Believe me, I know some people think I'm nuts for sharing stuff like this. I probably don't do myself any favours - certainly with regard to improving my supposed 'credibility' as a writer in the eyes of some. Here's the thing though... you simply can't ignore perfectly rational and legitimate questions because they’re risky to ask. (Or you shouldn't, anyway) And the only answer that's EVER given is "how dare you insult the memories of those who died".
I'm not one of these nuts who thinks 9/11 didn't happen, or that planes didn't hit the Twin Towers etc. That IS an insult to those tragically killed, and those who propagate such nonsense aren't helping any cause. But certainly, what happened with the Pentagon is not so clear cut. Sorry, the uncomfortable truth is it didn't add up. And I remember thinking as much sat in front of my TV set at the time - back in 2001 when frankly I had little knowledge or interest in politics at all. No reason to be suspicious, no 'pre-existing narrative'. Up until then, I swallowed everything I was told like the generations that preceded me.
It's amazing how often the powers-that-be find incriminating evidence they need, such as passports in perfect condition when everything else has been obliterated, just found conveniently 'dropped' at the scene of grisly crimes. Yet the most omnipresent and incontrovertible evidence, eg: CCTV footage, is almost never available. Or if it is, it's rarely anywhere near and/or connected to the scene of the crime - it's them randomly walking down the street or something. And the perpetrators? They are almost always shot dead, or kill themselves. Odd that. You'd think governments under attack would want to take perpetrators alive for intel, and/or show the public they'd got the culprit. Or that if you've gone so far as to commit one of these heinous crimes, you'd actively want a chance to tell the world why you did it.
I'm fairly sure I played the Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas with Aussie Floyd in 2014. The actual venue where the shooting took place. And I can certainly say, Las Vegas casinos have some of the tightest security on earth. The chances of this man Paddock NOT being on film somewhere, entering the hotel with this arsenal of weaponry, are practically non-existent. Simple as that. As usual, any ambiguity and widespread discussion of 'conspiracy' and the details that don't add up could all be ended in a heartbeat, IF they simply shared tangible proof or explanation. And dear God, I wish they would. There's endless lists of crazy theories out there doing the rounds.
Indulge me. Just for one minute, I challenge you to imagine the calamity 21st century governments have had to face. For centuries, they were able to skew events how they liked - even manipulate or invent them where and when necessary. They could employ an army of Whig historians to record things they way they wanted. Their control over the printed press was never questioned, it was simply 'the way it is'. In the 20th century, the version supplied by the TV set was unquestionable - the BBC most of all. The saying 'history is written by the victors' was, in fact, incontrovertibly the case.
But now? It's literally been turned upside down. Global-reaching social media and the camera phone (not to mention the wide availability of information online) have 100% f**ked up what these people have been casually doing for hundreds of years. How do you carry on being deceptive in an age where a chosen author's written account of a political speech or conference is no longer persuasive? When TV companies editing events is not enough, because people can watch the whole damn thing (and the bits they left out) in real-time on YouTube?
That's really my hypothesis on the crux reason we're now seeing rich capitalist societies begin to fall apart: the lies no longer wash, and the 'little people' won't stand for it.
Here's the question of common sense I would put to you, dear reader. Considering what I've just discussed - how the game was categorically changed overnight for governments and those who 'inform' us - there were really only two ways for those in power to react.
ONE: To instantly 'fly straight'; reacting to the fact citizens can now see and hear events transpiring with their own eyes and ears, those in power ended the geopolitical meddling and started communicating with unbridled transparency.
Or TWO: They continued to do as they'd always done, but were forced to drastically alter how they went about it. They opted to desensitise and distract those watching; to deluge them with 'entertainment' and a lottery culture of material 'aspiration'. They encouraged ignorance and an environment where millions of people are shouting at one another, letting them 'get on with it'. They found clever ways to make people believe nonsensical things that don't even vaguely add up, making captured events fit a narrative, and they nurtured a status quo that rejects any who question their version as 'conspiracy nuts'... 'lunatics'... 'traitors' etc. Slowly but surely, the basic inherent human desire for truth and justice becomes only a discussion for those deemed 'miserable' and 'disgruntled' - society's 'losers'.
In essence, it really is as simple as that. Which option do you think they went for?
Which do you REALLY?
Once you experience that light-bulb moment: the categorical realisation that those at the top of any pyramid DO lie... they DO contort the truth - even (and especially) governments - a whole world of alternative questions await.
And if you're also someone who looks back into history for cause and effect, the opportunities for 'second-look analysis' are almost endless. You’ll never look at anything you’re told the same way again.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
What Do Sir Keir Starmer, Henry Kissinger & Jeffrey Epstein Have In Common? A Powerful Organisation You've Probably Never Heard Of...
Keir Starmer: Representative Of Society’s Systemic Problems