leads back to...the source. To motive. The bread crumbs lead back to the bunker at 8 AM Friday morning, and picking them up is a process everyone has to do for themselves. It's far more like spiritual conversion than it is a Crime Scene Investigation.

And yes. I am screaming about Chertoff and the coming false flag(s).
ps., I meant the Zogby poll taken of New York City residents not too long after 9/11. Probably not the same one you're referring to, which if it's 45%, is great progress.
Post a Comment